08832323.2011.639407
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions in
Business Ethics Education
Alma Acevedo
To cite this article: Alma Acevedo (2013) But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions
in Business Ethics Education, Journal of Education for Business, 88:2, 63-69, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
Published online: 04 Dec 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 644
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:56
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 63–69, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions
in Business Ethics Education
Alma Acevedo
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
As a human endeavor and profession, management must be built on sound ethical underpinnings. Accordingly, introductory management courses customarily introduce business ethics
and corporate social responsibility in order to develop the students’ ethical awareness and
reasoning. Yet, some common misconceptions regarding the discipline are also present in
these introductions to the topic, as evidenced by a review of a sample of popular management
textbooks. Their discussion, with recommendations, aims to improve the teaching and learning
of ethics in management and, hence, managerial problem solving and decision making.
Keywords: business education, business ethics, business schools, ethical relativism, social
responsibility
Recent infamous cases and a global financial crisis partly
blamed on corporate greed (Gross, 2009; Tett, 2009) have
made the discussion of applied ethics ever more pressing.
They suggest that the very survival and success of business depend on its ethical footing. Deceptive marketing, for
instance, has been shown to deeply cut shareholder value
(Tipton, Bharadwaj, & Robertson, 2009). Stakeholders demand transparent and honest corporate governance and accountability. Companies are likely to “do well by doing good”
(Falck & Heblich, 2007).
Just as business uses societal resources in order to operate and profit, it has a duty to fairly reciprocate in goods
and services that foster human development (Collins, 1994;
Donaldson, 1982; Khurana & Nohria, 2008). The businesssociety contract imposes ethical obligations. Business has
been fittingly described as a community of members who
have rights and whose purpose is, ultimately, the flourishing of society (Camenisch, 1981; Handy, 2002; Hartman,
2006). Its managers are “agents of society’s interest in thriving economic enterprises” (Khurana & Nohria, p. 76, italics
in original). This reality grounds management’s claims to be
a profession, and business’ very legitimacy (Khurana, 2007;
Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Trank & Rynes, 2003).
Correspondence should be addressed to Alma Acevedo, University of
Puerto Rico, School of Business Administration, Department of Management, P. O. Box 23332, University Station, San Juan 00931–3332, Puerto
Rico. E-mail: aacgerencia@gmail.com
ETHICS EDUCATION: A BUSINESS SCHOOL
IMPERATIVE
Business schools have been repeatedly called to provide ethical leadership (Alsop, 2007; Etzioni, 2002; Hosmer, 1988).
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International’s accreditation standards (2011) highlight this
concern. A key component of a business school’s mission is
the education of professionals who will lead organizations,
make decisions, and implement them using ethically sound
principles and practices. Accordingly, one of the objectives of
the management course, often one of the first in the bachelor
of business administration (BBA) and master of business administration (MBA) curricula, is to develop students’ moral
awareness and ethical problem solving and decision making
competencies.
The coverage of ethics in management textbooks was
found to be “extensive” more than ten years ago (Hoaas &
Wilcox, 1995). This remains true today. All of the introductory management textbooks reviewed (Certo & Certo, 2009;
Daft, 2010; Hellriegel, Jackson, & Slocum, 2007; Robbins &
Coulter; Rue & Byars, 2009; Schermerhorn, 2008) dedicate
a chapter to business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). They often cover the factors that influence
managerial ethical decisions, the institutionalization of ethics
(e.g., ethical structures, ethics training, codes of ethics), sustainable development, and ethics in the international context. More specialized issues such as social investments,
social audits, and social entrepreneurship are also becoming standard features (Certo & Certo; Robbins & Coulter;
64
A. ACEVEDO
Rue & Byars; Schermerhorn). All of the textbooks reviewed have been in print for at least nine editions; their authors have published extensively in management and related
areas.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Is this introductory coverage accurate and sufficient? Are
its theoretical underpinnings sound? College students often
either employ legal, moral, or psychological criteria to ethically evaluate situations, or claim that to judge is wrong
since everyone is entitled to their opinions and all of these
are equally tenable (Dolhenty, 2009; Jennings, 1999; Pojman,
2005). Their ethical reasoning skills need development. Does
that introductory material provide students adequate grounds
on which to ethically solve problems and reach the best decisions? Does it provide a proper reference to management
professors, some of whom may lack formal training in moral
philosophy (Hosmer, 1988; Klein, 1998)?
The business ethics and CSR chapters reviewed, though
commendable, reveal a series of misconceptions, some of
which mirror students’ and society’s. The concepts ethics,
morality, and law; ethical relativism and moral relativism;
and business ethics and CSR are frequently confused. The
normative framework tends to be inadequate, and ethical
conclusions are left unstated or unjustified. In this article I examine each of these misconceptions with the goal of improving the teaching and learning of ethics in management and,
hence, managerial problem solving and decision making.
