Strengthening Deliberation in Business: Learning From Aristotle’s Ethics of Deliberation

What Are the Criticisms Against Deliberation as Applied to Business?

In our article, we focus on the ethics of deliberation in business. Deliberation refers to modes of communication that enable those affected by decisions to participate in a fair and open discourse (Habermas, 1996, 1998). Communication and reflection are crucial, as deliberation aims to form and alter preferences through dialogue (Dryzek, 2010, p. 3). Deliberation, to reveal its legitimizing normative force, should therefore be open to all potentially affected parties and be based on a power-free exchange of information and opinions. Dryzek (2009) notes, “Communications are deliberative to the degree that they are noncoercive, are capable of inducing reflection about the preferences that individuals hold, and able to relate the particular interests of individuals and groups to more universal principles” (p. 1381).

While Habermas (1996) originally proposed a rational exchange whereby participants are willing to concede to the better argument and to revise standpoints with the ultimate outcome of consensus, in his later works he relaxed some of these assumptions (Habermas, 1998). This more flexible approach has become widely supported by recent theorizing and empirical evidence (Carpini et al., 2004; Ryfe, 2005; Steiner, 2012; D. F. Thompson, 2008). For instance, one argument, which empirical observations are beginning to confirm, is that offering arenas for discourse and providing participants with an opportunity to voice their opinions already increases their willingness to cooperate, independent of the outcome (Carpini et al., 2004). Thus, the outcome of deliberation does not need to be restricted to consensus, as different forms of agreement, developing a sensitivity for opposing views, and learning about relevant issues can be considered important steps toward fostering understanding among participants (Carpini et al., 2004; Ryfe, 2005; D. F. Thompson, 2008). Similarly, including narratives of life stories as support for one’s argument has been considered a relevant addition to a purely rational exchange of arguments and an important part of successful deliberation (Ryfe, 2005; Steiner, 2012). Empirical research on deliberative polls has shown that deliberation increases learning among participants, leads to changes in preferences, and that these changes are information-driven (i.e., contingent on the information that participants share; Fishkin & Luskin, 2005). It has also been shown that more balanced deliberation in terms of exchanging pro- and counter-arguments promotes more balanced learning (Fishkin & Luskin, 2005).

In order for an institution to benefit from deliberation, it has to invest in deliberative capacities (i.e., structures that allow for authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberation; Dryzek, 2009; see also Scherer & Voegtlin, 2020 with regard to corporate governance). Deliberation is authentic to the extent that it allows for communication on an egalitarian basis and encourages reflection, inclusive when it allows for those potentially affected to participate, and consequential when it has an effect on policy making (Dryzek, 2009; Dryzek & Pickering, 2017). Deliberative structures vary along three dimensions (Fung, 2006): who participates, how participants communicate with each other, and how influential the discussions are. The continuum of participation ranges from the selection of participants for deliberation by an institution (e.g., based on their expertise) to participants’ self-selection. The communication between participants can be limited to the exchanges of arguments or extend to the direct involvement of participants in collective decision-making processes. The influence of deliberation hinges on the power that participants or the deliberative forums have on the implementation of decisions (e.g., in the form of changing public policy or lawmaking) (Fung, 2006).

Because deliberation can foster understanding and agreement and provide legitimacy, it has been considered a relevant means for coping with complex business ethics problems (Stansbury, 2009). In addition—and most prominently introduced into the management and business literature by scholars of political CSR (Scherer et al., 2016; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007)—deliberation is considered a way to steer the observable political engagement of corporations toward legitimate exchanges with state and nonstate actors on issues of global governance and the provision of public goods and services (Rasche & Esser, 2006; Scherer et al., 2006). These forms of corporate political engagement become especially relevant in cases of state failure and global self-regulation. Consequently, most of the discussion has been focused on the deliberation of business organizations with their multiple stakeholders. However, increasingly, it is being argued and demonstrated that internal organizational structures, corporate governance, and leadership can also benefit from deliberative capacities (Fryer, 2012; Scherer & Voegtlin, 2020; Schneider & Scherer, 2015; Stansbury, 2009).

