Not so long ago I interviewed a computer engineer in her home. Surrounded with toys and a napping baby—the interview time had been chosen carefully—she talked about how she worked as an independent contractor for a large electronics company. Connected by high-speed broadband, two telephone lines, and a cell phone, she felt fully integrated into the work, exchanging electronic files with her colleagues and having telephone conversations with customers two continents and umpteen time zones away. She told me she often worked late after the baby was in bed and during the baby's afternoon nap before she went to pick her older child up from school. Despite these odd working times, however, she was convinced that none of the company's customers and only some of her work colleagues knew that she worked at home. She was very contented with the arrangement.

The following address considers the relevance of business ethics education to our students. Is our concept of ethics one of practice and application? And, if so, are we accountable to our students, our institutions and ourselves, for the practical impact that we have or, conversely, that we do not have? Aren’t we responsible in part if one of our students ventures forth and does not act in an ethical manner? Though a positive response to this query may not be popular, what is the alternative? If we are not responsible for the impact (or lack thereof) that we have on our students, then what is our purpose? The discussion further explores the nature of this impact and the process by which we can amplify the results.

This commentary offers some preliminary reflections on William C. Frederick’s thought provoking effort toward developing a theory of business values. These reflections are preliminary in that they are based on the conceptual framework or infrastructure outlined in the preceding issue of this journal (July, 1992, pp. 283-303), rather than on the comprehensive version of the theory. Consequently some thoughts may be irrelevant, even inaccurate in the context of the more complete version of the theory.

A growing number of organizational theorists have become skeptical about some of the more hallowed ideas of their field. They sense that there is a serious divergence between the nature of organizational life as it is described in theory and as it is experienced in practice. And they believe, therefore, that some corrective efforts are in order to redress this problem.

In an era when the public and shareholders increasingly demand greater accountability from institutions for racial injustice and slavery, scholarship on corporate reparations is more and more essential. This article argues that corporations have played a significant role in the cultural dehumanization of Blackness and therefore have a particular responsibility to make repair. Cultural dehumanization refers to embedding anti-Blackness into US culture in service of capitalist profit accumulation, which has resulted in status and material inequalities between Blacks and whites that have persisted from slavery to the present. More specifically, the article argues corporations have a moral duty to offer reparations to Black Americans regardless of any redress offered by other perpetrators of anti-Blackness. It appeals to tort law in providing a moral justification for corporate reparations to Black Americans.