A Stakeholder-Theoretical Reading of Avicenna's Tadbīr al-Manzil: A Tripartite Analysis for Contemporary Business Ethics
This paper employs Stakeholder Theory's tripartite framework to conduct a comparative analysis of Avicenna's classical Islamic concept of household management (*tadbīr al-manzil*) and modern business ethics, revealing both shared emphases on relational justice and foresight while highlighting fundamental divergences in their hierarchical structures, ultimate goals, and normative foundations.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For centuries, philosophers have asked how people should live together, how families should be run, and how economic life connects to a good life. In the modern world, business leaders often look to "stakeholder theory" to answer these questions. This is a way of thinking that says a company is not just a machine for making money for its owners, but a network of relationships involving employees, customers, and the community, all of whom deserve fair treatment. On the other side of history, there is the work of Avicenna, a brilliant Persian philosopher from the eleventh century. He wrote about "household management," a concept that goes far beyond simple budgeting. For Avicenna, running a home was a moral practice, a way to teach virtues and prepare people for a life of happiness and spiritual fulfillment. He saw the family as a small society where everyone had a role to play, guided by ancient laws and a deep sense of duty.
A new study brings these two worlds together. It asks whether Avicenna's ancient guide for running a family can be understood through the lens of modern business ethics. The researcher, Farah Ramin, did not try to prove that Avicenna was a modern businessman. Instead, she used the three main parts of stakeholder theory as a tool to read Avicenna's old text. The first part looks at how the system is built and who is involved. The second part looks at how the system works to achieve its goals. The third part looks at the moral reasons why the system should exist in the first place. By applying this modern framework to an ancient text, the study reveals that while the two ideas share a surprising amount of common ground, they are built on very different foundations.
The study begins by looking at the structure of the groups involved. In modern stakeholder theory, a business is seen as a web of connections where different groups, like workers and customers, have a say in how things run. Avicenna described the household in a similar way, as a network of people working together. He listed the husband, the wife, the children, and even the servants as essential parts of the whole. Each person had a specific job, and the success of the family depended on how well they cooperated. However, there is a clear difference in how they are organized. Avicenna's model is hierarchical, meaning it is built on a clear order of authority where the husband leads and others follow specific roles based on their place in the family. Modern stakeholder theory, by contrast, tends to view these relationships as more equal, where no single group is automatically more important than the others just because of who they are.
When the study looks at how these systems work to achieve their goals, the similarities become even more interesting. Both Avicenna and modern business thinkers agree that managing relationships is key to success. Avicenna argued that a family needs to save money for hard times, teach children a trade, and treat workers with kindness. He believed that if a family member was treated poorly, the whole household would suffer. This mirrors the modern idea that treating employees well leads to a more stable and productive company. Both approaches also agree that you cannot just chase profit or resources without thinking about fairness. Avicenna warned against spending too much or being too stingy, suggesting that a balanced approach keeps the family safe and happy. Modern management agrees that fairness and long-term planning are necessary for a business to survive. Yet, the reason for doing these things is different. For Avicenna, doing a good job at managing the home was a step toward becoming a perfect human being and finding happiness in this life and the next. For modern business, the goal is usually to keep the company running smoothly and creating value for everyone involved.
The deepest difference between the two ideas lies in why they believe they are right. Modern stakeholder theory is built on the idea that people have rights and that fairness is a matter of social agreement. It suggests that because people work together, they owe each other respect. Avicenna's system is built on something deeper and older. He believed that the rules for running a home came from divine law and the natural order of things. For him, being a good manager was not just about following a contract or being fair; it was about following a path to spiritual perfection. He believed that every action, from how you spend money to how you treat a servant, was part of a larger moral journey. While modern theory asks what is fair for the group, Avicenna asked what is right for the soul.
The study concludes that while Avicenna did not invent modern stakeholder theory, his ideas offer a powerful way to think about business ethics today. His work reminds us that economic life is not just about numbers or efficiency, but about character and how we treat one another. The modern approach gives us tools to manage complex organizations and listen to many different voices. Avicenna's ancient wisdom offers a reminder that these actions should be guided by a deeper sense of purpose and virtue. The researcher suggests that if we can combine the practical tools of modern management with the deep moral vision of the past, we might find better ways to run our organizations. This would mean building companies that are not only successful but also help people become better versions of themselves. The study does not claim to have solved all the problems of business ethics, but it opens a door for a conversation between two very different traditions, showing that the search for a good way to live and work is a journey that spans centuries.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.