"Do Internal Due Process System Permit Adequate Political and Moral Space for Ethics Voice, Praxis, and Community?"

Internal due process systems are the formal mechanisms thatmany organizations use to address and resolve ethics conflicts.Problematical due process systems such asinvestigation-punishment and grievance-arbitration systemsnarrowly constrain the political and moral space needed formeaningful ethics voice, praxis, and community. The relativelyuncommon employee board and mediator-counselor types of systemscan help solve such problems. The employee board andmediator-counselor systems permit questioning not only of guiltwith respect to policy violations but also the appropriateness ofthe policies as well as potential biases in an organization'sembedded tradition-system that may be contributing to unethicalbehavior. Theoretical implications for organization ethics,praxis, community, and integrative social contracts theories areexplored. Several case examples are discussed.     

Assessing the needs of assisted reproductive technology users of an online bulletin board

Consumers who are infertile and decide to use assisted reproductive technologies undergo lengthy, expensive and potentially risky medical procedures in their quest for a pregnancy and a live birth. In this research we use a consumer model of decision making to analyse the process. We review information available to consumers and we assess use of an online bulletin board which gives consumers social support and medical information during the process. We conclude with the needs for consumer education and protection.     

Ethics and accounting doctoral education

This paper expands the literature on accounting ethics education by considering the teaching of ethics in accounting doctoral education. Some of the ethical issues that might be addressed in accounting doctoral education are reviewed. A number of matters relating to teaching ethics to accounting doctoral students are considered. The paper concludes with a summary and some final remarks.Stephen E. Loeb is Professor and Chairman of Accounting and the Ernst & Young Alumni Professor of Auditing, University of Maryland at College Park. He has previously authored or coauthored articles that have been published in theJournal of Business Ethics and currently serves on the editorial board of theJournal of Business Ethics.     

An Investigation of Ethics Officer Independence

In this paper, we examine whether ethics officers are able to perform their assigned duties independently of organizational management. Specifically, we investigate whether inherent conflicts of interest with company management potentially hinder the ability of ethics officers to serve as an effective monitor and deterrent of unethical activity throughout the organization. As part of our analysis, we conducted 10 detailed phone interviews with current and retired ethics officers in order to determine whether practicing ethics officers feel the need for additional independence protection from management. We propose that the current system in which ethics officers report to management must be changed in order for ethics officers to effectively perform their jobs. Specifically, we maintain that ethics officers should (1) be hired by, (2) be fired by, and (3) report directly to the corporate board of directors rather than company management. Such a change in the reporting environment would greatly enhance the independence of ethics officers. W. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., is the founding Executive Director of the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College. He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst, has authored or edited 16 books, and has published over 70 articles. In addition, Dr. Hoffman was the first Executive Director of the Ethics Officer Association and currently is the advisor to its board of directors. John D. Neill, Ph.D., CPA, is a professor of accounting at Abilene Christian University and has previously published articles in numerous journals including the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Accounting Literature, Accounting Horizons, Journal of Applied Business Research, the Financial Analysts Journal, and the Journal of Accounting, Ethics, and Public Policy. O. Scott Stovall, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of accounting at Abilene Christian University and has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Business Research, Management Accounting Quarterly, and The Journal of Accounting Case Research.     

An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics Research in Strategic Management Journal: 1996–2005

From a corporate governance perspective, one of the most important jobs of a firm’s top management team is to create and maintain a positive moral environment. Business ethics has long been considered a cornerstone in the field of strategic management and a number of scholars have called for more research in this area over the years. In this paper 658 articles that appeared in Strategic Management Journal over the 10-year period between 1996 and 2005 are reviewed for business ethics focus and content. The results reveal that while business ethics research in Strategic Management Journal is on the rise, the overall focus on this research stream has been limited. The most prominent ethics theme during the review period was environmentalism, accounting for 30% of all ethics articles. Author affiliations, future research directions, and implications are also discussed.     

