Common good leadership in

business management: an
ethical model from the Indian
tradition
John M. Alexander
1
and Jane Buckingham
2
1. Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Loyola College, University of Madras, Chennai, India
2. History, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
While dominant management thinking is steered by prot maximisation, this paper proposes that sustained
organisational growth can best be stimulated by attention to the common good and the capacity of corporate
leaders to create commitment to the common good. The leadership thinking of Kautilya and Ashoka
embodies this principle. Both offer a common good approach, emphasising the leaders moral and
legal responsibility for peoples welfare, the robust interaction between the business community and the state,
and the importance of moral training of leaders in identifying and promoting the common good. We argue
that the complex process of re-orientating corporate priorities towards the common good requires alertness
and concerted effort if both business and society are to truly benet. As Ashoka said: A good deed is a
difcult thing.
Introduction
Since the 1980s, Kautilya has been rehabilitated as a
guru of business management training. Typically
Ashoka and Kautilya are presented as moral
opposites (Rangarajan 1992a: 36). However, in the
area of leadership ethics they are compatible and
have contemporary relevance in insisting that work-
ing for the common good is at the heart of effective
business and executive activity. Kautilyas Arthasas-
tra is a training manual in leadership and Ashokas
Edicts represent the efforts of a king to apply moral
leadership in the politically and economically
heterodox fourth century BC Mauryan Empire. Both
authors insist that the kings prosperity and power is
dependent on the welfare of his people. Only an
ethical leadership, committed to the common good
of the people within and even beyond the empire,
can achieve security for the king.
In this paper we argue that an inclusive common
good that serves both corporate interests and those
of the broader community who contribute to and
are affected by business activity is essential to the
development of contemporary business leaders.
Here common good can be dened as tangible
and intangible assets shared by the individual and
community, the possession of which benets every-
one in society.
1
While there is a Western tradition of
common good, this paper develops a unique
approach embedded in ancient Indian leadership
tradition, which underlies the theory and practice of
the education of Indian leaders in the creation of
economic development and prosperity.
2
The arguments are developed as follows: rst, we
explore the understanding of the common good as
found in Ancient Indian tradition, particularly in
Kautilyas Arthasastra and Ashokas Edicts, both of
which emphasise the leaders moral and legal
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01632.x
317
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
responsibility for the common good. Next, we
investigate the connection between economic devel-
opment and the role of business communities in
contributing to the common good. Finally, we point
out that ongoing education and training is necessary
for a leader to identify and promote the common
good and that such knowledge is essential to
building future business prosperity.
The Indian tradition of the common good
The Indian tradition of the common good proposed
here is derived from two major sources: Kautilyas
Arthasastra and the Edicts of King Ashoka. The
Arthasastra attributed to Kautilya and dated be-
tween fourth century BC and 150 AD is the surviving
representative of an ancient Brahmanical tradition
of statecraft dedicated to the art of material gain.
3
Kautilyas Arthasastra is essentially a training
manual for kings, ancient Indias political and
economic CEOs, which lays out the correct methods
of increasing the prosperity of the state thereby
ensuring its economic and political security. This
collection of sutras (maxims) on artha (material
gain) presumes that the king and his kingdom
function within the ethical paradigm of dharma
(righteousness), that the king is subject to the law
(danda) and that to be a righteous and effective king,
with a prosperous kingdom, he must be educated
and trained in rajadharma (the kings duty) (Ran-
garajan 1992a: 2125, 3341). The Edicts of King
Ashoka, composed during Ashokas reign, between
273 and 232 BC, and placed throughout his Indian
empire for the information and education of his own
people and those living across his borders, give an
insight into Arthasastra as a living tradition
practised within the heterodox philosophical and
economic culture of the Mauryan period (Smith
1920 [2002]: 1943). The Ashokan Edicts are often
posed as a Buddhist alternative to the Brahmanic
Arthasastra. However, the values of the Edicts are
consistent with those of the Arthasastra. The
Ashokan Edicts demonstrate the value of both
ethical traditions to a leader like Ashoka, who,
confronted with an ambitious Buddhist merchant
class, was able to develop a common good approach
to leadership which integrated the older artha
traditions with the emerging Buddhist insights into
class equality (Rangarajan 1992b: 53, 8990).
Several authors have rediscovered Arthasastra as
a source of guidance in the development of business
practice, particularly in terms of developing forms of
internal corporate regulation and prevention of
bureaucratic and scal corruption (Kumar & Rao
1996, Chamola 2007: 1416, Pillai 2010). Others
have recognised Kautilyas interest in developing an
economics which supports rather than exploits the
population (Sridhar & Bilimoria 2007: 311). Kumar
& Rao (1996: 420421) even go so far as to argue
that Arthasastra proposes a model of a welfare state,
a position only possible if the hierarchical nature of
dharmasastric society is overlooked.