However, the benefit of applying deliberation to business organizations is not uncontested. Critical voices have questioned whether business organizations are the right place for deliberation (Hussain & Moriarty, 2018; Sabadoz & Singer, 2017). One of the main criticisms is that the hierarchical structure of businesses and the economic logic of the market do not allow for deliberation because they cannot guarantee a power-free and egalitarian discourse, and it is very difficult for managers to transcend self-interested motivation and a bargaining logic of decision-making (Sabadoz & Singer, 2017). Our focus is on deliberation in business in general, acknowledging the additional complications that might arise from different governance and organizational structures (e.g., the difficulties of including subsidiaries or franchisees in deliberations of relevance for all employees of a corporation), as well as the size of the organization that for instance correlates with the number of hierarchical levels in the organization. We relate to some of these points when discussing the practical implications of our suggestions.

Thus, while we believe in the merits of deliberation, we also consider that the challenges of deliberation in business organizations are far from trivial and a long way from being resolved. In the following sections, we focus on three prominent challenges that reflect the main criticisms of deliberation in business organizations (Bal & Dóci, 2018; Curato et al., 2017; Sabadoz & Singer, 2017; Zizek, 1989): ideological conditioning, emergence of false debates, and instrumentalization of deliberation by the powerful.

How Does the Aristotelian Perspective on Deliberation Respond to These Criticisms?

There are several reasons why engaging with the Aristotelian corpus is relevant for addressing the risks inherent to deliberation. First, deliberation is explicitly mentioned in Aristotle’s works, especially in Nicomachean Ethics (NE) and in Rhetoric (Aristotle, 1941, 2002) as an important concept of practical philosophy (action) that necessarily precedes a choice or decision. Deliberation does not concern all issues requiring collective reflection but the decisions that need to be taken. From this point of view, our approach to deliberation is resolutely ethical: It applies to decision-making arenas in general and not exclusively to political arenas. In this sense, it is focused not on the nature and organization of political debates (Chambers, 2009, 2017; O’Neill, 2002; Yack, 2006) but on the practical reasoning that any individual can apply to participate on an ad hoc basis in forms of deliberation emerging within the organization in which they work. In this Aristotelian approach, deliberation is not reduced to a collective debate, and even less to a characteristic of a system, but rather constitutes an ethical experience that can be practiced by any participant in a collective decision within organizations.

Second, the Aristotelian ethics of deliberation has underpinned the common good perspective, which is discussed in the context of organizations as a means to limit the risks induced by neoliberalism (Akrivou & Sison, 2016; Arjoon et al., 2018; Audi, 2012; Barrera, 2001; Frémeaux & Michelson, 2017; Hartman, 2008, 2010; Kim, 2016; Koehn, 1995, 2017; Melé, 2002, 2009; Moore, 2005, 2015; Sison, 2017; Sison et al., 2012, 2016; Sison & Fontrodona, 2012; for early roots of the common good perspective, see Hutchins & Adler, 1970). The common good perspective can be used to think about the modern economy (Frémeaux & Michelson, 2017) or diversity theory (Frémeaux, 2020), and it can help the individual to act ethically by taking part in deliberations that emerge in the workplace (Sison & Fontrodona, 2012). This corpus is all the more appropriate for understanding corporate deliberation as it frees individuals from an excessive focus on the outcomes of work by providing very concrete recommendations on how they can deliberate.

However, so far, the Aristotelian-based common good perspective is not used to its full extent with regard to its potential to offer answers to the challenges of deliberation in business. Indicative of this is the fact that it is barely mentioned in literature on CSR (for notable exceptions to the latter points Argandona, 1998; Pies et al., 2014; Sinnicks, 2020). Most scientific developments on (political) CSR are rooted in stakeholder theory (Crane et al., 2004), Habermasian theory (Scherer et al., 2006), institutional theory (Ungericht & Hirt, 2010), or Rawlsian theory (Mäkinen & Kourula, 2012). The mapping of CSR theories by Garriga and Melé (2004) attempted to provide a broader view of CSR theories and to recognize the importance of values-based approaches. Yet, based on a survey and content analysis of 146 peer-reviewed academic articles from 18 journals over the period 2000–2013, Frynas and Stephens (2015) offer an exhaustive synthesis of the theories mobilized in the literature on political CSR but make no reference to the common good perspective. As observed by Argandona (2018), “it is a pity that the contributions made by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and many other social philosophers to the common good are lost” (p. 495). This remark echoes regrets expressed in the past, especially during the postwar period, and earlier aspirations of being able to live together by deliberating about the common good (Hutchins & Adler, 1970).

