Is there a transatlantic divide?

Purpose Drucker has often been criticized for his pejorative interpretation of business ethics and the use of the term “casuistry”. This paper aims to show that Drucker was just the opposite of unethical in his viewpoint regarding the behavior of managers and organizations, and that in fact much of his writings pointed to discourse‐ethics‐universalism and away from casuistic particularism. Specifically, the paper seeks to analyze and contrast the ways in which US and European institutions take action (a “transatlantic divide”) when management and society eventually reposition their stance on ethics, as forecast by Drucker. Design/methodology/approach This is a comparative study emphasizing the main day‐to‐day perspectives of ethical issues in businesses and how they are handled in the USA and in Europe. This is complemented by references to what Drucker's position would be on those issues and how he would have shown that “good ethics” serves to ensure that entrepreneurial energies end up by serving society and not destroying it. Findings The paper provides an insight about how change is successfully brought about in current management practices by adhering to discourse and right behavior as pointed out by Drucker. It suggests that leaders acting responsibly are intrinsically ethical and will transfer their individual positions into their organization. Research limitations/implications The research primarily concentrates around the implications of Drucker's writings on the “transatlantic divide” and does not extensively explore how this relates to businesses in Asia and other areas outside the Western world. Practical implications The paper displays a number of standards and guidelines that have been adopted by practitioners and thus provides an input for further applications. Businesses that have adopted Drucker's philosophies will find useful directions on how to connect them to other philosophical developments. Originality/value This paper fulfils an identified need to reject claims that Drucker is an “efficiency enthusiast” pursuing “global change in a manner that has little to do with minimal standards of human decency, to say nothing of democracy, much less of emancipation”. It proves that the changes and the repositioning required for the current economic situation need a full understanding of Drucker in all respects of his work.