In comparison, Ashoka has been neglected by
management writers despite the fact that he is
becoming more important in discussion of envir-
onmentalism and increasingly recognised as of
importance to corporate social responsibility
(CSR) debates (Sridhar & Bilimoria 2007, Para-
sher-Sen 1998). Here we suggest that Ashoka has
contemporary relevance as an example of a leader
negotiating the complex demands of traditional
leadership practice with the expectations for wealth
and status of the new merchant communities.
Recognising the valuable contribution of earlier
management writings, we hope to add a new
dimension to contemporary practice by developing
a KautilyaAshoka approach to common good with
relevance for todays management and business
leadership.
Kautilya and Ashoka both require that the king,
who was ultimately responsible for the economic,
political and human resource management of the
state, focus on the common good. In their time, this
meant that the king was required to provide the
infrastructure necessary to ensure the physical,
social and material well-being of the population
within his domain at every level of social hierarchy.
Above all, he was responsible for the practice of
dharma within court and kingdom. In performing
these duties the king afrmed that his well-being had
a commonality with those affected by his activities.
The king was an absolute ruler within the Arthasas-
tra tradition of statecraft and Ashoka assumed his
authority over his empire to be total. However, the
king was also reminded by tradition that his
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
318
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
authority was itself not limitless. It was subject to the
laws of rajadharma (duties of the king).
4
As such, the
kings responsibilities for the well-being of his people
functioned within an ethical and legal framework
which was far more powerful than the king himself.
Moreover, as the duties of the king were transmitted
to him through the wisdom and experience of his
teachers and elders, a well-developed system of
checks and balances was in place (Kautilya 1992:
119220 {6.1.26}).
5
Kautilya describes the essence
of kingship in terms of mutual accord between king
and kingdom: In the happiness of his subjects lies his
happiness; in their welfare his welfare. He shall not
consider as good only that which pleases him but
treat as benecial to him whatever pleases his
subjects (Kautilya 1992: 149 {1.19.34}).
The KautilyaAshoka common good approach
assumes renewed signicance in the wake of numer-
ous corporate scandals by which many business
leaders have lost goodwill and public credibility
(Clarke et al. 2003, Collins 2009). The main reason
for this crisis of condence is undisciplined pursuit of
prot and the refusal of corporations to look beyond
their immediate domain, which Drucker has referred
to as symptomatic of a lack of leadership beyond the
walls (Drucker 2008: 225231). It is not that
companies do not have vision and vision statements
that aspire to generating tangible and intangible
assets for the common good. Often what is missing is
the corporate will to absorb this commitment into
their activities, decision making and work culture.
We would therefore go further to afrm that
corporations must not only show willingness to
comply with legal and scal regulation, but, as in the
KautilyaAshoka common good approach, also
demonstrate a moral responsibility to engage proac-
tively in creating and sustaining the common good.
A paradigm shift in business thinking is needed to
recognise that common good means a shared good
between corporate management and the society at
large. A narrow focus may produce short-term prot
but reduce long-term gain. We would argue with
Kautilya and Ashoka that the good of the company
is intimately linked with the good of society at large.
We need to reect further on the common good.
At the outset, there is always a risk that the idea of
the common good can be misused in corporate and
political contexts. It can be dictatorially imposed in
so far as the leader unilaterally determines what the
common good is and who will be permitted to
participate in it. Or it can be paternalistic, typically
expressed in terms of a benign care for beneciaries
who have little or no say in what is deemed good for
them. These are potential dangers inherent in a
common good approach, Indian or Western, ancient
or contemporary. A common good approach can
assume an elitist character excluding certain sections
of society. It is for this reason that Kautilya needs to
be situated in his times. Although Kautilya had a
strong interest in promoting the common good, his
understanding of it was limited by the economic and
political customs of the time. Kautilya functioned
within a strictly hierarchical society where the
common good was either dened to advantage a few
elites or to exclude the vast majority of the population.
It is heartening to note that such a dictatorial and
hierarchical understanding of the common good was
questioned by Ashoka through his emphasis on the
equality of people of all sects, even those outside the
dharmasastra tradition (Smith 1920 [2002]: 208, PE
VI).
6
He insists that his message of dharma was for
all people, not just the ritual elites, the well born or
wealthy: Even for a person to whom lavish liberal-
ity is impossible, mastery over the senses, purity of
mind, gratitude, and steady devotion are altogether
indispensable (Smith 1920 [2002]: 175, RE VII).
Unlike Kautilya, Ashoka is inuenced by a universal
paternalism. He wishes to extend the benet of
common good: All men are my children; and just as
I desire for my children that they may enjoy every
kind of prosperity and happiness both in this world
and the next, so also I desire the same for all men
(Smith 1920 [2002]: 194, RE II). This affection and
goodwill helps to prevent his insistence on the
importance of dharma practice throughout his
kingdom becoming intolerably oppressive (Smith
1920 [2002]: 98101).
