This paper focuses on the issue of justice as a challenge facing business and society. I advance a simple deductive argument based on two premises. The first emerges out of theories of justice and holds that fairness, as a foundational basis for justice, demands impartiality or the avoidance of bias. The second emerges out of fiduciary law and holds that the duty of loyalty owed by managers to serve the interests of investors is fundamentally partial or biased. The conclusion is the troubling fact that the fiduciary duty of loyalty owed by managers to serve the interests of investors appears to be incompatible with the demands of justice. Having presented this, I describe the impartiality tools of Rawls’ veil of ignorance and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator and discuss how these might be applied in this context. I speculate that while Smith’s impartial spectator is absolutely incommensurable with managers’ fiduciary duty of loyalty, Rawls’ veil of ignorance might be used to imagine a synthesis between this duty of loyalty and the impartiality demands of justice – in theory at least. And finally, as a parting shot, I wonder whether the real “Leadership Challenge that Matters” isn’t the gap between theory and reality.

中文翻译：

---

克服作为“重要的领导力挑战”的司法义职所施加的限制

本文将重点放在正义问题上，这是企业和社会面临的挑战。我基于两个前提提出了一个简单的演绎论证。第一种是从正义理论中产生的，并认为作为正义的基础基础的公平要求公正或避免偏见。第二种是从信托法产生的，它认为管理者为服务于投资者的利益而承担的忠诚义务在根本上是偏颇的或有偏见的。结论是令人不安的事实，即管理者为服务于投资者的利益而承担的忠诚忠实义务似乎与正义的要求不符。介绍了这一点之后，我描述了罗尔斯无知之幕的公正工具和亚当·斯密的公正旁观者，并讨论了如何在这种情况下运用这些工具。我推测，尽管史密斯的公正旁观者与管理者的忠实义务绝对不相称，但罗尔斯的无知面纱可用于想象这种忠实义务与正义的公正要求之间的综合-至少在理论上如此。最后，作为分手，我想知道真正的“至关重要的领导力挑战”是否不是理论与现实之间的鸿沟。