Business Ethics in India
Chakraborty
ABSTRACT. Unethical business in India became a
recognized phenomenon during the second World
War. Academic/journalistic/legal concern with ethics
has become visible only during the nineties.
Corruption-of-the-poor and corruption-of-the-rich
need to be distinguished – especially in the context
of globalization. The danger of attributing unethical
practices to system failure is recognized. It is also
important to bring to bear on intellectual property
rights the more fundamental principle of natural
property rights. Consciousness ethics will be more
crucial than just intellectual ethics.
1. A macro glance
A few initial, general points are worthwhile.
Systematic empirical investigation in the field has
yet to start in India. In fact, until the year 1992,
ethics in business was hardly a topic of concerted
engagement at any level – except in two or three
business schools in the country. It was only the
2-billion dollar stock-exchange fiasco in 1992
which threw up the ethics issue at the macro-
level. Since then, investigative journalism has
been playing a key role in highlighting corrupt
and fraudulent practices within the “business-
S. K. Chakraborty combines over 35 years of Post-
Graduate teaching experience, in India and abroad, with
four years of work-experience in Indian industry. He has
published 23 books, including Management by Values
(Oxford U.P., 1991) and Ethics in Management,
Vedantic Perspectives (Oxford U.P., 1995). They all
blend conceptual insights with the practical issues of
values-based human response in organizations. He edits
the Journal of Human Values, and is presently the
Convener of the Management Centre for Human Values
at the Indian Institute for Management in Calcutta.
Journal of Business Ethics 16: 1529–1538, 1997.
© 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
S. K.
politics-criminals” (BPC) triangle. Both the
“legislature” and “executive” wings of nation-
management seem to be losing their credibility.
Presently the citizens are hopefully looking up to
the assertive “judiciary” as the ultimate resort in
these ethically troubled times. It has given rise to
“judicial activism” triggered by public interest
litigations instituted at the Supreme Court level
by some citizens fora, e.g., Common Cause. The
Chief Justice of India, however, believes that such
activism will be a temporary phenomenon.
Public feeling strongly supports this activism
though (Times of India, February 27–29, 1996).
The elder generation often recalls that ethical
decline in society had surfaced prominently
during the Second World War when black-
market was born, making contractors and traders
wallow in riches overnight. But the “politics-
bureaucracy” apparatus had not been dragged
then into this black vortex of ill-gotten money.
Since the 1950s however, with the launching of
the era of state-planned and controlled economic
development, things seem to have been going
from bad to worse – though usually below the
surface. This cumulative ethical depression began
to break loose as an ethical cyclone with
economic liberalization adopted by India in
1991. This storm has been exposing the sup-
portive role of the “politics-bureaucracy” alliance
in fostering and feeding upon economic ter-
rorism of various kinds. The neutrality of
bureaucracy has been tampered rather heavily
since the mid-seventies by the political masters.
Business thus got a readier opening into this
caving citadel. Since increasingly expensive elec-
tions are not state-financed, the stimulus to
politics-business corruption remains strong in an
otherwise remarkably resilient democratic system.
1530 S. K. Chakraborty
However, business often complains, and
perhaps rightly so, that they are more the victims
than the perpetrators of economic crimes in a
regime of government controls and bureaucratic
stickiness. But for many of the big players this
may not be true. They are able to feed the
election process and allied aspects so sumptuously
that often crucial government policies are
perceived to be controlled by them. The
“victim” syndrome is of course true for the vast
majority of other enterprises.
One would have hoped that with the onset
of “liberalization” from government controls
since 1991, the scale and frequency of corrupt
practices would lessen. Along the “business-
bureaucracy-government” axis, this might be a
growing reality, which is encouraging. But the
accompanying “globalization” process has
ushered some new dimensions into the field of
business ethics. The competitive fray among
global corporations to enter the Indian economy,
and the eager overtures of Indian businesses to
grow fast through collaborations with them, have
begun to manifest fresh varieties of business
non-ethics. The possibility of a two-way traffic
is not imaginary: business veering towards crim-
inals and criminals veering towards business. A
perceptive analyst had foreseen this predicament
as far back in 1982: “One comes across a whole-
sale condemnation of public regulation and
controls . . . These views altogether forget the
implications of an uncontrolled market-mecha-
nism economy . . .” (Kabra, 1982, p. 150).