The adaptability of common good approaches to
all times and the ability of leaders to think beyond
societal and business conventions restricting both
tangible and intangible goods to a few is what
makes the KautilyaAshoka common good ap-
proach relevant to the contemporary business
scenario. Certainly business enterprises should have
a very specic focus, which includes creating wealth
and prot as a priority. Whenever businesses neglect
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 319
their specic focus they damage their nancial
performance and ultimately undermine their own
existence: the strength of a successful business lies in
its ability to maintain this focus. Yet for a business
to operate successfully and to ourish it requires a
skilled and talented workforce, a robust market for
goods and services and above all a healthy local and
international community. Therefore it is in the
interest of the company to support the building of
healthy communities on the basis that what is good
for the community is good for the company.
Business enterprises cannot ourish in a society that
is failing and unhealthy.
We also need to understand the nature of the
common good. The KautilyaAshoka approach
proposes that the commitment of business leader-
ship to the common good must not be exclusively
identied with provision of material goods and
services and creating infrastructure for the benet of
the economy. To be fully constructive, a common
good approach must include the support of human
and cultural values such as self-discipline, integrity,
trust and solidarity that sustain social capital. As
Amartya Sen (1993: 4951) points out, successful
capitalist economies both in the West and
East depend very much on the system of values
and norms embedded in their respective societies
and cultures. For example, Japan owes its economic
and business success not so much to the narrow
pursuit of prot maximisation but to the general
Japanese ethos and business ethics embodied in
varied non-prot motivations including honour,
trust, entrepreneurship, devotion to enterprise, self-
less work and so on. A rich fund of such social
capital will bring about a win-win situation for both
business and society. Moreover, common good
cannot be created and sustained single handedly. It
calls for cross-industry collaboration, involvement
of the business community in society and above all a
mutually enriching partnership between govern-
ment, businesses and civil society.
Economic development and involvement
of business communities
Developing a common good approach to business
that is truly integrative and serves the good of both
community and company is a complex and demand-
ing responsibility for a business leader. Effective
common good leadership typically requires local
knowledge if it is to be implemented at all levels from
customer relations and human resource management
to raw materials supply and corporate regulation. In
the Mauryan period the ethical duties of business
leadership were distributed throughout the state. The
kings rajadharma required him to ensure that the
pursuit of wealth in his kingdom was consistent with
the common good. However, the regulation of
business practice within the kingdom was not only
through the kings bureaucratic apparatus but
required the co-operation of merchants and other
business specialists, in particular the merchant guilds
(sreni) which were subject to their own srenidharma
(duties of the guild) (Majumdar 1922: 2528, Thapar
1992: 76). The urban merchant guilds which emerged
in the stable political environment of the Mauryan
state shared with the KautilyaAshoka approach an
understanding that wealth must be gained ethically
and that economic activity was at all times subject to
dharma. Within the Arthasastra tradition there is an
essential requirement that material gain is achieved
ethically. The power of the king is sustained only
when the creation of wealth is ethical that is, when
it conforms to rajadharma, benets the population
and supports their welfare.
In Kautilyas interpretation of the artha tradition,
sound economic management is essential if other
intangible assets such as the broader functioning of
dharma (duty and righteousness) and the legitimate
enjoyment of pleasure (kama) were to be achieved
within the population. If the king behaved unethi-
cally in economic matters, both tangible and
intangible assets would be lost and the well-being
of the whole kingdom would be affected (Kautilya
1992: 145 {1.7.8}). It is not surprising therefore that
not only the king but also the business specialists
the merchant guilds were bound by a sense of
ethical duty in economic affairs. The merchant
guilds expected their members to follow basic ethical
business practices included in srenidharma. Mer-
chant use of correct weights and measures, paying
correct wages and collecting appropriate levies on
their goods were enforced by the kings bureaucracy.
In the Arthasastra, for example: Adulteration of
grains, fats, sugars, salts, perfumes and medicines
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
320
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
with similar articles of no quality was punished with
a stiff ne of 1,000 panas. Merchants conspiring to
hoard [goods] with the aim of selling at a higher
price were ned the same amount (Kautilya 1992:
250 {4.2.22}; {4.2.19}).
Moreover, guild leadership played an essential
self-regulatory role, ensuring that local custom and
usage in business and other guild activities were
followed (Majumdar 1922: 2425). Those who
disrespected the code of conduct risked nes and
expulsion. The dharmasastric tradition recognised
the importance of specialist business activities to the
extent that even kings were required to respect the
local authority of guilds and their internal regulation
of economic activity according to srenidharma
(Majumdar 1922: 2526, Thapar 1992: 76, Kautilya
1992: 89 {4.1.23}; 340 {2.22.8, 15}). The Arthasas-
tra both recognised and made use of guild authority.
Kautilya, for example, records the guilds overall
responsibility for work given to them.
