Positive business: doing good and doing well

• Date: 01 August 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12105
• Published date: 01 August 2015

Positive business: doing good

and doing well

Marcel Meyer

Institute for Enterprise and Humanism, Philosophy Department, University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain

This article investigates the meaning of doing good and doing well in positive business. It examines the

relationship between the two expressions and discusses their relevance, shedding new light on the signif‌icance

of ‘positive’ in positive business and positive organizational scholarship (POS). Thus, this article illuminates

the ultimate end of positive states and practices. ‘Positive’ primarily represents values and assumptions. These

lead to the creation of benef‌icial situations and marked improvements, which put individuals and organiza-

tions on an upward trajectory toward achieving excellent functioning, assuring prof‌itability in addition to

sustainability and social well-being. Doing well, with reference to economic performance and prof‌its, is partly

constitutive of doing good. This presents a new approach regarding the role of economic outcomes in positive

business and POS. It means that f‌inancial criteria do not have priority. Prof‌its are considered vital and

necessary, but the f‌inal ‘raison d’être’ of positive states and practices is the overall well-being of the

stakeholders.

Background and objectives of the study

Positive organizational scholarship (POS), a new,

but quickly growing f‌ield of research, investigates

the impact of the ‘positive’ in organizations and

individuals. As an offshoot of positive psychology,

it studies that which leads to the development of

human strength, resilience, healing, and f‌lourishing

(Manz et al. 2008). At the heart of POS is what leads

to prosperous results and the best of the human

condition. It explores extraordinary individual and

organizational performance and is concerned with

situations that foster and enable virtuous behaviors

and positive emotions. POS, as part of the positive

social science movement, does not only inf‌luence the

development of organizational studies in general, but

also is starting to have an impact on business ethics,

and specif‌ically on virtue ethics (Ferrero & Sison

2014).

While the meanings of the ‘O’ and the ‘S’ in POS are

relatively straightforward, the meaning of ‘positive’

has been creating confusion since the birth of this new

discipline. The ‘O’ (organizational) simply refers to

the fact that POS centers its research on positive

processes and states that happen within an organiza-

tional context (Cameron et al. 2003). The ‘S’ (schol-

arship) highlights the determination of the founders

to follow rigorous, systematic research procedures

and guidelines (Cameron et al. 2003). In positive psy-

chology, ‘positive’ is described as what makes life

worth living (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2000),

and what leads to happiness (Seligman 2002). In POS,

the meaning of ‘positive’ is attached to words such as

excellence, thriving, f‌lourishing, abundance, resil-

ience, or virtuousness (Cameron et al. 2003), while it

has also been considered a synonym for exceptional

performance (Gittell et al. 2006; Hess & Cameron

2006). Yet, the exact meaning of the term remains

unclear (Caza & Carroll 2012).

Furthermore, it is not only the signif‌icance of the

term ‘positive’ which needs clarif‌ication. Caza &

Carroll (2012) also point out that it is of crucial

importance for POS to be conscious and more

specif‌ic about the nature of the positive change

bs_bs_banner

Business Ethics: A European Review

Volume 24 Number S2 August 2015

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,

Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA

doi: 10.1111/beer.12105

S175

the movement wishes to promote. Even though

Cameron & Spreitzer (2012: 4) declare that the schol-

arship has ‘a bias toward life-giving, generative, and

ennobling human conditions regardless of whether

they are attached to traditional economic or political

benef‌its’, Caza & Carroll (2012) are concerned about

POS being subordinated to economic goals. They

argue that, considering sources prior to 2011, POS

mostly treats the organizations’ economic perfor-

mance or related business goals as the ultimate end

of positive states and practices. Hence, for Caza &

Carroll (2012), future research should not only deter-

mine what ‘positive’ constitutes, but also explain the

f‌inal ‘raison d’être’ of positive states and practices.