2. The semantics of business ethics
The phrase “black market” rolled into circula-
tion during the Second World War and has
remained since that time. It denotes the process
of clandestine sale of scarce, rationed, controlled
commodities at inflated prices.
A cognate phrase “black money” seems to
have gained currency during the 1960s. It covers
the territory of business deals which entails
money income and asset wealth not appearing
in the books of accounts, thus evading taxes.
Sometimes this sphere is described as the “parallel
economy”. According to one study, the per-
centage of black income to GDP rose from 42
in 1980–1981 to 51 in 1987–1988 (Gupta 1992,
146).
Expressions like “speed money”, “palm
greasing”, “oiling the wheels” are also widely
used to denote bribes. The indigenous words for
bribe are “ghoos”, “rishwat”, etc. Words like
“kickbacks” and “commissions” are also
employed in this context.
Since 1992, the two words “scam” and
“scandal” have become very common. They
cover corrupt financial/economic practices of
vast magnitude affecting large sections of the
public. The B-P-C triangle has been prominently
involved in these episodes.
Public perception does not condone such
happenings. Yet, in the end, the scene is largely
one of helpless condemnation. Newspaper
columnists and editorials often come down
heavily on the perpetrators of such economic
terrorism, yet the general mood is one of
resignation. Business enterprises themselves, with
some highly honorable exceptions, often consider
such practices to be part of the normal business
process.
The intellectually articulate class usually
chooses to ascribe these events to “systems” flaws
and weaknesses. This was clearly evident in the
stand taken regarding the 1992 stock-exchange
scam. Perhaps this is one reason why no indi-
viduals are ultimately pinned down and held
answerable. Some sensitive minds however feel
that in the course of such elaborate system-
directed explorations, the basic issues of personal
character and integrity get side-tracked.
Although terms like “accountability” and “trans-
parency” are thrown in during public pro-
nouncements, culpability on such scores is still
dodged at all levels.
Whatever recent efforts the business commu-
nity has been making seem all to be directed
towards offering better deal to domestic con-
sumers in respect of consumables and consumer
durables (some illustrations will appear below).
Consciousness of ethical imperatives in interna-
tional business remains to be separately attended
to – at least in terms of articulated norms and
guidelines.
 Business Ethics in India
3. The basis for will-to-ethics in business
A mute minority feels that a true long-term
challenge for several major Indian business and
financial sectors is: how far is it ethical to spread
greed for goods and mercenariness for money in
the name of business growth, economic devel-
opment, and higher living standards? In fact, to
make the point sharper, is it ethical to pronounce
on “higher standard of living” when it is really
“higher standard of consumption” which is being
espoused?
Another general ethical problem relates to the
social consequences of employment contraction
in manpower-intensive basic industries. Modern,
capital-intensive technology replacing older
technologies is a process not without severe
social-psychological fall-outs in a highly popu-
lated country like India. The ethical issue is:
global economic competitiveness or local social-
psychological stability? Is there really any objec-
tive method of rating one to be more desirable
than the other?
The third general challenge appears to be one
of abuse and misuse of sophisticated communi-
cation technology. Unless ethical-moral maturity
keeps ahead of technological advancement, could
we be moving towards a self-destructive society?
Will it be more ethical to advocate decelerated
technology for the sake of more natural and
humane living?
Fourth, with increasing psychological drift and
volatility in an artificially stimulated and exteri-
orized mind-set fueled by business, will society
tend to lose mental health, replacing peace and
harmony by conflict and violence? If business
accepts the mantle of being the most important
change-agent today, then is it required to
confront this trans-commercial ethical dilemma?
Is business the end or just a means? Means to
what?