All goods entrusted to repairers of articles,
employers of [groups of] artisans, middlemen to
undertake to get work done as well as self-employed
artisans and craftsmen shall be covered by a
guarantee from the appropriate guild. The guild
shall be responsible for compensating [the owner] in
case of death of the person to whom the article was
entrusted (Kautilya 1992: 245 {4.1.23}).
While Arthasastra is a training manual which
explicitly mentions guilds and details the rules
governing the manufacture of goods and regulation
of services, Ashokas approach to economic manage-
ment is more difcult to discern. It can be found,
however, in his intense interest in creating conditions
in his empire that will benet all those within it.
Specically, Ashoka worked on projects which
supported the common good through providing
public good infrastructures which would not only
be for the enjoyment of man and beast but were of
specic benet to merchant guilds, traders and
artisans. Ashoka understood well that merchants
required not only good roads but rest and refresh-
ment places for themselves and for their horses and
buffalo which transported their goods. As Ashoka
told his people:
On the roads . . . I have had banyan-trees planted
to give shade to man and beast; groves . . . of
mango trees I have had planted; at every half-kos I
have had wells dug; rest houses, too, have been
erected; and numerous watering-places have been
provided by me here and there for the enjoyment
of man and beast.
(Smith 1920 [2002]: 209, PE VII)
The Mauryan government beneted hugely from
this infrastructure investment because the guilds, in
addition to taxes, provided concrete nancial sup-
port to the government in the form of direct deposits
of gold and coin, which like a government bond
could be withdrawn if necessary in times of hard-
ship. Guilds also supported the development of local
investment by lending money which even unscrupu-
lous kings could borrow through an intermediary
then claim loss through theft to avoid repayment
(Majumdar 1922: 2627).
King Ashokas interest in Buddhism also sup-
ported the aspirations of the increasingly wealthy
mercantile and business classes who were turning to
Buddhist philosophy as an alternative to Brahmanic
traditions. The merchant classes, traditionally
drawn from the Vaishya communities, could not
meet their growing aspirations for respect and social
status within the Brahmanic tradition which ranked
them as the lowest of the twice-born. The early
teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, which empha-
sised an equal capacity for merit among all the
Varnas (castes), offered the merchant guilds of the
Mauryan period an opportunity for a social and
ethical standing which seemed more tting to a
community with growing economic power (Darian
1977, Thapar 1996: 133). Ashoka worked closely
with the Buddhist sangha (community) and con-
tributed to creating a leadership environment, which
was conducive to the building of strong relationships
between merchant sangha and ruler. The monas-
teries, typically built along trade routes, provided
support to merchants by providing storehouses for
their goods and the deposit of money. More than
that they supported the generation of social capital
among the merchant guilds by providing a context
for philanthropic activities, particularly donations
of goods and funds to temples, and the public
display of their wealth in a way which increased the
merit of the merchant in this life and the next (Mitra
2007: 18).
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 321
Such mutually enriching partnerships among
various business groups on the one hand and
between government and business enterprises on
the other are today gaining importance. More
specically, under the banner of CSR and corporate
governance, contemporary business practice is
becoming increasingly engaged with many social
welfare activities ranging from the purely philan-
thropic to community support and sustainable
development. Some companies have begun deploy-
ing CSR to enhance public image, nurture innova-
tion and to gain competitive advantage in the
market (Prahalad & Hammond 2002, Porter &
Kramer 2006). Globalisation has also brought newer
complexities into this scenario. While on the one
hand globalisation has enabled companies to expand
and outsource their business internationally into
poorer nations and communities, there has not been
a matching level of accountability to different
stakeholders. Child labour, low wages, long work-
hours, ill health and poor working conditions are
crucial issues in the supply chain of developing
countries. In this regard, one important contribution
of the Mauryan guilds of Ancient India which
speaks to this contemporary oversight is their ability
to function in an intercontinental trading environ-
ment while remaining strongly accountable to their
local community. The basis for this local account-
ability was the governance structure of the guild,
which ensured member representation in the choice
of leadership and in decision making. Furthermore,
guilds were relatively small common interest groups,
typically no more than 1,000 members and drawn
from a range of communities with whom they
shared cultural and social characteristics. Although
guilds could be mobile and guild members and
families could shift together from town to town, at
the local village level only local co-operative guilds
were permitted to function. This connectedness
helped to embed the regulatory and disciplinary
practices of the guild in the local cultures (Majum-
dar 1922: 26, Thaplyal 2001: 9951006). It is easier
for globalised companies today to shirk their local
corporate responsibility and governance obligations
by ignoring the needs of local business communities
and choosing to operate in less regulated business
environments with fewer government protections for
local people and the environment. A constructive
CSR approach would include robust methods of
social accountability, which support the needs of
local business communities and thereby contribute
to the common good.
Teaching in common good leadership
Ashoka reminded his people: A good deed is a
difcult thing (Smith 1920 [2002]: 168, RE V).