Personalist Business Ethics and Humanistic Management: Insights from Jacques Maritain

The integration of personalism into business ethics has been recently studied. Research has also been conducted on humanistic management approaches. The conceptual relationship between personalism and humanism, however, has not been fully addressed. This article furthers that research by arguing that a true humanistic management is personalistic. Moreover, it claims that personalism is promising as a sound philosophical foundation for business ethics. Insights from Jacques Maritain’s work are discussed in support of these conclusions. Of particular interest is his distinction between human person and individual based on a realistic metaphysics that, in turn, grounds human dignity and the natural law as the philosophical basis for human rights, personal virtues, and a common good defined in terms of properly human ends. Although Maritain is widely regarded as one of the foremost twentieth century personalist philosophers, his contribution has not been sufficiently considered in the business ethics and humanistic management literature. Important implications of Maritainian personalism for business ethics as philosophical study and as practical professional pursuit are discussed.     

The institutionalization of organizational ethics

The institutionalization of ethics is an important task for today's organizations if they are to effectively counteract the increasingly frequent occurrences of blatantly unethical and often illegal behavior within large and often highly respected organizations. This article discusses the importance of institutionalizing organizational ethics and emphasizes the importance of several variables (psychological contract, organizational commitment, and an ethically-oriented culture) to the institutionalization of ethics within any organization.... institutionalizing ethics may sound ponderous, but its meaning is straightforward. It means getting ethics formally and explicitly into daily business life. It means getting ethics into company policy formation at the board and top management levels and through a formal code, getting ethics into all daily decision making and work practices down the line, at all levels of employment. It means grafting a new branch on the corporate decision tree — a branch that reads right/wrong (Purcell and Weber, 1979, p. 6). Ronald R. Sims has been an Associate Professor of Business Administration at the College of William and Mary since 1986. He is the author of more than fifty scholarly papers and chapters and these books: An Experiential Learning Approach to Employee Training Systems, and co-author of Readings in Organizational Behavior, and Managing Institutions of Higher Education into the 21st Century: Issues and Implications, both forthcoming.     

The transactional ethic: The ethical foundations of free enterprise reconsidered

A review of the evolution of the ethical foundations of free enterprise reveals the essentially utilitarian ethical foundation prevailing today. To enrich those foundations the article attempts to establish the ethical validity of free transactions by relating them to the basic principle of interpersonal ethics: the Golden Rule. The validity of the transactional ethic is presented as an articulation of freedom in a valid social and economic context. Jeffrey A. Barach is Professor of Management, A. B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University. His DBA ('67), MBA ('61), and AB ('56) are from Harvard. His interests include business ethics, business policy and marketing. He has published articles and cases in these areas and on pedagogy. His text Individual, Business, and Society was published in 1977. Recent articles concern social marketing (Business Horizons), management of family firms (Sloan Management Review), and the ethics of hardball (California Management Review).John B. Elstrott, Jr., is the Sponsored Research Coordinator at the Freeman School of Business, Tulane University. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Colorado (1975). His interests include business ethics, entrepreneurship, economic development, and environmental economics. He is working on several interdisciplinary research projects including one on economic evaluation of solid waste management alternatives. Dr. Elstrott is an active entrepreneur and serves on the board of several profit and not for profit corporations.     

Best practices in ethics management: Insights from a qualitative study in Slovakia

Voluminous growth of new ethics management elements in corporate practice implies the need to enrich its theoretical understanding. Most studies delineate ethics management conventionally as measures primarily applied for establishing ethical norms and employee compliance. Furthermore, many models are somewhat limited in scope and amount of presented practices and usually do not conceptualize ethics management functions beyond traditional compliance‐integrity discussion. In addition, most models are not grounded in empirical research. With the aim to contribute to ethics management theory and bridge it with practice, this study employs a constructivist approach and maps best practices in ethics management via four focus groups with management professionals. Results suggest that ethics management can be viewed as a fundamentally participative and collaborative process, as a way of building relationships with external stakeholders, balancing structured planning and flexible change, and profoundly amalgamating with human resource management processes. Furthermore, in an Inventory of best practices encompassing 70 ethics practices, this study outlines nine functional subprocesses as key aspects of ethics management’s practical implementation. As the research was conducted in Slovakia, this study provides unique information on the recent developments in ethics management in one of the post‐transitional countries in the region of Central and Eastern Europe.     

