Ethics surely matters to people, but to ignore the fact that other things matter as well is to oversimplify human motivation and behavior. Human action is often the ungainly resolution of conflicts between ethical and egotistical impulses, and the challenge for moral psychology is to understand these conflicts and their resolution.

Business ethics courses have been launched with professors from business pulling on one oar, and professors of philosophy pulling on the other, but they lack a sense of direction. Let's begin with the basics: What is an ehtical decision? More fundamentally, why the interest in professional ethics in the first place?

There are over 300 centers for the study of applied ethics in this country—why? The events which face our society today (income and wealth disparity, environmental degradation, etc.) are outside the business-oriented collection of shared beliefs that set our public policy agenda. Our beliefs are too narrow, thus we see, understand, and control small slices of life.

Business ethics should be the study of the structure and impact on us of what we call “business science,” e.g., accounting, marketing, economics, law, etc., and the corresponding study of the process of what Carl Jung called individuation: learning to become one's own unique self in the face of these bodies of professional knowledge which have structured our lives and charted the direction for our sensibilities for too long.

This paper deals with the ethical perceptions of business people and the current state of business ethics in east China. After surveying 800 business people in 59 enterprises and interviewing 42 chief executive officers, chairs and senior managers among them, the following conclusions can be drawn: First of all, business ethics has become a new and popular topic in east China. Second, quite a lot of business people are pessimistic about the ethical standards of their superiors and co-workers, and about the ethical climate of their enterprises. Third, more and more business leaders begin to realize the importance of business ethics. Finally, in east China, the establishment of the market economy and the improvement of business ethics will depend on each other. In short, business people in east China have various ethical perceptions, and the current state of business ethics in east China is also complex and changeable.

We extend the behavioral ethics literature to examining emotional labor as an antecedent to unethical behavior. We hypothesize that surface acting is positively associated with unethical behavior. In contrast, we produce competing hypotheses for the relationship between deep acting and unethical behavior. In Study 1, with a field sample of 123 full-time employees, surface acting was positively associated with unethical behavior, and emotional inauthenticity explained some of this relationship. In contrast, deep acting was not associated with unethical behavior. In Study 2, with a field sample of 117 full-time employees, we replicated the effect of surface acting in Study 1 and found a positive relationship between deep acting and unethical behavior via emotional inauthenticity. In Study 3, using a two-wave design, we replicated the results in Study 2 and found perceived fairness strengthens the relationship between surface acting and unethical behavior through emotional inauthenticity.

This essay explains how intangible asset management oriented toward enhancing corporate performance increasingly embeds ethical concerns, primarily to address stakeholder expectations. We discuss how ethical dimensions in intangible asset management may be co-constructed and intertwined in organization-stakeholder interactions to generate collaborative meaning making according to a stakeholder-centric view of the firm. In so doing, we adopt an ethical view that acknowledges that stakeholders beyond the firm have equal status and agency to engage in a social construction process of intangible assets nurtured by ongoing dialogue and reciprocal understanding between organization and stakeholders. The essay concludes by envisioning how the dialogic process of social construction of intangible assets involving both organization and stakeholders is best conceived as a social contract between the two that enacts a cultural bond between intangible assets together with ethical and societal resources that are collectively generated, owned, and maintained.

This article draws on ancient and medieval Jewish texts to explore the role of the physical environment in Jewish thought. It situates Jewish teachings in the context of the debate between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism, discusses the Jewish view of nature, and reviews various interpretations of an important Biblical precept of environmental ethics. It argues that while Jewish thought contains many “green” elements, it also contains a number of beliefs that challenge some contemporary environmental values.

The key to the Jewish contribution to environmental ethics lies in the concept of balance—balance between the values and needs of humans and the claims of nature, and between viewing nature as a source of life and moral values and as a threat to human life and social values. The teachings of Judaism challenge both those who would place too low a value on nature as well as those who would place too high a value on it.

This article argues that the concept of deliberation is construed too narrowly in political corporate social responsibility (CSR) and that a concept of deliberation for political CSR should err toward useful speech acts rather than reciprocity and charity. It draws from the political philosophy, labor relations, and business ethics literatures to outline a framework for an extended notion of deliberative engagement. The characters of deliberative behavior and deliberative environment are held to generate four modes of engagement: strategic deliberation, unitarist deliberation, pluralist deliberation, and deliberative activism. The article concludes by arguing that political CSR will be better positioned to realize its potential by moving away from primarily consensus-centered objectives to a more responsive range of deliberative goals and practice.