Ancient Indian wisdom emphasises that the ability
to identify and promote the common good does not
always come naturally. It needs to be cultivated
through appropriate education and training. In the
above two sections we have highlighted that the
Ancient Indian tradition considered identication
and promotion of the common good to be an
essential trait of business and political leadership.
And yet, the Ancient Indian tradition as exemplied
in Kautilya and Ashoka never presumed that such
leadership qualities would come to everyone spon-
taneously. It therefore lays a strong emphasis on the
moral education and training of young as well as
experienced leaders. Drawing on this insight we can
derive three important leadership lessons for con-
temporary business management.
The rst relates to the importance of cultivating
inner qualities such as self-control through educa-
tion. Only a person with self-discipline is able to put
aside their immediate interests and focus on matters,
which contribute to the common good of the
community. In the corporate world, common good
would mean focusing on the larger purpose of the
company, and the well-being of its employees and
other stakeholders. There is debate in the ancient
sources about the relative importance of innate
qualities and education in the formation of leaders
capable of practising a common good approach.
Specically, there is a distinction between the earlier
Arthasastra tradition and Kautilyas own position
on the importance of education. According to the
Arthasastra tradition, the ethical leader needs to
have certain innate attributes to be successful but
also, if amenable to instruction, can be taught the
ethical behaviour necessary for the economic well-
being of the kingdom. Kautilya, however, deviates
from the earlier Arthasastra tradition by emphasis-
ing the importance of good character over education
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
322
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
as a basis for practising ethical and effective
leadership. Kautilya argues from an understanding
of ethical training as ongoing and ethical practice as
something learned on the job through continual
interaction with learned guides. In Kautilyas view
an essentially unethical character cannot be cor-
rected:
A deviant king, . . . is always bent on acting
contrary to the [right] teachings and, by his
injustice, ruins the kingdom himself. On the other
hand, [a]n unlearned king can be made to follow
the [right] courses of action, if advised by good
helpers.
(Kautilya 1992: 175 {8.2.912})
Kautilya thus emphasises the importance of leader-
ship training but warns that only those with
particular personal qualities in particular, self-
discipline will have the ability to actually learn
from and assimilate the leadership training received.
Only a leader with self-discipline will continue to
learn how to act for the common good as he meets
the challenges of his position (Kautilya 1992: 142
{1.5.16}).
Also, economic and business prosperity requires
leadership, which is grounded in self-management as
much as economic and state management. So
Kautilya advises: Self-control, which is the basis
of knowledge and discipline, is acquired by giving up
lust, anger, greed, conceit, arrogance and foolhardi-
ness . . . . A king who has no self-control and gives
himself up to excessive indulgence in pleasures will
soon perish, even if he is the ruler of all four corners
of the earth (Kautilya 1992: 144 {1.6.12.4}). To
reinforce this lesson Kautilya lists examples of kings
who lacked self-control and lost their power, their
kingdoms, kin and lives. Rather, he advises, the king
should follow the example of Jamadagnya and
Ambarisha, who had conquered their senses, [and]
long enjoyed their kingship on earth (Kautilya
1992: 144 {1.6.412}). Again the lesson is driven
home: ethics and economic leadership are essentially
inter-related; self-management is the foundation for
public management.
Moral education in self-control is a recurring
theme in the Ashokan Edicts in which Ashoka
presents himself as a leader striving to practise a life
of decorum and to promote the virtues associated
with self-control. In RE IV Ashoka explains to his
people how his commitment to the law of dharma
has deepened so that he rejects all forms of personal
and ritual excess and unseemly behaviour. His rule
has brought such virtues as increased abstention
from the killing of animate beings, seemly behaviour
(or courtesy) to relatives, seemly behaviour
to Brahmans and ascetics, hearkening to father
and mother, hearkening to elders (Smith 1920
[2002]: 165, RE IV).
Ashoka understands this approach to ethics as
genuinely for the common good in that it benets
both himself and his people and can be practised by
the poor as well as the powerful of the empire: Even
for a person to whom lavish liberality is impossible,
mastery over the senses, purity of mind, gratitude,
and steady devotion are altogether indispensable
(Smith 1920 [2002]: 175, RE VII). It is through this
ethical practice and its transmission to his people
that Ashoka sees the strength of his empire
continuing through the generations. The prosperity
and power of the Ashokan empire will continue
because the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons
of his Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King will
cause this practice of the law to increase until the
aeon of universal destruction . . . . Standing rm in
the Law of Piety and in morality they will inculcate
the Law (Smith 1920 [2002]: 16566, RE IV). For
Ashoka, the practice of artha meant the creation of a
sustainable empire, which was only possible with
ethical leadership based on self-control and the
dissemination of these values to every person.