Fifth, how is “corruption-in-a-poor-society”
to be dealt with on a footing different from
“corruption-in-an-affluent-society”? Artificial
cost escalation in tender bids, tax evasion, mis-
appropriation of bank funds, cornerning of
institutional finance, and diversion of funds from
productive channels are common-place events in
the formers. An opposition member of parlia-
1531
ment of considerable integrity and courage has
recently stated: “A country as poor as ours –
judging by the quality of life – cannot afford to
have such pervasive corruption. Crime has
transcended moral barriers and is eating into the
vitals of the economy.” (Dasgupta 1996)
Lastly, as touched upon earlier, the entry of
big multinationals in certain key sectors of the
economy, although welcome in general, is yet
throwing up new challenges in business ethics.
The capacity to corrupt and the willingness to
be corrupted seem to be moving in alliance in
several cases, e.g., the Enron contract for power
generation in Maharashtra. Leaving aside other
aspects, it has been reported that Rs. 650 million
were ostensibly spent on “educating” the Indian
counterparts involved in managing the project.
This was a “suspect” outlay even according to
an Enron official (The Statesman, August 10,
1995).
The reasons for vigorous engagement with
such challenges would seem to be:
(a) Are we heading for a sick-and-cynical
society? Will future generations be
grateful for such a legacy, even if material
prosperity were to increase?
(b) Are we going to prove the truth of the
proverb “God and Mammon cannot both
be served at the same time”?
(c) Or can we demonstrate that moderate and
essential material prosperity is both the
effect and cause of ethics in practice?
(d) Should we be sleepless that an unethical
society, where every aspect of life being
sucked into this vortex of competitive
greed, is going to suffer from chronic
mental ill-health, young children being
the worst victims?
(e) Should we try to change gears and see that
greater material equality across all layers
and sectors of society and the globe is
essentially more a matter of ethical values
than of system skills? Are systems not
themselves the products of varied ethical
pre-dispositions? For example, was the
joint family “system” not a concrete
outcome of an ethical framework for
cooperative living in society?
1532 S. K. Chakraborty

Of course, the “will-to-ethics” such as the above 03. In times of scarcity, not to withhold or
implies a complete circle – from the individual suppress stocks of goods with a view to
to the corporate to the national levels and thence hoarding or profiteering.
back again through the same levels. 04. Not to produce or trade in spurious
goods of standards lower than specified.
05. Not to adulterate goods supplied.
4. Will-to-ethics in the practical business 06. Not to publish misleading advertisements.
4. world 07. To invoice goods exported or imported at
their correct prices.
In July 1956, The Forum of Free Enterprise had
08. To maintain accuracy in weights and
published a manifesto. It contained the following
measures of goods offered for sale.
stern words: “Certain malpractices have crept
09. Not to deal knowingly in smuggled goods.
into the system of company management. They
10. Providing after-sales service where neces-
are to be condemned and should be removed.
sary or possible.
Hoarding, black marketing and profiteering are
11. Honoring the fundamental rights of the
anti-social and evil. Honest business practices can
consumers – Right of Safety, Right to
be promoted and encouraged by an honest and
Choose, Right to Information and Right
efficient administration in a democratic state.”
to be Heard.
(Forum of Free Enterprise, 1956, p. 9)
12. Discharging social responsibilities and the
During the forty years since the above decla-
responsibility to protect the environment
ration, neither the business community nor the
and nature’s infrastructure.
administration seems to have come anywhere
13. Ensuring that the product-warranty is
near such ardent hopes. A measure of this gulf
offered in simple, unambiguous and
can be obtained from the following scathing
concise language, highlighting the rights
words of a Delhi High Court Judge, uttered
of the consumer under it.
while denying permission to a central minister,
who had been arrested for sheltering notorious
It is evident that the above recommendations
criminals, to attend Parliament in February 1996:
constitute a primary-level, self-regulating charter
“In ancient India kings and emperors thought it
for enlightened citizenship amongst business
a privilege to sit at the feet of a man of learning.