Anomie is a condition in which normative guidelines for governing conduct are absent. Using survey data from a sample of U.S. manufacturing firms, we explore the impact of internal (cultural) and external (environmental) determinants of organizational anomie. We suggest that four internal organizational factors can generate or suppress organizational anomie, including strategic aggressiveness, long-term orientation, competitor orientation, and strategic flexibility. Similarly, we argue that external contextual factors, including competitive intensity and technological turbulence, can influence organizational anomie. We extend anomie and ethics research by considering the impact of these firm cultural and environmental factors according to whether firms are publicly-traded or privately-held. Findings demonstrate that a number of firm cultural and environmental factors can generate or reduce anomie in firms. Moreover, strategic aggressiveness, long-term orientation, and strategic flexibility influence organizational anomie differently depending on whether the firm is publicly-traded or privately-held. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Organization ethics praxis is theory and method of appropriate action for addressing ethics issues and developing ethical organizations. The perspective of praxis (theory and method of action) is important and different from the perspectives of theoria (theory of understanding), epistemology (ways of knowing), and ontology (ways of being/existing). Praxis is the least developed area within the field of organization ethics. Differences between theoria and praxis are considered within the context of Kohlberg—Gilligan developmental ethics where part of the controversy may be unnecessary due to Kohlberg’s concentrating on epistemology and theoria, but not praxis; and, Gilligan’s considering aspects of praxis with epistemology and theoria. Differences between epistemology and praxis perspectives are considered in the contexts of two cases: Socratic “double-loop” action-learning conversations the night before the Challenger explosion; and, “triple-loop״ action-learning in a cross-cultural Boston—Indonesia child worker safety, acid-washed jeans case.

This paper explores the influence of social categories on the perceived trade-off between a relatively bad but equal distribution of resources between two parties and a profit maximizing yet unequal one. Studies 1 and 2 showed that people prefer to maximize profits when interacting within their social category, but chose not to maximize individual and joint profits when interacting across social categories. Study 3 demonstrated that outside observers, who were not members of the focal social categories, also were less likely to maximize profits when resources were distributed across social category lines. Study 4 showed that the transaction utility of maximizing profits required greater compensation when resources were distributed across, in contrast to within social categories. We discuss the ethical implications of these decision making biases in the context of organizations.

Reading these papers—each one a straightforward declaration of a preferred position—has the odd (and I trust, unintended) effect of projecting the reader into a world of virtual reality. The words, the concepts, the theories, the divisions and dualisms, the premises, the arguments themselves all seem to be real. They seem to make sense. Yes, we can say to ourselves, I see and understand what each one is saying. “Fact,” “value,” “empirical,” “normative,” “science,” “philosophy,” “naturalistic fallacy,” and similar terms all invoke meanings that seem to be clear and that help to clarify the issues being debated. But do they? To what extent is this particular discussion about business ethics only virtually real, a product of an imagined or invented dialogue that may rest on little more than the assumed and inherited meanings assigned to the phrases we toss around so freely?

By raising the question, it should be obvious that I am inclined to believe that the debaters have convinced themselves that they are engaged in a dialogue about something “real” but which actually exists only in the invented forms and phrases that they have brought to the debate. The issues are only “virtually” real. If that is so, then one needs to ask where did those inventions—the virtual realities of the debate—come from. Why are they so appealing? Why do they seem to make so much sense to us? Why are they defended so vigorously by both sides or, perhaps more aptly, by all sides?

Despite the extensive literature on what questionable research practices (QRPs) are and how to measure them, the normative underpinnings of such practices have remained less explored. QRPs often fall into a grey area of justifiable and unjustifiable practices. Where to precisely draw the line between such practices challenges individual scholars and this harms science. We investigate QRPs from a normative perspective using the theory of communicative action. We highlight the role of the collective in assessing individual behaviours. Our contribution is a framework that allows identification of when particular actions cross over from acceptable to unacceptable practice. Thus, this article provides grounds for developing scientific standards to raise the quality of scientific research.