Second, the effectiveness of the common good
approach relies heavily on the ability to empathise
with and listen to people at all levels. As mentioned
earlier, Ancient India was typically a hierarchical
society in terms of caste and class and hence
excluded many people from power and participa-
tion. Yet we do nd remarkable qualities in leaders
who were willing to consult inclusively and bring
about change and transformation in support of the
weaker elements of society. According to Kautilyas
Arthasastra, part of ensuring the security of the king
and of ethical leadership is the willingness to engage
directly not only with the most powerful stake-
holders in the kingdom but with the weaker
members of society. According to the duties of the
king stipulated in Arthasastra, of the 12 hour a day
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 323
to be spent on state duties, at least an hour and a
half were recommended for public audiences, to
hear petitions of city and country people (Kautilya
1992: 147 {1.19.6, 924}). In managing the wider
population, the leader is instructed to treat them
with courtesy and respect: When in court, the
Arthasastra stipulates, the king shall not make
petitioners wait at the door [but attend to them
promptly himself]. Listening to people is under-
stood to be an essential part of the decision-making
process of the kingdom since [w]hen a king makes
himself inaccessible to his people, and he is seen
[only] by those near him, wrong decisions are bound
to be made. As in all areas of artha, Kautilya warns
that wrong decisions have direct repercussions for
the security of the king, making the people angry
and rebellious against his leadership (Kautilya 1992:
148 {1.19.2628}).
The ethical leader who follows the precepts of
dharma and seeks to retain his material prosperity
and power must attend not only to those of elevated
rank gods and deities but also to the weaker
members of the population minors, the aged, the
sick, the handicapped, the helpless and women
(Kautilya 1992: 148 {1.19.29}). While the king is
instructed to be ever active in the management of
the economy since the root of wealth is [economic]
activity and the lack of it [brings] material distress,
it is not only for the benet of the royal stakeholders
but for the broader population: It is the people who
constitute a kingdom; like a barren cow, a kingdom
without people yields nothing (Kautilya 1992: 116
{7.11. 24, 25}).
Even for effective resolution and management of
conicts, ecumenical and conciliatory approaches are
found to be favourable. Mixing practical advice with
regulation and theory, Kautilya, for example, points
out that that there are four standard methods of
resolving conicts available to the leader: conciliation,
placating with gifts, sowing dissension and use of
force. He, however, recommends that rst and the
easiest of these, conciliation be given priority though
in practice a mixture of the four may be necessary
(Kautilya 1992: 113115 {2.10.47; 9.6.5661}). Asho-
ka follows the Arthasastra tradition in his effort to
develop toleration and concord between the various
and sometimes rival religious groups in his vast
empire by doing reverence to men of all sects,
whether ascetics or householders, by gifts and various
forms of reverence. As a means of maintaining peace
among the peoples of the empire, and in so doing
maintaining prosperity, Ashoka encourages his people
also in hearkening and hearkening willingly to the
Law of Piety as accepted by other people (Smith 1920
[2002]: 182183, RE XII). Even towards the forest
folk who historically acted as both a threat to the
empire and a form of internal surveillance, Ashoka
promised to use force only as a last resort (Smith 1920
[2002]: 186, RE XIII, Parasher-Sen 1998).
The third ethical contribution to common good
leadership which can be derived from the Arthasas-
traAshoka approach is the ability and willingness
of leaders to reect upon the consequences of ones
decisions and actions and change them if necessary.
Stubbornness and self-righteous attitudes were seen
as detrimental to effective leadership. Ashoka, as a
good leader, reects on the direct human impact of
his actions in ordering the conquest of Kalinga and
uses his emotional intelligence to interpret the
signicance of his experience. Ashoka notes that
he had been a lay Buddhist for eight years before the
conquest of Kalinga in which [o]ne hundred and
fty thousand persons were . . . carried away captive,
one hundred thousand were there slain, and many
times that number died. Rather than a triumphant
statement of power typical of such public royal
memorialisation of conquests, Ashoka states that
this victory had radically altered his ethical position:
Directly after the Kalingas had been annexed began
His Sacred Majestys zealous protection of the Law
of Piety, his love of that Law, and his inculcation of
that Law (Smith 1920 [2002]: 185186, RE XIII).
A critical reading of the Kalinga incident would
be that, having inherited an enormous kingdom
built by his father and grandfather, the conquest of
Kalinga brought the last remaining free peninsular
territories under Mauryan control. Consequently,
Ashoka could easily renounce warfare as a means of
expanding his empire and its resource base. How-
ever, it is important to emphasise that the Edict is
unique in its expression of profound sorrow and
regret for the sufferings of people of every commu-
nity who were in themselves leading good lives
according to their own traditions. Not only had such
people suffered violence (or injury), or slaughter,
or separation from their loved ones but because of
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
324
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
the conquest of Kalinga, violence had happened to
the friends, acquaintances, comrades, and relatives
of those who are themselves well protected, while
their affection [for those injured] continues undi-
minished. Ashoka publicly displays an unusual
insight in recognising the grief for the sufferings of
others felt among the friends and family of those
affected by the massacre: Thus for them also that is
a mode of violence, and the share of this distributed
among all men is a matter of regret to His Sacred
Majesty . . . (Smith 1920 [2002]: 185186, RE XIII).