entities. The CFBP has instituted a set of prizes
In today’s India, MP’s and ministers think it a
and awards called “Jamnalal Bajaj Uchit Vyavahar
privilege . . . to sit at the feet of underworld dons
Puraskar” (or Jamnalal Bajaj Prize For Fair
and base businessmen to get secret donations
Business Practices) to promote exemplary appli-
from them and to get their blessings.” (Sunday
cation of the above norms. At a meeting with
Telegraph, February 27, 1992)
the current ex-officio President of the CFBP, we
Yet during this period of down-slide, the
learnt that there is as yet no provision for de-
positive side of will-to-ethics has also remained
registration of those members who are charged
alive. To mention a notable instance, the Council
with violation of the above guidelines. The
of Fair Business Practices (CFBP) was established
CFBP President claimed that sustained pressure
in 1966 by several leading private sector
from this Council had resulted in the creation
industrialists in Western India. It adopted the
of the Advertising Standards Council of India
following code of fair business practices:
(ASOI) and in the promulgation of the
1. To charge only fair and reasonable prices Consumer Protection Act. We were also
and take every possible step to ensure that informed by him that at least 100 leading CFBP
the prices to be charged to the consumer business-enterprise members had regular
are brought to his notice. “Consumer Affairs Cells” operating in their
02. To take every possible step to ensure that offices. But Ethics Officers and Ethics Training
the agents or dealers . . . do not charge are both beyond the pale of consideration for the
prices higher than fixed. time being.
 Business Ethics in India
The Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce and Industry (which excludes the
MNCs) has recently issued a declaration on
“Norms of Business Ethics” consisting of ten
points. The list is almost identical to that of the
CFBP. The Punjab, Haryana and Delhi Chamber
of Commerce has also lately formulated a “Code
of Ethics” (The Indian Journal of Public
Administration, July–September 1995, p. 638).
Without going into specifics, this Code is intel-
lectually deeper in content. It says:
• Business must maintain the highest standards
of behavior . . . (for) the benefit of industry,
employees, customers, shareholders, and
society.
• Goods and services must conform to the
commitment promised to customers.
Business must be realistic and truthful in
stating claims.
• Customers must be given best possible
service and treated with respect and fairness.
• Business must understand and respect the
needs, concerns, and welfare of the com-
munity and society. It should use knowledge
and experience for upgrade of quality of
life. All business endeavors must combine
the qualities of private excellence for public
good.
• The best way of promoting high standards
of business practices is through self-regula-
tion. The Code has been designed as an
instrument of self-regulation to serve as a
voluntary guideline towards better quality
of life and higher standards of business
practice.
The Advertising Standards Council of India
expects, among other things, that there will be
(Balachandra, 1996, p. 83):
(a) no offence to generally accepted norms of
public decency;
(b) truthfulness and honesty in claims and
representation; and
(c) no indiscriminate advertising of products
which are hazardous to society or indi-
viduals.
In a recent “Times of India – MODE” opinion
poll, “business” ranked fifth in a list of ten
1533
segments of society evaluated for corruption.
Seventy-six percent of the respondents rated
“business” as a corrupting force. “Politicians and
Ministers” had the highest rank by virtue of
receiving 98 percent score as being corrupt.
“Teachers” fell in the ninth rank – 43 percent
of the respondents ranking them as corrupt.
“Liberalization” of the economy has not reduced
corruption. “Ordinary people” were seen as
corrupt by only 38 percent of the respondents,
the lowest rank (Times of India, January 14, 1995).
HD Shourie of Common Cause put the
proclamations of ethics and norms by business
in its proper perspective: “A strange advertise-
ment recently found prominent place in news-
papers asking for quotations for the sales of
‘damaged sugar’ which has recently been
imported . . . This is indicative of the present
state of commitment of business to abide by the
norms of conduct or code of ethics.” (Indian
Journal of Public Administration, July–September
1995, p. 639)
All this means is that will-to-ethics by business
is hardly going to grow by means of resolutions,
circulars, and conferences. The Steel Authority
of India Ltd. offices have recently displayed
prominently along its corridors and foyers a bare
list of “Our Core Values”: customer satisfaction,
concern for people, consistent profitability, and
commitment to excellence. Ethics finds no place
in them despite several big and small revelations
of internal and external ethical lapses in the last
few years. A private sector outfit (Murugappa
Group) has produced a more elaborate statement
of “values and beliefs” consisting of seven items.
The first item reads: “Adhere to ethical norms
in all dealings with shareholders, employees,
customers, suppliers, financial institutions and
government.”
This indicates more serious thought went into
the formulation of this statement. But one does
not know what company-wide educational
efforts are made to sustain this ethical declaration
in daily business practice at all levels.
In an interview with Dr. S. Ganguly, the
Executive Vice-Chairman and Managing
Director of one of the oldest and largest cement-
making conglomerates, the status of the will-to-
ethics appeared in a new light. This company was
1534 S. K. Chakraborty
born with a strong dose of idealism when India
was still being ruled by the British. An abiding
sense of nationalism was the source of integrity,
and the founders were both careful and lucky to
secure an unbroken succession of CEOs imbued
with an unflinching will-to-ethics. The result has
been it does not enjoy the extent of market share
or the quantum of profit as is rightfully its due.
Yet, every hurdle is fought through available legal
means, and never by cutting corners in a com-
petitive commodity market. Patience, with an eye
on the long-term, provides sustainability to cor-
porate will-to-ethics. Clearly, there is the chain
of successive individual CEOs behind such sus-
tained corporate ethicality.
The above CEO also voiced two other
profound concerns: the ethics of privatization
and the flooding of India with multinational
financial services companies. He questioned the
ethical wisdom of privatizing the supply of basic
needs like health and education in a poor
country. This process of converting social goods
into economic goods is going to push them
beyond the bounds of the common citizen
outside the orbit of metropolitan cities. The
financial services whirlwind is also accentuating
the great divide in respect to monetary remu-
neration in society. Management Graduates and
their ilk in their twenties are being offered pay
packages which can potentially subvert social
harmony, even sanity. How can young managers
remain ethical for long in such a heated atmos-
phere?, the CEO asked.
When we come to multinational or foreign
corporations, two varieties of issues could be
considered – “gross corruption” and “subtle
unethicality”. The much-publicized but yet-
unresolved “Bofors deal” between India and the
Swedish armaments company could be cited.
This seems to be a major example of “gross
corruption” on a massive scale. Driven by the
intense desire to clinch Sweden’s biggest export
order, the Bofors company paid as much as 5
million USD in terms of “commissions” to
various agents, politicians, and government
functionaries, both legislative and executive
(Subramaniam, 1993, p. 3). It is a classic case of
the B-P-C triangle in action. The KFC
(Kentucky Fried Chicken) controversy provides
an illustration of “subtle unethicality”. A
spokesman of the Animal Welfare Society
revealed some telling details about the use of
harmful hormones and chemicals like mono
sodium glutamate to fatten the chickens used by
KFC (Times of India, letter to the Editor,
February 29, 1996). Recently Glaxo (India) had
announced an incredible 175 percent interim
dividend. This is surmised to be a compensation
for the U.K.-based parent company’s investment
of Rs. 340 million to raise its equity holding
from 32 percent to 51 percent. The declaration
had come too soon after this increase to rule out
such a connection. Even if this dividend were
largely paid out of the sales proceeds of one of
the divisions, still the question remains: why
repatriate large sums out of these proceeds instead
of investing them for business growth in India?
(Business Today, January 22, 1996, p. 51)
Similarly, another U.S. company has recently
patented an oil extracted from neem tree which
grows in India. The medicinal properties of neem
have been of household knowledge and use in
India in numerous forms from time immemorial.
The implication of the above patent secured by
the U.S. company seems to be that henceforth
neem oil cannot be used in India without paying
royalty to this company. Is this a case of “intel-
lectual property rights” versus “natural property
rights”?
5. Will-to-ethics and academia
Academic concern with applied ethics in business
continues to be marginal, with a few honorable
exceptions. The recent XLRI survey amongst
148 universities elicited only 7 institutions which
claimed as having introduced ethics courses. The
Xavies Labour Relations Institute (XLRI) at
Jamshedpur has been the first business school in
India to have introduced a compulsory course
in Business Ethics since the early eighties. It is a
Catholic institution and functions in the heart
of the Tata business empire, the Tata Iron and
Steel Co. Ltd. These two genetic factors seem
to have synergized well to let an ethics course
be born there. Fr. K. Cyriac is the Course
instructor. But the leading management
 Business Ethics in India
Institutes, established by the Government of India
in academic collaboration with some leading U.S.
business schools, have so far made no headway,
except the Indian Institute of Management at
Calcutta. It appears strange that the Indian
Institute of Management (IIM) at Ahmedabad,
set up in collaboration with the Harvard Business
School, does not yet offer anything on this
subject even as an option. The general attitude
amongst academics in these places is one of
avoidance of the normative dimension of man-
agement. It is better not to be involved in
moralizing to business.
The IIM at Calcutta has started a new outfit
called “Management Center for Human Values”.
It has crystallized the work being done by the
author in the broader field of “human values for
holistic effectiveness” since 1978. The Center
takes the view that ethics-in-practice reflects the
quality of the values corpus internalized by
various role players, so, business ethics is seen a
subset of human values. The Center has been
financed entirely by grants and donations by
Indian industry and financial institutions as many
as 35 organizations at the time of this writing.
The House of Tatas has been by far the largest
contributor. The Center now offers two elective
courses to second-year MBA students on ethics
and human values (this course has been offered
since 1983). It also offers 25 to 30 programs
every year to various companies throughout
India. An annual International Workshop on
Management By Human Values in January each
year is a major duty of the Center. Nearly 6000
managers have been through these programs since
1983.
The Xavier Institute of Management (a sister
institution of XLRI) at Bhubaneswar also offers
a course on business ethics. The course intends
to “stimulate debate and discussion rather than
to formulate principles”. The course covers a
very wide spectrum of issues ranging from ethical
dilemmas in management, values clarification,
company philosophies, social responsibility,
advertising, market research, environmental
issues, and social justice to job reservation,
national problems, human world order, and ethics
of MNCs.
Professor R. C. Sekhar of the TA Pai Institute
1535
of Management at Manipal is also seriously
engaged with both the teaching of and research
in business ethics. Like the XLRI, the TAPIM
course also places substantial reliance upon case
studies. He feels that ethical education cannot be
delinked from ambiguous and contentious
subjects like psychology, philosophy and religion
(Sekhar, 1995, M-163). However, Sekhar is chary
of “moral rhetoric” which, by implication, seems
to endorse XLRI’s eschewal of engagement with
“moral principles”. The empirical content of
Sekhar’s research (confined for the present to
MBA students) indicates preference for exploring
opinions and views, thereby enlarging the scope
for dialogues and discussions. This again is akin
to the XLRI approach.
The two courses at MCHV in IIM-C,
however, attempt a more direct approach to
ethico-moral upliftment by helping students to
adopt a concrete process for cultivating recog-
nized and universal noble emotions like gratitude,
contentment, transparence, compassion, oneness,
and honesty, all for their own sake. This is
expected to establish the human values base on
a healthy, virtuous footing. Ethics-in-practice
would then gradually follow from this ground-
work. Efforts are made through universally
applicable psychological disciplines (as demon-
strated by their ready acceptance amongst the
participants of the International Workshop) to
strengthen the will-to-ethics for personal char-
acter development. These mental exercises,
derived from proven and enduring indigenous
Indian spiritual traditions, convert theory into
transformational experience. They pave the way
for natural spill-over into the work context of
management and business. The emphasis is more
an “experiential ethics” than on “intellectual
ethics”, and more on personal “managerial/
entrepreneurial ethics” than on impersonal
“business ethics”. An important corollary of this
is the greater emphasis on “direct ethics”
compared to “dilemma ethics”. Some small case
studies are used, but with emphasis upon the
finer nuances of individual values/ethics amongst
various role players. The Jamnalal Bajaj Institute
of Management Studies at Bombay University
first introduced a course on Business Ethics in
1992. It was made a compulsory second year
1536 S. K. Chakraborty
course in their Masters program in 1994. It is
taught by a number of visiting faculty from
industry. As such, it seems to be a more down-
to-earth effort than the others mentioned above.