Our attention was drawn to POS by a special issue

of the journal Organizational Dynamics in 2012. The

opening to the special issue introduces the concept of

positive business – the application of POS to busi-

nesses. The nine articles that appear in this journal

provide more insight into how POS can add value to

the world of business practice and present numerous

real-life business examples (Spreitzer & Cameron

2012). In the outline to this collection of articles

Spreitzer & Cameron (2012: 87) point out that ‘in

terms of ends, positive businesses do well and do

good’. This declaration made us wonder if an explo-

ration of the relationship between the two expres-

sions and their respective relevance in positive

business would shed new light on what ‘positive’

signif‌ies. Moreover, we believe that such a discussion

would also clarify the ultimate end of positive busi-

ness and probably the kind of change this movement

wants to stimulate.

In mainstream organizational science, ‘doing well’

and ‘doing good’ are expressions that catch atten-

tion, especially when used together. ‘Doing well and

doing good’ or ‘doing well by doing good’, the seem-

ingly most common versions using the two terms

together, represent the wish to create a win–win situ-

ation. These catchphrases, via articles such as ‘Cor-

porate social responsibility: doing well by doing

good’ (Falck & Heblich 2007), ‘Doing well by doing

good: corporate social responsibility and prof‌itabil-

ity’ (Byus et al. 2010) or ‘Doing well by doing good’

(Karnani 2011), have found their way into the aca-

demic language.

The idiom ‘doing well’ is usually used as a

synonym of f‌lourishing, thriving, blooming, prosper-

ing, and so forth. Nevertheless, in a business context

it usually refers to being f‌inancially successful. Kreps

& Monin (2011) see ‘doing well’ as describing busi-

nesses, which generate prof‌its. Singer (2010) presents

companies such as Google, Zappos, and Marriot as

examples of ‘doing well’, reporting an increasing net

income, an above-average gross prof‌it percentage, a

high stock price, and so forth. Further, Chen (2007)

refers to social entrepreneurs whose organizations

generate enough prof‌its to be self-sustaining busi-

nesses. Here, ‘doing well’ is connected to prof‌its, but

ultimately translates into being economically inde-

pendent. Byus et al. (2010) examine the link between

corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and

various measurements of f‌irm f‌inancial performance.

‘Doing well’ means, in this case, being prof‌itable.

‘Doing good’ is oftentimes mentioned in relation

to the concept of CSR. For example, Margolis &

Elfenbein (2008) do not differentiate between com-

panies ‘doing good’ and companies embracing CSR.

Here, ‘doing good’ and CSR are treated as syn-

onyms. Dahlsrud (2008) analyzed 37 def‌initions of

CSR and acknowledged that there is still some con-

fusion about how it should be def‌ined. The problem

is the abundance of def‌initions, which are, addition-

ally, often biased toward specif‌ic interests (Van

Marrewijk 2003). Dahlsrud (2008) identif‌ies f‌ive

dimensions within CSR: the stakeholder, the social,

economic, voluntariness, and environmental dimen-

sion. Likewise, the idiom ‘doing good’ seems to have

different meanings, which, similar to CSR, might be

inf‌luenced by particular concerns. Further, as ‘doing

good’ and CSR have been used as synonyms, the

signif‌icance of the expression might also refer to

various dimensions.

As the idioms ‘doing well’ and ‘doing good’ in

recent literature do not always have the same

meaning, we consider it crucial to analyze the exact

signif‌icance of ‘doing well’ and ‘doing good’ in posi-

tive business, before we examine the relationship

between the two terms and their respective relevance.

As POS has been criticized for not only being some-

what ‘sugary’ (Bernstein 2003) but also for using

‘fuzzy’ terms (Cameron & Spreitzer 2012), we believe

that our analysis and conclusions need to be based

on solid ground.

Accordingly, the f‌irst objective of this article is

to explore, based on the literature appearing in the

Business Ethics: A European Review

Volume 24 Number S2 August 2015

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

S176