The three leadership qualities of the common
good approach self-discipline, the capacity to
empathise and listen, and the mindfulness to weigh
the consequences of ones decisions and actions
have important ramications for contemporary
business leadership and management. In todays
business scenario, being a leader is more than
making tough ethical decisions which involve
choosing between what we know to be right and
wrong (Badaracco 1998, Gellerman 2003, Gardner
2007). It has to do with facing dening moments
which challenge us in a radical way by asking us to
choose between two or more equally compelling
ideals in which we believe. These decisions have
often more than one correct response. Over time,
these decisions form the basis of an individuals
character and identity because they demand a
constant self-examination and refocus of core values
and principles. As Badaracco (1998) notes, there are
three types of dening moments in todays work
setting and that self-discipline and character forma-
tion can take place at three levels. The rst concerns
personal identity. It raises the question: who am I?
The second deals with groups as well as individuals.
It raises the question: who are we? The third relates
to dening the companys place in society. It raises
the question: who is the company? Hence business
prosperity and corporate well-being are inextricably
intertwined with the personal integrity of leaders.
Taking a cue from the Ancient wisdom of
Kautilya and Ashoka, we can see that behind almost
all the contemporary instances of corporate scandal
and collapse is a lack of self-discipline and character
on the part of leaders. While systemic failure,
negligence by independent directors of companies,
complicity by auditors or an inadequate national
and international regulatory framework are some of
the visible reasons for corporate breakdown, lack of
personal integrity of leaders must be acknowledged
as a more fundamental reason (Clarke et al. 2003,
Collins 2009). Blinded by incessant greed and prot-
maximisation, leaders have not been willing to look
beyond their narrow self-interest. They have shirked
their responsibility for creating and maintaining the
common good, which will be benecial to everyone.
It is rarely the case that big thieves become big
thieves overnight. They start out with something
small. People do show some signs of dishonesty,
insincerity and cheating long before they are caught.
Either the person lives beyond his means, has a
lavish lifestyle or in the larger interest of the
company encourages minor unethical practices.
And if the person happens to be the owner of the
company or an employee who is good at his work,
there is almost an unwritten rule that one should
turn a blind eye. If this situation needs to be
reversed, the emphasis should not be just on external
regulation such as stringent laws and regulations.
Often such measures cannot eliminate wrongdoing,
they can only discourage it. The answer lies equally
in the self-regulation and character renement of
individuals, groups and companies. Young and
experienced managers need to be educated and
encouraged to be exemplars of integrity. Corporate
experience shows that from a social learning theory
perspective attention to the common good occurs as
a function of observing, learning and then repeating
forms of behaviour observed in other role models
(Brown et al. 2005: 119120).
It is well known that personal integrity and
humility go together. Only a leader who is honest
will also have the openness and moral courage to
weigh the impact of her decisions and actions on
others. Invariably many corporate decisions can
have unforeseen consequences for different stake-
holders such as customers, employees and society.
And sometimes even planned and anticipated
consequences can have ramications, which over
time only gradually unfold. In such predicaments,
what Ashokas life suggests is a willingness to reect
empathically on the human impact of damaging
decisions. This will not only pave the way for true
reparation and compensation to victims, but also
suggest ways to prevent the recurrence of such
disasters.
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 325
Conclusion
This paper draws on ancient leadership tradition to
develop a common good approach, which asserts the
necessity of creating tangible and intangible assets
of benet not only to economic leadership but to the
broader society. The KautilyaAshoka approach
proposes three key insights into the contemporary
formulation of a common good business ethics.
First, ethical leadership at all levels of society is
essential if wealth creation is to be sustainable and
of genuine social benet. Second, to be truly
effective, leaders must be alert to the opportunity
to implement common good approaches in all
aspects of corporate decision making and inspire
others to do the same. Third, common good
leadership ability requires a combination of innate
and learned qualities and is best nurtured by
ongoing moral leadership education, based in
reection upon lived experience and action com-
mitted to social benet.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding
received from the Indian Centre for Cultural
Relations Visiting Scholar Fellowship. The authors
are also grateful for the institutional support
received from Loyola Institute of Business
Administration, Chennai, India and the School of
Humanities and New Zealand South Asia
Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Notes
1. While tangible assets refer to nancial and
material resources, which can be quantied,
intangible assets refer to social and cultural
values that are embedded in society. In the current
management practice, it is emphasised that in-
tangible resources are as important as tangible
resources for a sustainable business.
2. The notion of common good developed here is
developed from the experience and example of the
Indian tradition. A similar concept can also be
found in Western philosophical tradition. Quentin
Skinner (1998) and Philip Pettit (1997) enunciate
and develop the concept of the common good (res
publica) as embedded in Western tradition and
political philosophy. Also, see Charles Taylor
(1995) for a critical exploration of this idea in
Western tradition and philosophy. For the idea of
common good as understood by Thomas Aquinas,
see Finnis (1998).
