Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:08:08.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Directions in Legal Scholarship: Implications for Business Ethics Research, Theory, and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

John Hasnas ,
Robert Prentice  and
Alan Strudler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Legal scholars and business ethicists are interested in many of the same core issues regarding human and firm behavior. The vast amount of legal research being generated by nearly 10,000 law school and business law scholars will inevitably influence business ethics research. This paper describes some of the recent trends in legal scholarship and explores its implications for three significant aspects of business ethics research—methodology, theory, and policy.

Type
Business Ethics Quarterly: Twentieth Anniversary Forum, Part I: New Directions for Business Ethics Research
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 503 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aalders, M., & Wilthagen, T. 1997. Moving beyond command and control: reflexivity in the regulation of occupational safety and health and the environment. Law & Policy, 19: 415–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alshuler, A. 2009. Two ways to think about the punishment of corporations. American Criminal Law Review, 46: 1359–92.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. 1993. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Appiah, K. 2008. Experiments in ethics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aronson, J. 2007. Brain imaging, culpability and the juvenile death penalty. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 13: 115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthurs, H. 2002. National traditions in labor law scholarship: The Canadian case. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 23: 645–78.Google Scholar
Atiyah, P. 1979. The rise and fall of freedom of contract. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Atiyah, P. 1981. Review of Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation, by Fried, Charles. Harvard Law Review, 95: 509–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atiyah, P. 1983. Promises, morals, and law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, S. 2009. A response to the critics of corporate criminal responsibility. American Criminal Law Review, 46: 1481–1505.Google Scholar
Beny, L. 2007. Insider trading laws and stock markets around the world: An empirical contribution to the theoretical law and economics debate. Iowa Journal of Corporate Law, 32: 237–99.Google Scholar
Beny, L. 2008. Do investors in controlled firms value insider trading laws? Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, 4: 267–310.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, U., & Daouk, H. 2002. The world price of insider trading. Journal of Finance, 57: 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, M., & Stout, L. 2006. Explaining anomalies in corporate law. Iowa Journal of Corporation Law, 31: 719–44.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, J. 2007. Meta-analysis: A primer for legal scholars. Temple Law Review, 80: 201–44.Google Scholar
Bohrer, B., & Trencher, B. 2007. Prosecution deferred: Exploring the unintended consequences and future of corporate cooperation. American Criminal Law Review, 44: 1481–1502.Google Scholar
Bregant, J. 2009. Let’s give them something to talk about: An empirical evaluation of predeliberation discussions. University of Illinois Law Review, 2009: 1213–41.Google Scholar
Brenkert, G. 1981. Privacy, polygraphs and work. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1: 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucy, P. 1991. Corporate ethos: A standard for imposing corporate criminal liability. Minnesota Law Review, 75: 1095–1184.Google Scholar
Buell, S. 2006. The blaming function of entity criminal liability. Indiana Law Journal, 81: 473–537.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, E. 2009. Why write? Michigan Law Review, 107: 881–94.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1987. Adoption and market theory: Posnerism, pluralism, pessimism. Boston University Law Review, 67: 105–75.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 2001. The practice of principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. L. 2003. The grounds of welfare. Yale Law Journal, 112: 1511–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. W. 1987. Toward an integrated theory of white-collar crime. American Journal of Sociology, 93: 406–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranford, M. 1998. Drug testing and the right to privacy: Arguing the ethics of workplace drug testing. Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 1805–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dauber, M. 2005. The big muddy. Stanford Law Review, 57: 1899–1914.Google Scholar
Denno, D. 2009. Consciousness and culpability in American criminal law. Waseda Proceedings of Comparative Law, 12: 115–26.Google Scholar
Department of Justice. 1983. Attorney General’s report.Google Scholar
Desjardins, J., & Duska, R. 1987. Drug testing in employment. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 6: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, S. S. 2002. Empirical marine life in legal waters: Clams, dolphins, and plankton. University of Illinois Law Review, 2002: 803–18.Google Scholar
Dickens, C. 1999. Oliver Twist. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Doris, J. 2002. Lack of character. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggin, S. 2008. The McNulty memorandum, the KPMG decision and corporate cooperation: individual rights and legal ethics. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 21: 341–409.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1980. Is wealth a value? The Journal of Legal Studies, 9: 91–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2006. Justice in robes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., & King, G. 2002. Empirical research and the goals of legal scholarship: Rules of inference. University of Chicago Law Review, 69: 1–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esper, D., & Keating, G. 2006. Abusing “duty.” Southern California Law Review, 79: 265–328.Google Scholar