This paper presents the results of and conclusions from a survey of 2,830 college and university undergraduate business and philosophy departments regarding their business ethics offerings. The impetus for this survey included seeking a better understanding of the problems for which business ethics courses are the solution. It was proposed that, if we knew what it is that professors teaching business ethics believe they are teaching—not in terms of content or methods, but in terms of what criteria they are using to assess students’ achievement of the course objectives—we would have a better understanding of what issues business ethics attempts to resolve. The survey focused on ranking six possible assessment criteria drawn from the literature on teaching business ethics.

In addition to disclosing the specific survey results, the paper draws conclusions based on the fact that there are statistically significant differences between the rankings assigned to the six assessment criteria by business professors as contrasted with philosophy professors. The results of the survey indicate that there is more uniformity expressed in the responses by the philosophy professors teaching business ethics than by the business professors.

People are often involuntarily laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own. Employees who are dismissed in this manner cannot always legitimately hold employers accountable for these miserable situations because the decision to implement layoffs is often the best possible outcome given the context—that is, layoffs in and of themselves may be “necessary evils.” Yet, even in circumstances in which layoffs qualify as “necessary evils,” morality demands that employers respect the dignity of those whose employment is involuntarily terminated. In this paper I argue that to preserve the dignity of employees who are involuntarily terminated, in most cases employers have a substantial reason to offer a special kind of unemployment benefit, “severance pay.” To support my claim I draw and expand upon Bernard Williams’s analysis of “agent-regret,” which I believe greatly helps to address and articulate employers’ obligations in the context of involuntary termination.

Recent corporate scandals raise an old question anew: is capitalism fundamentally infected by immorality? A now almost forgotten answer to this question was advanced at the dawn of capitalism, an answer that students of business ethics would find profit in considering. In the early eighteenth century, Bernard Mandeville authored The Fable of the Bees, which became notorious in its day for arguing that capitalism created wealth while necessarily relying on vicious impulses. The fundamental dilemma is that morality requires self-denial while capitalism runs on self-interest. As such, Mandeville claims that business and ethics are essentially separate.

While this would appear to align him with skeptics of business ethics, Mandeville does suggest a role for moral theorists in dealing with the challenges of commercial societies. The Mandevillean business ethicist proceeds by separating the public and private spheres. In the former, where government policy toward business is at issue, the Mandevillean ethicist applies a market-friendly utilitarianism. In the latter, where individual conduct is at issue, the Mandevillean gently articulates a market-critical ethic predicated on self-restraint.

I discuss the characters Don Quixote and Sancho Panza and their relationship in order to understand better the place of idealistic theory and realistic practice in business ethics. The realism of Sancho Panza is required to made the idealism of Don Quixote effective. Indeed, the interaction and development of these characters can serve as a model for both the effective communication between and blending of the idealistic moral theoretician and the practical businessperson. Specifically, I argue that a quixotified Sancho Panza, as a combination of theoretical idealism and practical realism, is necessary for managerial statesmanship. I first consider the position that this concept is unrealistic. In the final section, however, I show that a number of leadership and business theorists believe that managerial statesmanship requires a quixotified Sancho Panza. I also consider the question, what helps to make a quixotic vision for business ethical, and what is its content?

This paper examines two recent trends relative to boards of directors’ compensation, and their potential incompatibility. There has been some progress in increasing board diversity, specifically the inclusion of women and minorities on boards. The increasing trend requiring directors to hold/purchase equity as a requirement of board membership may seriously compromise further improvements in diversifying boards. Also, an increasing number of companies compensate directors partially or fully in stock grants and options. These compensation policies may be exclusionary, especially for women and minorities, impacting the quality of boardroom discussions and decisions. This study systematically examines whether corporations requiring director equity are exclusionary toward women and minority directors. Contrary to being exclusionary, companies with director stock requirements and annual stock awards have greater representation by women and minorities on their board. Moreover, larger companies are both more likely to have such policies and have higher proportions of women and minorities on the board.

Many people argue that we should practice conscientious consumption. Faced with goods from gravely flawed production processes, such as wood from clear-cut rainforests or electronics containing conflict minerals, they argue that we should enact personal policies to routinely shun tainted goods and select pure(r) goods. However, consumers typically should be relatively uncertain about which flaws in global supply chains are grave and the connection of purchases to those grave flaws. The threat of significant uncertainty makes conscientious consumption appear to be no better, or even worse, than an overlooked option. This overlooked option is consumption with relinquishment: disregarding each product’s possible connections with upstream grave flaws and using the time, money, and energy saved in this way to address grave flaws directly.