3. Kautilya is also known as Chanakya and Vishnu-
gupta. Scholars and researchers have described
Kautilya as a rare mastermind who became an
expert in different elds like economics, manage-
ment, politics, law, military science and govern-
ance. Often, he is also called the kingmaker for
bringing down the Nanda dynasty and establishing
his able student Chandragupta Maurya on the
throne as the Emperor.
4. During the period of Ashokas rule the kings
dharma was not a xed legal entity but a complex
of tradition, custom and law which drew not only
on Indian Brahmanic tradition but also that of the
unorthodox Buddhist and Jain philosophies. The
principal expression of rajadharma as it explicitly
relates to economy and social welfare remains,
however, that expressed in the literature of
Arthasastra.
5. Following Rangarajans referencing system, the
verse numbers in double brackets {} refer to the
verse numbers in Kangle, The Kautiliya Arthasas-
tra Part 1 (text) and Part II (translation), second
edition, University of Bombay 1969 (Rangarajan
1992a, b, authors note).
6. References to the Edicts of Ashoka will be to Pillar
Edict (PE) and Rock Edict (RE) as they appear in
Smith (1920 [2002]).
References
Badaracco, J.L. 1998. The discipline of build-
ing character. Harvard Business Review, 76:2, 114
125.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. 2005.
Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective
for construct development and testing. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97:2,
117134.
Chamola, S.D. 2007. Kautilya Arthasastra and the
Science of Management: Relevance for the Contem-
porary Society. Gurgaon: Hope India Publications.
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
326
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Clarke, F.L., Dean, G.W. and Oliver, K.G. 2003.
Corporate Collapse: Accounting, Regulatory and Ethi-
cal Failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, J. 2009. How the Mighty Fall. London:
HarperCollins.
Darian, J.C. 1977. Social and economic factors in the
rise of Buddhism. Sociological Analysis, 38:3,
226238.
Drucker, P.F. 2008. Management, Revised edition.
New York: HarperCollins.
Finnis, J. 1998. Aquinas: Moral, Political and Legal
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, H. 2007. The ethical mind. Harvard
Business Review, 85:3, 5156.
Gellerman, S.W. 2003. Why good managers make
bad ethical choices. In Harvard Business Review on
Corporate Ethics: 4966. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Kautilya. 1992. The Arthasastra. L. N. Rangarajan
(trans. & ed.). New Delhi: Penguin.
Kumar, S.N. and Rao, U.S. 1996. Guidelines for
value based management in Kautilyas Arthasastra.
Journal of Business Ethics, 15:4, 415423.
Majumdar, R.C. 1922. Corporate Life in Ancient India.
Poona: The Oriental Book Agency [Bibliolife
reproduction].
Mitra, M. 2007. Its Only Business! Indias Corporate
Responsiveness in a Globalized World. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Parasher-Sen, A. 1998. Of tribes, hunters and barbar-
ians: forest dwellers in the Mauryan period. Studies
in History, 14:2, 174190.
Pettit, P. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom
and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pillai, R. 2010. Corporate Chanakya. New Delhi: Jaico
Books.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, R. 2006. Strategy and
society: the link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business
Review, 84:12, 7892.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hammond, A. 2002. Serving the
worlds poor, protably. Harvard Business Review,
80:9, 4857.
Rangarajan, L.N. 1992a. Introduction. In Kautilya,
The Arthasastra. L. N. Rangarajan (trans. & ed.):
1341. New Delhi: Penguin.
Rangarajan, L.N. 1992b. The Kautilyan state and
society. In Kautilya, The Arthasastra. L. N. Ran-
garajan (trans. & ed.): 4298. New Delhi: Penguin.
Sen, A. 1993. Does business ethics make economic
sense?. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3:1, 4554.
Skinner, Q. 1998. Liberty before Liberalism. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, V.A. 1920. [2002]. Asoka: The Buddhist
Emperor of India, 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon
Press. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Sridhar, M.K. and Bilimoria, P. 2007. Animal ethics
and ecology in classical India reections on a
moral tradition. In Bilimoria, P. and Prabhu, J.
(Eds.), Indian Ethics: 217350. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Taylor, C. 1995. Irreducibly social goods. In Philo-
sophical Arguments: 127145. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Thapar, R. 1992. Imagined religious communities?
Ancient history and the modern search for a
Hindu identity. In Thapar, R. (Ed.), Interpreting
Early India: 6088. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Thapar, R. 1996. Ancient Indian Social History: Some
Interpretations. Hyderabad: Orient Longman.
Thaplyal, K.K. 2001. Guilds in ancient India (anti-
quity and various stages in the development of
guilds up to AD 300). In Pande, G.C. (Ed.), Life
Thoughts and Culture in India: 9951006. Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
Business Ethics: A European Review
Volume 20 Number 4 October 2011
r 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 327