Esper, D. 2008. Putting duty in its place. Loyola University of Los Angeles Law Review, 41: 1225–93.Google Scholar
Evan, W., & Freeman, R. E. 1993. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In Beauchamp, T., & Bowie, N. (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2009. Law’s misguided love affair with science. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 10: 95–116.Google Scholar
Filip, M. 2008. Memorandum from Mark R. Filip, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, to heads of department components & U.S. Attorneys (August 28, 2008).Google Scholar
First, Harry. 1990. Business crime: Cases and materials. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Fried, C. 1981. Contract as promise. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, C. 2007. The convergence of contract and promise. Harvard Law Review Forum, 120: 1–9.Google Scholar
Friedman, D. 2000. Law’s order. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1963. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. 2008. Human. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Gilmore, G. 1974. The death of contract. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J., & Zipursky, B. 2006. Shielding duty: How attending to assumption of risk, attractive nuisance, and other “quaint” doctrines can improve decisionmaking in negligence cases. Southern California Law Review, 79: 329–61.Google Scholar
Greeley, H. 2009. Law and the revolution in neuroscience: An early look at the field. Akron Law Review, 42: 687–715.Google Scholar
Green, R. 1991. When is “everyone’s doing it” a moral justification? Business Ethics Quarterly, 1: 75–93.Google Scholar
Green, S. 1997. Why it’s a crime to tear the tag off a mattress: Overcriminalization and the moral content of regulatory offenses. Emory Law Journal, 46: 1533–1615.Google Scholar
Griffin, L. 2007. Compelled cooperation and the new corporate criminal procedure. New York University Law Review, 82: 311–82.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. 2006. The happiness hypothesis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hall, M., & Wright, P. 2008. Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. California Law Review, 96: 63–122.Google Scholar
Hamdani, A., & Klement, A. 2008. Corporate crime and deterrence. Stanford Law Review, 61: 271–310.Google Scholar
Hanson, J., & Yosifon, D. 2003. The situation: An introduction to the situational character, critical realism, power economics, and deep capture. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152: 129–346.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. 2009. Moral imagination, collective action, and the achievement of moral outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. 2006. Moral minds. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Heise, M. 2000. The future of civil justice reform and empirical legal scholarship: A reply. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 51: 251–55.Google Scholar
Held, V. 1996. Whose agenda? Ethics versus cognitive science. In May, L., Friedman, M., & Clark, A. (Eds.), Mind and morals: 69–87. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Heller, K. 2006. The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Michigan Law Review, 105: 241–305.Google Scholar
Henning, P. 2009. Corporate criminal liability and the potential for rehabilitation. American Criminal Law Review, 46: 1417–36.Google Scholar
Howton, S., Howton, S., & McWilliams, V. 2008. The ethical implications of ignoring shareholder directives to remove antitakeover provisions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 321–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. 1998. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50: 1471–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. 2003. Overcoming the myth of free will in criminal law: The true impact of the genetic revolution. Duke Law Journal, 52: 1031–53.Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, O., & Goldsmith, T. 2005. Law and behavioral biology. Columbia Law Review, 105: 405–502.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. 1997. Ignorance of the law is an excuse—but only for the virtuous. Michigan Law Review, 96: 127–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D., Hoffman, D., & Braman, D. 2009. Whose eyes are you going to believe? Scott v. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Review, 122: 837–906.Google Scholar
Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. 2002. Fairness versus welfare. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. 1997. The idea of fairness in the law of enterprise liability. Michigan Law Review, 96: 1266–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, G. 2001. A social contract model of the law of accidents. In Postema, G. (Ed.), Philosophy and the law of torts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, G. 2006. Strict liability and the mitigation of moral luck. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 2: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M., Johnson, J., & Cullen, J. 2009. Organizational change, normative control deinstitutionalization, and corruption. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 105–30.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. 1987. A guide to critical legal studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelman, M. 1998. Behavioral economics as part of a rhetorical duet: A response to Jolls, Sunstein, and Thaler. Stanford Law Review, 50: 1577–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, V. 1996. Corporate criminal liability: What purpose does it serve? Harvard Law Review, 109: 1477–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A., & Lenox, M. 2000. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J., & Nichols, S. 2008. Experimental philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korobkin, R. 2002. Empirical scholarship in contract law: Possibilities and pitfalls. University of Illinois Law Review, 2002: 1033–66.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 1991. Intellectual voyeurism in legal scholarship. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 4: 79–90.Google Scholar