The Untapped Relevance of Moral Development Theory in the Study of Business Ethics

The construct of cognitive moral development seemingly has powerful practical relevance in many areas of life. Nonetheless, moral reasoning seems of marginal relevance at best in the context of business ethics. Simply put, moral reasoning measurement indices are often only weakly related to many other apparently pertinent variables, and such findings cast doubt upon the construct validity of cognitive moral development. Many such unexpectedly weak relationships, however, may stem from two largely unrecognized methodological artifacts. The first artifact is an almost total reliance on the P index of the Defining Issues Test (DIT) designed to assess moral development even when this index may be inappropriate in a particular context. A second artifact that seems particularly salient in the context of attitudes toward authority involves a not always appropriate reliance on samples that include respondents whose moral reasoning is uncoupled from their action choices. These artifacts may restrict the amount of variance explained in observed relationships, and thus constrain the potential for moral reasoning to understand and explain behavior and attitudes relevant in the context of business ethics. Researchers are urged to use DIT D scores (in addition to P scores) in specific situations, and to examine relationships among high DIT U scorers whose moral reasoning is tightly coupled with their action choices. The application of these guidelines may have profound implications for advancing our fundamental understanding of moral reasoning, and of increasing its relevance to business ethics.     

Measuring moral judgment: The Moral Judgment Interview or the Defining Issues Test?

This paper compares and contrasts two distinct techniques for measuring moral judgment: The Moral Judgment Interview and the Defining Issues Test. The theoretical foundations, accompanying advantages and limitations, as well as appropriate usage of these methodologies are discussed. Adaptation and use of the instruments for business ethics research is given special attention.Dawn Elm is currently an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. Dr. Elm has written and published articles on ethical decision-making, moral reasoning, defining and measuring honesty, and women's studies and ethics. She also has research interests in socialization to work, gender bias imagery in teaching business, and parental leave policies.James Weber is currently an Assistant Professor of Management at Marquette University. He has published articles focusing on managerial values and moral reasoning, teaching of ethics, and methodological issues in business ethics research inResearch in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Human Relations, Business Ethics Quarterly, and Journal of Business Ethics.     

Is business ethics philosophy or sophism?

The contrast between the philosopher and the sophist is subtle and significant. The significant difference is identified by Socrates when he claims, in the Apology 21d, to be the wisest man in Athens: “Neither of us has any knowledge to boast of, but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance.” Nearly two and one half millennia later, business ethics has transported street corner conversation into the meeting room and board room, where ethical leadership is cultivated or stifled. Are these conversations about ethics philosophy, or are they sophism? In this paper, I will evaluate the philosophical soundness of business ethics as it is practiced in business situations. My objective will be to outline the unfulfilled value of philosophical wisdom to ensuring the value of business ethics, and business, to society at large.     

Rules of the game: whose value is served when the board fires the owners?

How does a board of directors decide what is right? The contest over this question is frequently framed as a debate between shareholder value and stakeholder rights, between a utilitarian view of the ethics of corporate governance and a deontological one. This paper uses a case study with special circumstances that allows us to examine in an unusually clear way the conflict between shareholder value and other bases on which a board can act. In the autumn of 2010, the board of Liverpool Football Club sold the company to another investing group against the explicit wishes of the owners. The peculiar circumstances of this case provide insight into the conflict between ethical approaches to board decisions, allowing us to see certain issues more clearly than we can in listed corporations with many shareholders. What the analysis suggests is that the board saw more than one type of utility on which to base its ethical decision, and that one version resonated with perceived duties to stakeholders. This alignment of outcomes of strategic value with duties contrasted with the utility of shareholder value. While there are reasons to be cautious in generalizing, the case further suggests reasons why boards may reject shareholder value, in opposition to mainstream notions of corporate governance, without rejecting utility as a base of their decisions. Further, the partial alignment of duty and utility facilitates a pragmatic decision rather than one based on a priori claims.     