Giri provides us with the hitherto best and
most comprehensive coverage of ethics education
in Indian schools of management/business. At
the end of his survey, he remarks: “In India
teaching of ethics has still a long way to go. The
barriers are far too many. Discussions with
teachers in management schools suggest that the
reason(s) for not teaching ethics to MBA students
can work as a vicious circle.” (Giri, 1995, p. 9)
A senior academic, Prof. N. R. Sheth, sharing
the concern and diagnosis of Giri, asserts: “No,
we cannot leave values alone. All the hurdles
involved in capturing and dissecting values have
not dampened public interest in them.” (Sheth
1995, p. 85)
This, indeed, is true as demonstrated by the
opening up of the hawala scam pandora’s box (of
clandestine foreign exchange deals). This was
triggered by a “public interest litigation” (PIL)
filed to the Supreme Court against administra-
tive and legislative soft-pedaling ( January–March,
1996).
Some of the reactions to ethics education
efforts have been strange. In January 1994, the
Government of India had selected five reputed
educational institutions to impart spiritually-
oriented values education. A sum of Rs. 2000
million was to be given to them. The National
Council of Educational Research and Training
criticized this plan by dubbing it as obscurantist,
with the potential to erode the scientific temper
in education. It observed sarcastically that the
government should support the making of
students, not monks! (The Telegraph, January
1995) Without going into the merits of the
specific institutions chosen, the dissociation of
spirituality from ethics and values amongst a
section of educationists in India is intriguing.
Unlike the NCERT, later in the year the
University Grants Commission mooted a detailed
proposal for universities to engage in the dis-
semination of “essential sociocultural values” like
love, sacrifice, compassion, non-violence etc.
The Statesman reacted soon by ridiculing the
whole idea. Instead, it advised editorially: “Let
us teach them physics, the beauty of literature
and the science of logic properly, and they will
do just fine” (The Statesman, December 12,
1995). Rather than sounding a helpful caution
for the UGC efforts towards depth and purity
and modeling for such values education, the idea
itself was dismissed.
So far as publications on business ethics are
concerned, there is hardly much to mention. The
first book in this area, to our knowledge, was by
Prof. Arun Monappa at the Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad (Monappa, 1977).
After a long interval, the hitherto most compre-
hensive volume has been a collection of readings
and essays edited by Fr. T. A. Mathias (1994). In
1995, several other publications were released.
The Indian Journal of Public Administration’s special
and comprehensive number appeared this year.
This author’s book also was published
(Chakraborty, 1995). Mr. S. Balachandran’s
compact book appeared in 1996, and Prof.
Sekhar’s book should have also been published
by the end of 1996. Broadly, Monappa’s and
Chakraborty’s books emphasize ethics of
managers as individuals, the former empirically
on current status, the latter conceptually on what
could be done to improve matters. The edited
volume by Mathias takes a broad-spectrum look
more at the corporate entity as an ethical unit
rather than at the manager with an intense focus.
Balachandran’s book is a blend of Indian psycho-
philosophical concepts and the current events in
the sphere of ethics. The volume goes for
“managing ethics” in its title.
Insofar as endowments for Professorships/
Chairs in Ethics are concerned, they seem to be
less than ten. XLRI Jamshedpur has a Chair
endowed by the House of Tatas. JBIMS of
Bombay University has one Chair in the name
of the industrialist Jamnalal Bajaj. The TAPIM
has a T. A. Pai Chair in Business Ethics. The
Unit Trust of India has endowed three
Professorships at the Indian institutes of
Management at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, and
Calcutta. Besides, IIM-Calcutta has two more
permanent endowments for research in the areas
of human values and business ethics offered by
Orissa Cement Ltd. and the Associated Cement
Companies Ltd. The tally thus is eight. In
 Business Ethics in India
addition, the Sir Ratan Tata Trust has offered
funds for two Visiting Professors per year for
three academic years beginning with July
1996–June 1997 to the MCHV at IIM-Calcutta.