Leiter, B., & Weisberg, M. 2010. Why evolutionary biology is (so far) irrelevant to legal regulation. Law and Philosophy, 29: 31–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, C., & Yahya, M. 2007. Left behind after Sarbanes-Oxley. American Criminal Law Review, 44: 1383–1416.Google Scholar
Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandel, G. 2006. Patently non-obvious: Empirical demonstration that the hindsight bias renders patent decisions irrational. Ohio State Law Journal, 67: 1391–1463.Google Scholar
Markovits, D. 2004. Contract and collaboration. Yale Law Journal, 113: 1417–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markovits, D. 2006. Making and keeping contract. Virginia Law Review. 92: 1325–74.Google Scholar
Maroney, T. 2009. The false promise of adolescent brain science in juvenile justice. Notre Dame Law Review, 85: 89–176.Google Scholar
McGee, R. 2009. Analyzing insider trading from the perspectives of utilitarian ethics and rights theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 91: 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, M., & Zeiler, K. 2008. Empirical health law scholarship: The state of the field. Georgetown Law Journal, 96: 649–702.Google Scholar
Mikhail, M. 2007. Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Science: 11: 143–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, G. 2004. Empirical legal scholarship as scientific dialogue. North Carolina Law Review, 83: 167–204.Google Scholar
Moore, J. 1989. Drug testing and corporate responsibility: The “ought implies can.” Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. 1992. Corporate culpability under the federal sentencing guidelines. Arizona Law Review, 34: 743–97.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. 2007. Contract and promise. Harvard Law Review Forum, 120: 10–18.Google Scholar
Nadelhoffer, T. 2008. Bad acts, blameworthy agents and intentional actions. In Knobe, J. & Nichols, S. (Eds.), Experimental philosophy: 149–67. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neder v. U.S. 1999. 527 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Nichols, S. 2004. Sentimental rules. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.Y. Central & Hudson River R.R. Co. v. U.S. 1909. 212 U.S. 481.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The federal criminal “code” is a disgrace: obstruction statutes as case study. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96: 643–726.Google Scholar
Patten, S. 1977. The case that Milgram makes. Philosophical Review, 86(3): 350–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
People v. Drake. 1984. 462 N.E.2d 376.Google Scholar
Piotroski, J., & Roulstone, D. 2004. The influence of analysts, institutional investors, and insiders on the incorporation of market, industry, and firm-specific information into stock prices. Accounting Review, 79: 1119–52.Google Scholar
Podgor, E. 2007. A new corporate world mandates a “good faith” affirmative defense. American Criminal Law Review, 44: 1537–43.Google Scholar
Pollack, B. 2009. Time to stop living vicariously: A better approach to corporate criminal liability. American Criminal Law Review, 16: 1393–1415.Google Scholar
Posner, R. 1995a. The future of the student-edited law review. Stanford law review: 47: 1131–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. 1995b. Overcoming law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, R. 1998. The problematics of moral and legal theory. Harvard Law Review, 111: 1637–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. 2002. Law, knowledge, and the academy: Legal scholarship today. Harvard Law Review, 115: 1314–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, R. 2003. Contractualizing securities fraud litigation: A behavioral analysis. Illinois Law Review, 2003: 337–421.Google Scholar
Priest, G. 1993. The growth of interdisciplinary research and the industrial structure of the production of legal ideas: A reply to Judge Edwards. Michigan Law Review, 91: 1929–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, R. 2000. Lawyers, law, and contract formation: Comments on Daniel Keating’s “Exploring the battle of the forms in action.” Michigan Law Review, 98: 2748–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratliff, R. 1996. Third-party money laundering: Problems of proof and prosecutorial discretion. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 7: 173–83.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1972. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rechtschaffen, C. 1998. Deterrence vs. cooperation and the evolving theory of environmental enforcement. Southern California Law Review, 71: 1181–1272.Google Scholar
Redding, R. 2008. It’s really about sex: Same-sex marriage, lesbigay parenting, and the psychology of disgust. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy: 15: 127–93.Google Scholar
Richardson, H. 2002. Democratic autonomy: Public reasoning about the ends of autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, A. 1998. Equality, responsibility, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, A. 2004. Too much invested to quit. Economics and Philosophy, 20: 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robin, D. 2009. Toward an applied meaning for ethics in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 89: 139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper v. Simmons. 2005. 543 U.S. 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosendorf, D.1990–1991. Homelessness and the uses of theory: An analysis of economic and personality theories of property in the context of voting rights and squatting rights. University of Miami Law Review, 45: 701–36.Google Scholar
