Abstract
Modern firms acknowledge the advantages in acting ethically. For some time, the goal of shareholder profit maximization has shared the stage with objectives that benefit a broader group of stakeholders. Such benefits can be attractive to not only employees and consumers, but increasingly to investors as well. Whether it is called corporate social responsibility, sustainability, or ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), firms now routinely plan and report such ethical efforts. However, the notion of the ethical firm cannot escape the business operation itself. Some firms present ethical quandaries by the very nature of the products they sell or the stakeholders they engage. If a business creates unavoidable harm to society, ethical strategies may only go so far to ameliorate the overall impact. So-called “controversial” industries or “sin stocks” include traditional morally problematic endeavors like tobacco, alcohol, and gambling but may also include industries with an evolving assessment of harm such as fossil fuel production or mining. Arguably, ethical approaches are even more important here, as safer or more responsible strategies can help legitimize the very existence of such firms. In this Article, we consider an emerging controversial industry as a context for increasing firm legitimacy: cannabis “edibles.” For years, cannabis products have existed at the margins of the legal marketplace but are now poised to go mainstream. In particular, cannabis edibles allow for easy and discrete access to an enjoyable experience and have the potential to provide significant medical benefits. But edibles also create extremely serious harm, particularly to vulnerable populations like children. This Article considers the unique issues presented by edibles as the largest growing product in the emerging cannabis market and proposes a path forward for an ethical firm to mitigate (some of) its sins. Our proposal envisions an important role for firms and regulators and suggests that firms work within regulation as well as independently.
Recommended Citation
Hannah R. Weiser & Daniel R. Cahoy,
Ethical Edibles,
60
U. Rich. L. Rev.
503
(2026).
Available at:
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol60/iss2/7