The Aristotelian-based common good perspective has received some attention in management research more generally, which we will discuss below. As we will argue, the Aristotelian ethics of deliberation and, by extension, the common good perspective, can help us address the criticisms against deliberation as it enables us to think about both individual and collective deliberation, helps us define the ends and deliberate on the means, and allows for deliberation that is decisive and cooperative.

The Dynamic of Decisive and Cooperative Deliberation

Decisive and cooperative deliberation in Aristotle’s work

Deliberation is a particularly action-oriented kind of discourse, in that the deliberative discourse differs from the epideictic and judicial. The epideictic discourse is turned toward the present and praises that which is noble; the judicial discourse is turned toward the past and advocates that which is just; the deliberative discourse is more forward-looking, weighing up the pros and cons to allow for a position to be taken (Rhetoric, I): “to each of these a special time is appropriate: to the deliberative the future, for the speaker, whether he exhorts or dissuades, always advises about things to come” (Rhetoric, I, 3, 1358b). Aristotle evokes a concern for the future, revealing that all deliberation must be effective and oriented toward decision. The strength of Aristotelian thought lies in the idea that participants, through deliberation, can have an impact on social reality. Indeed, the risk of deliberation is to give individuals the power to participate in debates without granting them the power to participate in decisions. The Aristotelian perspective helps to limit this risk: By deliberation, the Greek philosopher does not mean the fact that a larger group of individuals participates in a discussion but the fact that some individuals are capable of deliberating to reach a decision.

This approach, according to which there is no deliberation without decision, promotes cooperation between participants and thus the possibility for them to change their minds after hearing a certain number of speeches. Undoubtedly, deliberation that is both discursive and decisive can lead the participants to change their opinions with a view to making a decision, instead of hiding behind their preferences and usual arguments. Rather than leaving decision-making power to the strongest and reducing deliberation to a discussion ignored by the decision makers, decisive and cooperative deliberation has the advantage of empowering participants to choose and act.

Decisive and cooperative deliberation in the common good perspective

Oriented toward the decision to be taken, deliberation is an opportunity not only to discuss but also (and above all) to cooperate (i.e., to contribute to the achievement of a common project). It can thus enable participants to observe that there are various views of the common good and, in terms of the decision to be taken, to become aware of the practical complementarity of the different ways of acting ethically. Through analyzing two humanistic movements, Conscious Capitalism and the Economy of Communion, Frémeaux and Michelson (2017) reveal different ways of linking community good and personal good and emphasize that there are different means of pursuing the common good for organizations. These scholars explain this plurality in pathways toward the common good by differences in size, cultures, and organizational characteristics as well as the choice of stakeholders. For example, in both movements examined in this study, shareholders, managers, employees, suppliers, customers, and even competitors are considered to be the key stakeholders, but most of the Economy of Communion organizations also regard and integrate the most deprived members of society as relevant stakeholders, using new and particular forms of deliberation and cooperation. Therefore, in practice, the means of pursuing the common good are not mutually exclusive; they can complement each other, enter into synergy, or at least be used as part of a multistage action program. Decisive deliberation helps to move away from using arguments based on established preferences to a more practical sense that is capable of integrating multiple ways of acting ethically. Hence, from the common good perspective, deliberation is both effective, focused on decision and action, and integrative, combining different ways of pursuing the common good.

Therefore, thinking about deliberation in Aristotelian terms allows us to suggest a perspective of deliberation that addresses the criticisms mentioned above. Indeed, this perspective is based on (a) both individual and collective deliberation, fostering virtuous and meaningful discussions, and actions that resist ideological conditioning; (b) a deliberative desire addressing both ends and means, which, instead of false debates, encourages actual debates about transcendental objectives and the rooted experience of work; and (c) deliberation that is both decisive and cooperative, making possible an effective and integrative choice (i.e., one that is capable of combining different ways of participating in the common good).

Embracing an Aristotelian perspective allows us to develop a dynamic vision of deliberation by showing the different steps in the deliberative process: Reflection on higher objectives and the means to reach them may not be conceivable without an introspective individual deliberation, and decisive and cooperative deliberation may only be appropriate if the participants agree in advance on a quest for the common good and on transcendental objectives.

Table 1 summarizes the Aristotelian-based approach to deliberation. It also points out its relevance and implications for business practice, a discussion we will turn to in the following section.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

The Aristotelian Perspective on Deliberation in Response to the Inherent Risks of Deliberation.

Criticisms against deliberation in and for business	The Aristotelian perspective on deliberation	The Aristotelian ethics of deliberation in the common good perspective	Implications for the quality of deliberation	Implications for business practice
Risk of ideological conditioning	Dynamic of individual and collective deliberation	• Encouraging introspective work • Encouraging deliberation on the development of virtues and meaning in the workplace	Allowing for virtuous and meaningful deliberation as the best defense against ideologies of professional success Placing an emphasis on what happens before collective deliberation	• Providing each employee with a guideline for individual deliberation • Creating time and space for self-reflection about virtues and meanings, e.g., through the provision of physical space (workplace design) and time for introspection
Risk of false debates	Dynamic of focusing on ends and deliberating on means	• Exercising practical wisdom by considering which goals are worth pursuing and subsequently which means are necessary to achieve them • Seeking higher objectives (e.g., excellent goods or real goods) • Considering profit, capital, and technological development as necessary means and not as ends • Addressing practical issues related to work experience	Enabling transcendental and rooted deliberation as the best defense against false debate Placing an emphasis on the content of deliberation	Structuring sequences of deliberations: • Deliberations about identifying (and separating) the ends from the means • Deliberations about the use of profit, capital, and technology as means for higher purposes • Deliberations about workplace practices and the quality of work
Risk of a misuse of power by the strongest people	Dynamic of decisive and cooperative deliberation	• Putting into perspective different ways of pursuing the common good • Considering practical complementarity between different ways of acting ethically	Providing effective and integrative deliberation as the best defense against instrumentalization of power Placing an emphasis on the binding character of deliberation	• Ensuring that participants in deliberation have decision-making authority • Making each participant aware that the deliberation is decisive, and it is their responsibility to reach a decision • Setting a time when decisions need to be made and using an escalation of decision-making procedures (e.g., consensus, majority voting, etc.) to reach agreement

Implications for Business Practice

We have just observed that the Aristotelian perspective highlights the characteristics of deliberation, the stages in the deliberative process, and the power conferred to participants in deliberation. The Aristotelian approach therefore helps us to confront the following three questions that are crucial to business practice: First, which practices would facilitate an ethics of deliberation? Second, what would be helpful in implementing these practices? Third, who is to implement these practices?

Discussion

Our article responds to Felicetti’s (2018) criticism that research in management tends to be focused on deliberative interactions between firms rather than on the internal levers of deliberation. Based on Aristotelian ethics, we highlight internal practices of deliberation that are individual and collective, that pursue higher and more transcendental objectives while relating to the different ways of working, and that identify the decision to be made by taking into account the different ways of achieving the common good. Indeed, these practices of deliberation constitute prerequisites for the development of collective deliberation in and for business. As such, we contribute to the discussion on deliberation not only in business but also in organizations more generally (Sabadoz & Singer, 2017; Scherer et al., 2016; Stansbury, 2009).

We take the example of the new working conditions created by the Covid-19 health crisis to illustrate our contribution because they are, on the one hand, proving to be an aggravating factor for the pathologies of deliberation; on the other hand, they present an opportunity to overcome them. Concerning the first limitation we identified, the prevalence of working from home, resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, is increasing the risks of ideological conditioning and the risk of considering human interchangeability as possible or even inevitable (Husain, 2021). To reduce the time spent in front of screens and the feeling of increased tension between their professional and personal life, employees may indeed be tempted to focus on productivity and privilege the most objective tasks for the sole purpose of performance and success, with that motivation dominating their engagement in deliberation (Hoff, 2021; Nguyen, 2021; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2020). In response to this risk, a push toward individual and collective deliberation could help employees consider which tasks they genuinely hope to accomplish and raise those ambitions in collective discussions. By taking the time to do this introspective work, employees can avoid the trap of excessive objectivization of their work. From this point of view, working from home could then become an opportunity for distancing oneself from purely mechanical tasks and for rethinking critical aspects of one’s work (for the dangers of not engaging employees in more substantial reflection and meaningful work, see the discussion of employees stealthily taking on two full-time remote jobs due to the reduction of work to repetitive operations in Feintzeig, 2021).