Rubin, E., & Feeley, M. 2003. Judicial policy making and litigation against the government. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 5: 617–64.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. 2007. The economy of the earth: philosophy, law, and the environment. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, R., & Folger, R. 2009. Business ethics and the brain. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, M. 1998. Liberalism and the limits of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasso, P. 2009. Criminal responsibility in the age of “mind-reading.” American Criminal Law Review, 46: 1191–1244.Google Scholar
Schlag, P. 2009. Spam jurisprudence, air law, and the rank anxiety of nothing happening (A report on the state of the art). Georgetown Law Journal, 97: 803–35.Google Scholar
Scordato, M. R. 2008. Reflections on the nature of legal scholarship in the post-realist era. Santa Clara Law Review, 48: 353–440.Google Scholar
Secunda, P. 2009. Cultural cognition at work. Social Science Research Network, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1529886.Google Scholar
Shao, R, Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. 2008. Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 513–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, I. 2005. The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 1990. Collaring the crime, not the criminal: Reconsidering the concept of white-collar crime. American Sociological Review, 55(3): 346–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavell, S. 2009. Why breach of contract may not be immoral given the incompleteness of contracts. Michigan Law Review, 107: 1569–82.Google Scholar
Shea, C. 2009. Experimental philosophers emerge from the shadows, but skeptics still ask: Is this philosophy? The Chronicle Review, 5(6): B9.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, S. 2007. The divergence of contract and promise. Harvard Law Review, 120: 708–53.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, S. 2009. Could breach of contract be immoral? Michigan Law Review, 107: 1551–68.Google Scholar
Simon, W. 1998. The practice of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, D. 1997. Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law & Policy, 19: 529–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strafer, G. R. 1989. Money laundering: The crime of the ‘90s. American Criminal Law Review, 27: 149–207.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. 2001. Foreword: On academic fads and fashions. Michigan Law Review, 99: 1251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, E. 1940. White collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, E. 1983. White collar crime: The uncut version. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tovino, S. 2009. Neuroscience and health law: An integrative approach? Akron Law Review, 42: 469–517.Google Scholar
Treviño, L., Klebe, L., Weaver, G., & Brown, M. 2008. It’s lovely at the top: Hierarchical levels, identities, and perceptions of organizational ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 233–52.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. 2005. Promoting employee policy adherence and rule following in work settings. Brooklyn Law Review, 70: 1287–1312.Google Scholar
Tyler, T., & Blader, S. 2005. Can business effectively regulate employee conduct?: The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulen, T. 2001. Evolution, human behavior, and law: A response to Owen Jones’s Dunwoody lecture. Florida Law Review, 53: 931–46.Google Scholar
Ulen, T. 2004. The unexpected guest: Law and economics, law and other cognate disciplines, and the future of legal scholarship. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 79: 403–29.Google Scholar
United States Sentencing Commission. 1994. Guidelines manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Bank of New England. 1987. 821 F.2d 844.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Brittain. 1991. 931 F.2d 1413.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Jackson. 1991. 935 F.2d 832.Google Scholar
Waller, S. 2009. The law and economics virus. Cardozo Law Review, 32: 367–403.Google Scholar
Wasieleski, D., & Hayibor, S. 2009. Evolutionary psychology and business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 587–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, S. 2008. Waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection from Thompson to McNulty: A distinction without a difference? University of Cincinnati Law Review, 76: 1093–1118.Google Scholar
Weinreb, E. 1995. The idea of private law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weissmann, A. 2007. A new approach to corporate criminal liability. American Criminal Law Review, 44: 1319–42.Google Scholar
Wilkinson-Ryan, T., & Baron, J. 2009. Moral judgment and moral heuristics in breach of contract. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6: 405–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worden, S. 2009. A genealogy of business ethics: A Nietzschean perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 84: 427–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. 1994. The moral animal. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Zak, P. 2008. Moral markets. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zamir, E., & Medina, B. 2010. Law, economics, and morality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimbardo, P. 2007. The Lucifer effect. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar