Search results

The White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century, is shaped by the principles of Legal and Civil Rights, Independence, Choice and Inclusion. These principles are laudable, but this paper argues that in matters of health that are not within the experiences of adults with learning disabilities, a duty of care should override the elusive mantra of ‘choice’.

The task of this paper is to critique the ethics of an university entrepreneurship curriculum. For what purpose is entrepreneurship curriculum designed? Who decides what is to be included in an entrepreneurship curriculum? Ethics has a plurality and implies moral judgment informed by any individual’s values. In applying entrepreneurship education the rationale and justification of what is offered and why should be clear. The paper provides a synthesis conducted on an extant literature review on the ethics of an entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship education stakeholders, and stakeholder rights and obligations. An ethics enquiry framework is concluded that entrepreneurship education curriculum designers can apply to surface the assumptions underpinning the curriculum and assist educators to be clear and explicit about the intent and ambitions for an entrepreneurship education curriculum design. While this paper develops a framework, it has yet to be tested. Further research can examine specific sets of stakeholder expectations, variations in obligations among regulatory or institutional settings, explicitly examine the range of effects of an entrepreneurship curriculum, and report the usability and practical relevance of such an evaluative framework. Ethics in entrepreneurship education is under-researched and more particularly the ethics of the entrepreneurship curriculum appears to have rarely been questioned. Entrepreneurship education lays the foundation for the future actions of those who shape and socially structure entrepreneurship. Therefore, as educators, there is a greater responsibility for ensuring that the education provided meets certain expectations of and obligations to various stakeholder groups.

This commentary questions commonly held assumptions about corporate social responsibility (CSR). It discusses the morality of altruistic CSR – philanthropic CSR activities that are not necessarily beneficial to the firm’s financial position. Evaluating altruistic CSR from all major ethical perspectives – utilitarianism, rights, justice and care – leads to the conclusion that, for publicly held corporations, such activity is immoral. This is because altruistic CSR violates shareholder property rights, unjustly seizing stockholder wealth, and it bestows benefits for the general welfare at the expense of those for whom the firm should care in close relationships. The paper also determines that what are often considered mandatory ethical and social corporate duties are actually optional activities that should only be undertaken when it appears that they can enhance the value of the firm, i.e. when they are used as strategic CSR. However, using ideas taken from secular and Judaeo‐Christian authors on the meaning of work, the article also concludes that altruistic activities are appropriate and commendable for private firms and individuals. It offers suggestions for practitioners of CSR and for future academic research.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Raises some questions on moral and legal rights to health care, referring to various claims contained within the report of the UK’s Commission on Social Justice – “Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal” (1994). Explores the relationship between needs and rights – rights of action and rights of recipience, moral rights and legal rights. Proceeds to delve into the role the state plays in providing services such as health care and whether or not people have a moral right to good health and good health care. Questions if the state should provide health care and, if so, should it be provided as a legal right to citizens? Concludes that the Commission on Social Justice fails to defend the National Health Service on the grounds of justice and moral rights.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

Explores the relationship between doctors, lawyers and the government in the context of the explosion in clinical negligence litigation, clinical governance and the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998. Examines these issues from a legal perspective. Concludes that successful risk management, careful monitoring and the implementation of authoritative guidelines hold the key to legal change.