Concerning the second pathology of deliberation, which relates to deliberation being co-opted by individuals to discuss problems disconnected from the main (or real) activity of the organization (e.g., discussing interpersonal relationships at work or micro-managing technical tasks), the spread of remote work during the Covid-19 pandemic has accentuated the emphasis on technical constraints and solutions. Also, working from home affects concentration (Manavis, 2020), interferes with one’s personal life (Hennekam & Shymko, 2020), and makes collaboration more difficult (Nguyen, 2021), leading employees to forget, or at least neglect, the mission, values, or broader purpose pursued by the organization (Spicer, 2020). In response to this risk, deliberation about ends and means helps to avoid the excessive focus on technical tasks, which can only be instruments in the service of higher purposes. Rather than exhausting employees’ motivation in debates that concentrate exclusively on technical aspects, management could use deliberation to discuss how small tasks and the use of specific tools or technology link to the bigger picture.

As for the third limitation, the excessive power exercised by a few individuals, who use deliberation as a facade to legitimize their own decisions, the physical and relational distancing induced by the pandemic may lead such individuals to avoid open debates and to conduct surveys among their employees, designed to justify decisions already made or in the process of being made. In response to this risk of disconnection between deliberation and decision, having deliberative structures in place that are both decisive and cooperative can help to prevent the circumvention of debate and be a means of encouraging the various members of an organization to make choices that are more in line with their values and the societal needs identified at their level of responsibility. Rather than limiting the voice of employees within the restrictive framework of surveys, our approach invites them to experience collective decisions to improve the quality of their work, which will also allow managers to share a part of their responsibility.

Apart from the general contribution to deliberation in business, our article also informs theories on political CSR (Frynas & Stephens, 2015; Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer et al., 2016; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007). The interconnection between individual and collective deliberation, between a focus on ends and the appropriate means, and between decisive and cooperative deliberation in business proposed in this article can be extended to deliberation with business (e.g., on global governance issues in Rasche, 2012). The focus therefore shifts to the dialectic between company internal reflection and external deliberation with stakeholders. As such, it could be a way to engage with the challenges that have been identified for a political CSR 2.0 (Scherer et al., 2016), especially those related to the sociopolitical context. Among these are the polarization of society toward nationalistic and fundamentalist ideologies and the weakening of democratic institutions and civic liberties. These developments aggravate the risks of deliberation that we have discussed (those of ideological conditioning, false debates, and instrumentalization by the powerful; Dryzek, 2009). Deliberation within companies before engaging in collective deliberation in multistakeholder initiatives could lead to more informed business attitudes toward aspirations for the common good. Meanwhile, the questioning of ends could, for instance, encourage an ethical debate on values and fundamental principles in global governance discussions. We would again refer to the principle of subsidiarity to facilitate such deliberation; governmental agencies or international organizations can encourage the orchestration of deliberation when business firms and their stakeholders are not able or willing to deliberate. Future research could investigate the relation between soft- and hard-law, the role of international agreements (e.g., on human rights), or the associated power dynamics and how those dynamics foster or hinder attempts to introduce an ethics of deliberation.

These recommendations, based on the Aristotelian perspective of deliberation, can also contribute to a more general reflection on deliberative democracy in the political sphere (Bohmann & Rehg, 1997; Curato et al., 2017; Dryzek, 2009, 2010). Democratic political deliberations are not only based on the recognition of rights of expression or argumentation but also imply time and space dedicated to reflection on one’s own moral responsibility, which could be consolidated by one’s efforts to be better informed, to question oneself about one’s own aspirations and opinions, to pursue higher objectives beyond personal interests, and to welcome different visions of the common good for decision-making purposes. The question arises as to whether instances of deliberative democracy concerned with implementing the principles of deliberation highlighted in this study—both individual and collective deliberation, a focus on both ends and means, and decisive and cooperative deliberation—would be better able to overcome health, economic, social, and environmental difficulties and to make decisions for the common good. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic: Individual deliberation could infuse public deliberation with better considered viewpoints and arguments about what we as individuals and as society value; a clear focus on the ends could help to prioritize and direct limited resources; and deliberation that is decisive and cooperative could direct attention to practical solutions that at the same time take into account various viewpoints of the common good.