The Unholy Alliance of Business and Science

This paper will build on a recent article appearing in the Harvard Business Review that blamed the alleged crisis in management education on the scientific model that has been adopted as the sole means of gaining knowledge about human behavior and organizations. The solution, they argue, is for business schools to realize that business management is not a scientific discipline but a profession, and deal with the things a professional education requires. We will expand on this article and discuss its implications by looking at the scientific model from a philosophical perspective and dealing with the issue of whether management is a profession. Our discussion of these issues has implications for our understanding of business in society and the design of the business school curriculum. Rogene A. Buchholz is the Legendre-Soule Chair in Business Ethics Emeritus in the College of Business Administration at Loyola University of New Orleans. He has published over seventy-five articles and is the author of ten books in the areas of business and public policy, business ethics, and the environment. He is on the editorial board of several journals and served as chair of the Social Issues in Management Division of the Academy of Management. Sandra B. Rosenthal is Provost Eminent Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans. She has published approximately 200 articles and 11 books on various dimensions of American pragmatism and its relevance for other areas of philosophy, and in both books and articles has applied pragmatism to a wide range of business ethics issues. She is a member of the editorial board of several journals, and has served as president of numerous philosophical societies.     

Two sides of the same personality coin: An opportunity to refocus (un)ethical analysis

Prior ethics studies highlight the importance of understanding positive or negative leader personality characteristics to improve organizational outcomes. However, few studies combine both positive and negative leader personality characteristics, to unpack and guide ethics theorizations. This lack of methodological balance restricts how we perceive leader ethics, our understandings of organizational experiences, and therefore, our awareness of governance approaches. This study challenges the dominant ethics scholarly orthodoxy—which focuses on positive or negative leader characteristics—by combining self-determination theory and the Dark Triad perspective, to explore the plurality of ethical dimensions within organizational leadership. A case example is provided to highlight the need for this methodological awareness and four avenues of engagement are discussed to improve future organizational governance and ethics scholarship.     

Reflective Judgement: Understanding Entrepreneurship as Ethical Practice

Recently, the ethical rather than just the economic resonance of entrepreneurship has attracted attention with researchers highlighting entrepreneurship and ethics as interwoven processes of value creation and management. Recognising that traditional normative perspectives on ethics are limited in application in entrepreneurial contexts, this stream of research has theorised entrepreneurship and ethics as the pragmatic production of useful effects through the alignment of public–private values. In this article, we critique this view and use Kant’s concept of reflective judgement as discussed in his Critique of the Power of Judgement to theorise ethical entrepreneurial practice as the capacity to routinely break free from current conventions through the imaginative creation and use of self-legislating maxims. Through an analysis of the narratives of 12 entrepreneurs, we suggest there are three dimensions to reflective judgement in entrepreneurial contexts: (1) Social Performance; (2) Public Challenge and; (3) Personal Autonomy. Whilst the entrepreneurs were alive to the importance of commercial return, their narratives demonstrated further concern for, and commitment to, standards that they rationally and imaginatively felt as being appropriate. In our discussion, we integrate the findings into existing theoretical categories from entrepreneurship studies to better appreciate ethics within the context of value creation.     

Ethical and Fair Work Behaviour: A Normative-Empirical Dialogue Concerning Ethics and Justice

Towards the general goal of generating a normative-empirical dialogue about ethics and justice, the present study explored three issues: (1) the extent to which the normative criteria of ethics and justice prescribed by moral philosophers are indeed reflected in managerial professionals' subjective beliefs of what ethical and just work behaviour ought to be, (2) the relationship between people's ought beliefs and their perceptions of actual ethical and just work behaviour, and (3) the relationship between the notions of ethics and justice. To do so, a review of the normative and positive theories of ethics was carried out which revealed the key normative criteria of ethics (i.e., utility, rights, justice, principle and care) and justice (i.e., due procedure and due outcome). Using both the interview and the repertory grid procedures, key determinants of ethical and just work behaviour as perceived by the managerial professionals were generated. These determinants were used to construct the questionnaires for the assessment of people's subjective ought beliefs, and their is judgements, of ethical and just work behaviour. There were three respondent samples: managerial professionals, general public and university students. Results showed that (1) people's subjective ought beliefs closely reflected the normative standards of ethics and justice, (2) there were significant discrepancies between people's subjective ought beliefs and their perceptions of actual ethical and just work behaviour, (3) individual differences in ought beliefs had some influence on is judgements, (4) both the ought beliefs and is judgements pertaining to the notion of justice could be accounted for by measures of the other four criteria of ethics and in particular, the notion of rights. The implications of the findings for normative theories of ethics and for ethics education are discussed.     