Research and consultancy by academia in the
field of business ethics has not yet occurred. Even
if some signs of research being undertaken are
available now and then, no publication arising
from such work has come to our notice except
Monappa’s book mentioned earlier, and this was
long ago. So far as consultancy goes, it is perhaps
for business to request it. Of this, there are no
signs at all. Therefore, the common challenges
before academia and business would now appear
to be:
(a) An unflinching grasp that since “business”
is being acclaimed as the most significant
change agent, it must, as an aspect of
human endeavor, work for an ethico-
moral foundation for itself, otherwise, it
may be discredited as unbridled mam-
monism.
(b) “Experiential ethics” should undergird
“legislative ethics”. Academia has a special
responsibility to engage in the former and
attract people in business towards it.
(c) The richer and more powerful businesses
have greater accountability for ethics-in-
practice.
(d) Recruitment, selection, and evaluation
processes should begin to incorporate
ethico-moral criteria.
(e) Academia and business should both realize
that ethics can be learnt and assimilated by
means of reasoning and experiencing.
6. Conclusion
What could be the nature or characteristics of a
paradigm that might generate useful responses to
these challenges? Fr. Bogaert has suggested a
fruitful, simple two-axis model for the Indian
context: “sustainability of natural environment”
plus “doing good for the poor”. (D’Bogaert,
1994, pp. 60–61) This indeed is a good starting
point. The MCHV at IIM-C is attempting to
go a little deeper – why is it that most of us are
1537
irresponsible towards the poor despite intellec-
tual lip-service? – and a little wider – why is it
that the feeling of harmonious relationships across
all components and elements of the universe is
conspicuous by its absence despite the declara-
tions of new science? In response to these two
fundamental challenges, the MCHV is trying to
work out a paradigm of the following kind:
We are aware that it is not easy or common as
yet to bring ethics and values to their base in
the holistic spirit-foundation in our discourses on
business/management. Thus, the admirable col-
lection edited by Fr. Mathias (285 pages) contains
no entry in the long index on “spirit/spiritu-
ality”. Yet, responsible academic engagement in
business ethics has to create this foundation for
the ultimate survival of human society through
business. The “social responsibility” thrust of
business ethics is necessary, but it must be
anchored to its source: “spiritual responsibility.”
The latter is the real justification of the former.
Because of her rich and living spiritual heritage,
India has perhaps a bigger share of duty in this
respect. While India ought to learn “analytical
ethics” from the western approach to business
ethics, she ought to offer “intuitive” or “being”
or “consciousness” ethics in her turn.
References
Balachandran, S.: 1996, Managing Ethics (Sangeeta
Associates, Bombay).
Chakraborty, S. K.: 1995. Ethics in Management –
Vedantic Perspectives (Oxford University Press, New
Delhi).
d’Bogaert, M. V. Fr.: 1994, ‘Managerial Decisions in
a Developing Economy’, in Mathias (1994), pp.
52–64.
1538 S. K. Chakraborty

Dasgupta, G.: 1996, ‘Beyond Salvage’, The Statesman Manager’, Economic and Political Weekly (November
(February 26). 25).
Forum of Free Enterprise: 1956, Basic Document. Sheth, N. R.: 1995. ‘Values in Search of an Identity’,
Giri, A. K.: 1995. ‘Management Education and Journal of Human Values 1(1).
Teaching of Ethics’, Working Paper 137, Madras Subramaniam, C.: 1993, Bofors (Penguin Viking, New
Institute of Development Studies. Delhi).
Gupta, S. B.: 1992, Black Income in India (Sage, New
Delhi).
Management Center for Human Values,
Kabra, K. N.: 1982, The Black Economy in India
(Chanakya Publishing, New Delhi). Indian Institute of Management,
Mathias, T. A., Fr.: 1994. Corporate Ethics (Allied Joka, Diamond Harbour Road,
Publishers, New Delhi). Post Box No. 16757,
Monappa, A.: 1977, Ethical Attitudes of Indian Managers Alipore Post Office,
(All India Management Association, New Delhi). Calcutta-700 027,
Sekhar, R. C.: 1995. ‘Ethics and The Indian India.