Therefore, in this common good perspective, deliberation is no longer solely understood as “debate and discussion aimed at producing reasonable, well-informed opinions” (Chambers, 2003, p. 309), but rather as a form of practical reasoning, the purpose of which is not so much to persuade others through debate, but rather to prepare for action. In many ways, this approach is in line with the concept of deliberation derived from Habermas’s philosophy. In particular, it shares its concern for truth, sincerity, and inclusiveness, the search for a result, and exposure to the confrontation of opinions. However, it responds to the particular difficulties of deliberation in modern organizational forms by inviting everyone—speakers, listeners, and all stakeholders—to experience an inner conversation, to rely on practical wisdom, and to welcome different perceptions of the common good. The complementary aspects between the Aristotelian ethics of deliberation and the Habermasian ethics lie in the fact that deliberation is considered to be more than collective exchanges between individuals: It is both an intimate reflection and a decision-making process. Although common good thinking is sometimes misunderstood as idealistic or excessively demanding, we argue that the Aristotelian perspective is particularly realistic and effective because it respects everyone’s skills and perspectives while encouraging decisive deliberation. We do not advocate an ethics of deliberation based on a substantive and unique concept of the common good, but we argue that it is possible to adopt a practical approach that integrates individuals’ personal experiences (the lessons of life), that respects the hierarchy of ends and means, and that includes the multiplicity of interpretations of the common good.

The approach we propose is not without limitations. There is a risk that the development of deliberation within organizations could trigger a flood of good intentions exclusively based on emotions, the construction of purely intellectual ideas, or the proliferation of arguments based solely on instrumental reason, which would then be disconnected from reality of work. Yet, prior individual deliberation, the distinction between the higher purpose—the excellence of the goods pursued—and the means, and the attention paid to human plurality and the diversity of ethical opinions, could encourage an attitude that is not only emotional, intellectual, or rational, but also practical. Collective deliberation within organizations could then provide space in which employees pay attention to their own and others’ aspirations, to the needs of society and the ways in which employees can contribute to them, and to the resulting differences, complementarities, and synergies among the ways of doing good, with a view to answering a question and making a concrete decision.

Certainly, the pursuit of the common good may not be shared by all and Aristotelian deliberation may not be possible in an environment in which individuals do not seek to flourish by becoming virtuous. We therefore emphasize that the qualities of the deliberation outlined in this article—virtuous, meaningful, transcendental, rooted, effective, and integrative deliberation—should be encouraged by corporate governance, whose essential function is to exercise virtuous authority (Arjoon, 2012; that is, “to assure the unity of action of a plurality of [people] in the pursuit of their common good,” Simon, 2011, p. 51). Deliberation in the Aristotelian sense is certainly easier to implement in small-sized organizations. Not only is the compartmentalization of tasks less pronounced, allowing for a better mutual understanding of the work done, but it may also be easier to develop a spirit of concord. However, our approach highlights that within large organizations, and in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, spontaneous communities can emerge. These communities might be even more adept at deliberation because they are both small and open to others.

From this perspective, and with the principle of subsidiarity in mind, future empirical studies could build on this approach to deliberation to examine under which conditions individual and collective deliberation, deliberation on ends and on means, and decisive and cooperative deliberation could effectively promote a stronger ethics of deliberation and foster business sustainability. Our approach was purposefully broad to highlight the benefits of Aristotelian deliberation and to discuss its potential to inform practices in organizations. This provides ample future research opportunities to investigate specific practices (e.g., individual deliberation) and the dynamic interplay between those (e.g., between individual and collective deliberation). While we pointed out relevant aspects, future research might shed further light on the conditions that enable and hinder Aristotelian deliberation and investigate the influence of the context in which deliberation takes place.

Conclusion

In the context of organizations, deliberation is challenging because of the profit-generating logic and associated ideologies that prevail in business. Thus, while deliberation can be a powerful means to foster good business practices, there is a danger that deliberation could be co-opted to foster personal interests. However, if those with authority have sincere intentions to pursue the common good and to facilitate a truly power-free discourse about relevant organizational, social, and environmental topics, deliberation might prove to be a powerful means to address wider sustainability challenges and make business more ethical. Aristotelian ethics can be a strong practical and realistic complement that could guide those who wish to exercise virtuous authority. If we can infuse managers with virtuous thinking and encourage individual and collective deliberation—for instance, through business-school education or public debate—it could provide a way to navigate the paradox of deliberation toward more ethical business.