Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research agenda explores justifiable firm reactions to industry-threatening controversies on products in various sectors.
Most discussions in mainstream normative business ethics assume that firms belong to industries that society welcomes or tolerates. However, some industries face industry-threatening controversies. In these controversies, a significant set of actors sees the industry’s core product as deeply problematic, and call for it to be phased-down or phased-out. Older examples include the tobacco and coal industries, and newer examples include the social media and AI industries. Even if industry actors agree their product is deeply problematic, controversies about the manner of the phase-out or phase-down arise. This paper develops the concept of an industry-threatening controversy over deeply problematic products and explains why it is an important topic in business ethics. It lays out an expansive research agenda for future work in normative business ethics that explores which kinds of reactions by firms to industry-level controversies might be justifiable or unjustifiable across domains such as production, marketing, research, collaboration, and political activity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ewan Kingston (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: