Abstract
The following commentary focuses on the difference between immediate and indirect consequences of deeds and on the difference between immediate and indirect responsibilities proceeding from this division. We defend the position that Heineken must refrain from business practices that have immoral behaviour as highly predictable side effect; the trade agreements under which Heineken works may not cause or tolerate these practices. That would make these negative side effects a habitual consequence of doing business. We conclude with some reflections of the intercultural facets of this case study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReference
Koslowski, P. 2001. Principles of Ethical Economy. Dordrecht, Boston, MA: Springer, Kluwer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koslowski, P. (2011). Commentary: How to Deal with the Side Effects of Delivering Beer?. In: Dubbink, W., van Liedekerke, L., van Luijk, H. (eds) European Business Ethics Cases in Context. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9334-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9334-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9333-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9334-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)