Danger signs of unethical behavior: How to determine if your firm is at ethical risk

This paper is designed to do three things. First, it discusses some of the key trends in business ethics in the academic and corporate communities. Initiatives like the Arthur Andersen Business Ethics Program are noted. Secondly, the paper examines certain basic misconceptions about the field and concludes that the adage that good ethics is good business is still true. Finally, the paper highlights fourteen business attitudes or practices that may put a firm at ethical risk. For example, the paper discusses the risk of using ethics as simply a public relations initiative.Man's life is not a state of unalloyed happiness. The earth is no paradise. Although this is not the fault of social institutions, people are wont to hold them responsible for it. The foundation of any and every civilization, including our own, is private ownership of the means of production. Whoever wishes to criticize modern civilization, therefore, begins with private property. It is blamed for everything that does not please the critic, especially those evils that have their origin in the fact that private property has been hampered and restrained in various respects so that its full social potentialities cannot be realized.¹ Ludwig von Mises Robert Allan Cooke is Director of the Institute for Business Ethics at DePaul University. He has served as a member of the executive board of the Corporate Responsibility Group of Chicago, the educational subcommittee of Chicago United, and as an academic advisor for the Heartland Institute. He serves as project liason on the advisory council of the Arthur Andersen Business Ethics Program. He is also a management consultant in corporate training who frequently lectures to business and civic groups. His most recent publication is: The Ethical Side of Takeovers and Mergers, with Earl Young, Essentials of Business Ethics (New American Library, 1990).     

A validation and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale

Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990) proposed and refined a multidimensional ethics scale. This study replicates and extends their work by examining the generalizability of the scale beyond marketing to accounting, and to subjects from across the United States and other countries. Results indicate that, in general, the scale holds for this different sample and context. However, an additional utilitarian construct emerged in the current study as important for accounting academics in their ethical decision-making. We also found that when we refined Reidenbach and Robin's measure of intention to make a particular choice, a social desirability bias or halo effect was identified. Methodological implications for business ethics research are also presented.Jeffrey R. Cohen is Associate Professor of Accounting at Boston College. He is a C.M.A. and a KPMG Peat Marwick Faculty Fellow. His articles have appeared in theJournal of Accounting Research, Decision Sciences andThe Organizational Behavior Teaching Review. His work on Ethics has appeared inJournal of Business Ethics, Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting, andThe CPA Journal.Laurie W. Pant is Associate Professor of Accounting at Suffolk University. She holds an M.B.A. and a D.B.A. and an M.Ed. She serves on the editorial board ofIssues in Accounting Education. Her articles on Ethics have appeared inJournal of Business Ethics, Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting andThe Organizational Behavior Teaching Review.David Sharp is Assistant Professor of Accounting at University of Western Ontario. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.Sc. He serves on the editorial board of theJournal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation. His articles have appeared inThe Midland Corporate Finance Journal andSloan Management Review.     

Applying Rawlsian Approaches to Resolve Ethical Issues: Inventory and Setting of a Research Agenda

Insights from social science are increasingly used in the field of applied ethics. However, recent insights have shown that the empirical branch of business ethics lacks thorough theoretical grounding. This article discusses the use of the Rawlsian methods of wide reflective equilibrium and overlapping consensus in the field of applied ethics. Instead of focussing on one single comprehensive ethical doctrine to provide adequate guidance for resolving moral dilemmas, these Rawlsian methods seek to find a balance between considered judgments and intuitions concerning particular cases on the one hand and general principles and theories on the other. In business ethics this approach is promising because it enables decision-making in a pluralist context with different stakeholders who often endorse different or even conflicting cultural and moral frameworks without giving priority to any of them. Moreover, the method is well founded in political theory. A taxonomy of different kinds of applications is developed, and classified according to the purpose, the content, and the type of justification. On the basis of this taxonomy an inventory of 12 recent applications is made. In terms of the purpose and content of the method the applications are rather diverse. Two conceptual obstacles for applying Rawlsian methods are identified, viz. inclusiveness and the communitarian objection that people have to become detached from their personal life. It is found that methodological questions, such as the question how to retrieve the relevant empirical data, are scarcely addressed in the literature. To advance the use of empirical approaches in general, and that of Rawlsian approaches in particular, it is important not only to use empirical data but to use methodological insights from social sciences in order to further advance the field of empirical ethics. It is recommended that stakeholders be given a more active role in the assessment and justification of these methods.