Confusion Between the Concepts Ethics,
Morality , and Law
In the reviewed textbooks, similar to in everyday language,
ethics is frequently defined as morality (e.g., “the code of
moral principles and values that governs the behaviors of
a person or group with respect to what is right or wrong”
[Daft, 2010, p. 130]). Formally speaking, however, ethics is
not morality, but the philosophical study of morality (DeGeorge, 2009; Frankena, 1973; Velasquez, 2009). As such,
ethics systematizes, questions, modifies, and justifies—when
justifiable—morality. It may even reject social and individual
moral standards regarding acceptable and desirable values
and behaviors if found to be objectionable or groundless. For
example, although bribery may be accepted in some countries, it is ethically questionable.
As a set of social or individual standards regarding good
character and right conduct, morality is influenced by customs and culture and is, therefore, relative or contingent (Velasquez, 2009). It may change according to time and society.
Unlike ethics, morality is generally characterized by a set of
negative, specific rules, some of which may be inconsistent,
questionable, or even fall outside the realm of ethics. Arguing
that lying is wrong while justifying tax cheating or expense
padding is an instance of moral incongruity. Ethics, on the
other hand, identifies, develops, and justifies basic universal
and objective principles regarding what the moral agent ought
to be and do (Kreeft, 1990). Because they are universal, they
apply to every moral agent regardless of society, group, or
generation. Because they are objective, they are independent
of personal tastes, fashion, or other purely subjective conditions. Since college age students are already steeped in social
morality, teaching morality instead of ethics involves real opportunity costs for them and society. It may even degenerate
into a moralism that only caricatures philosophical ethics.
Students are also misled when ethics is conceived to be
equivalent to law, as when a legal test is listed among the
standards from which to choose in order to make the right
decision (Certo & Certo, 2009, p. 73). Although important in
a management text, the extensive coverage of legal matters
in the business ethics and CSR chapter (e.g., Rue & Byars,
2009) may be understood as implying that ethical and legal norms are equivalent. Even at an introductory level, and
because of it, their distinction must be unequivocally established lest students conclude that legal behavior suffices for
the ethical personal or organizational life. That ethics, similar to the law, has a normative nature does not mean that
they are related in all aspects. Although law refers to rules
of conduct, its realm and justification, as well as its methods
and conclusions, are not the same as those of ethics. Legal
behaviors are not necessarily ethical (e.g., legal but unethical
lies) while some behaviors are illegal but ethically justified
(e.g., some cases of civil disobedience). Behaviors that violate ethical criteria may, eventually, be codified into laws, as
has happened with workplace race discrimination and sexual harassment in some countries. However, these practices
are ethically wrong not because those laws were approved,
nor only when and where they bind. They are ethically
wrong because, among other reasons, they violate human
dignity.
In addition, while the agent’s intentions for the legal act
do not necessarily add to or detract from its lawfulness, they
are important for the ethical act. Lawfully filing personal tax
forms out of fear of a U.S. Internal Revenue Service audit
does not detract from the act’s lawfulness, but is relevant for
its ethical evaluation. Refraining from wrong behavior out
of fear of its negative consequences places the motivation
outside the agents and may call into question their ethical
integrity. Should those negative consequences be few or unlikely, such agents may not behave correctly since their act
does not stem from autonomously accepted ethical norms.
Ultimately, in the ethical (good) life, rewards and punishments are, in reality, internal to the agent and do not depend
on external administration or enforcement. Unlike ethical
principles, laws are relative to society and generation, and are
established by authoritative bodies that may amend or abolish
them. Legal decisions are strongly influenced by precedents
and written legal codes. Majority opinion or written rules do
not determine the soundness of ethical conclusions.
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
Confusion Between the Concepts Ethical
Relativism and Moral Relativism
Statements such as “discrimination against women and minorities was deemed unethical by our culture and subsequently made illegal in 1964” (Hellriegel et al., 2007, p. 81)
and “although this business practice [bribery] is unethical
(and illegal) in the United States, it’s acceptable in Mexico”
(Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 102) confuse ethical relativism
with moral relativism. They imply that ethical principles are
relative to cultural and time frames. The fact that bribery and
discrimination have been accepted does not make them any
less questionable from an ethical, human rights, standpoint.
Likewise, some statements suggest that ethical principles and
judgments are purely subjective, or contingent on personal
opinion (e.g., “some would argue that the company is being unethical due to its selfishness in this situation while
others would argue that the company is being ethical because it is acting in the best interests of stockholders” [Certo
& Certo, 2009, p. 73]). That moral conclusions may differ
means neither that ethical principles and judgments merely
state individual opinions, preferences, or feelings, nor that
all are equally sound.
Moral relativism states that moral judgments differ, or
may differ, throughout human history, among societies,
among groups or individuals in the same society, or even
within individuals’ lives. Experience shows this to be true,
particularly with regard to controversial matters such as capital punishment, euthanasia, and stem cell research. The statement “race discrimination has been accepted by some societies” does not express an ethical judgment but, rather, an
empirical observation.
Ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the normative claim that there are no universal and objective ethical principles. Ethical relativism—that ethical principles
are contingent and subjective because moral judgments are
thus—is questionable (DeGeorge, 2009; Dolhenty, 2009;
Kreeft, 1990, 1999; Pojman, 2005; Velasquez, 2009). There
are sound reasons to repudiate race discrimination. That human dignity ought to be respected is a norm that holds universally. That it has been violated does not undermine its validity,
but grounds the judgment that such a behavior is wrong. If
ethical relativism were true, what would concepts such as
good, bad, just, or unjust mean? Concluding, for instance,
that bribery is unfair would be impossible, or meaningless,
because there would be no criteria to support that judgment.
Neither would there be criteria on which to evaluate ethical
development or degeneration. Ethical relativism contradicts
human reason and common experience.
Moreover, varying moral conclusions may be reached
from the same universal and objective ethical principles
(Dolhenty, 2009; Kreeft, 1990; Pojman, 2005) simply because of different assessment of the consequences, different
evidence, or definitions. For example, two managers may
disagree on whether marketing genetically modified foods
65
is morally right, while appealing to the common good as
the ethical principle. Their conclusions do not differ because
ethical principles are relative, but because they have assessed
differently the consequences that accrue from the practice or
gathered conflicting data regarding its health effects.
Although thought to advance tolerance (e.g., Robbins &
Coulter, 2009, p. 102), ethical relativism actually harbors intolerance and disorder. The absence of ethical criteria brings
about confusion and hesitation, breeding grounds for intransigence and dictatorship. The reluctance to emit ethical
judgments is not tolerance, but indifference (Kreeft, 1999).
Tolerating every behavior, regardless of its ethical standing,
contradicts the very meaning of virtue. Acknowledging the
diversity of human behavior does not necessarily imply their
ethical approval or disapproval. Recognizing, for instance,
that cheating and fraud occur does not imply that these behaviors are ethically right. Tolerating these practices does not
represent virtue, but vice.
Confusion Between the Terms Business Ethics
and Corporate Social Responsibility
Seldom formally defined in the chapters reviewed, business
ethics is the philosophical study of morality in the business environment (DeGeorge, 2009; Klein, 1998; Velasquez,
2009). As such, it rigorously examines the moral principles,
practices, and problems of the firm at the systemic, organizational, group, and personal levels. The ethical evaluation
of economic systems and of organizational strategies, policies, systems, and actions, as well as of group and employee
character and behaviors, are all part of the realm of business
ethics.
CSR, on the other hand, has been variously defined (Jamali, 2008; Lockett, Moon, & Visser, 2006). In the textbook
chapters surveyed, it is often defined as an obligation to serve
the interests of both, business and society (Certo & Certo,
2009; Daft, 2010; Rue & Byars, 2009; Schermerhorn, 2008).
It involves negative (e.g., not to harm) and positive duties
(e.g., to contribute to the common good). Though less frequently, the term has also been defined as an intention beyond
business’s “legal and economic obligations, to do the right
things and act in ways that are good for society” (Robbins
& Coulter, 2009, p. 93). An intention, however, does not
necessarily imply compliance.
Defining CSR as an obligation raises a number of questions: Which, specifically, are these obligations? Why are
they so? What is the relative weight or importance of each
and why? What is the relative weight or importance of the interests of each of the stakeholders—stockholders or owners,
employees and unions, customers, suppliers, lenders, distributors, competitors, government, community, and social
interest groups—and why? What ought to be done whenever
there is a conflict among those obligations and why? Students should be aware that a systematic ethical examination
is required to rightly answer such questions.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
66
A. ACEVEDO
CSR, therefore, is not synonymous with business ethics,
but a part thereof. A corporation that behaves ethically acts
socially responsibly, albeit not solely so. A corporation that is
socially responsible is not necessarily ethical (e.g., one whose
behavior stems only from a concern with profit, social acceptance, the law, or the avoidance of social rebuke). Socially
responsible practices do not replace ethical reasoning and
commitment, but must be subject to ethical assessment. Enron, for instance, was well known for its CSR practices such
as corporate philanthropy, environmental leadership, and a
CSR task force; it had a code of ethics and a triple-bottomline report (Vogel, 2005). Nonetheless, it has become one
of the most notorious textbook cases of ethical wrongdoing.
The massive fraud at the company inflicted enormous and
lasting human, social, and economic costs. Not surprisingly,
some have argued that an emphasis on CSR may actually
“distract attention” from more fundamental ethical questions
and evaluation and that, consequently, it neither overrides nor
substitutes business ethics (Crook, 2005).
Inadequate Normative Framework
Most of the textbook chapters studied provide a brief
overview of normative ethics in the form of the traditional
rule-based criteria of utilitarianism, moral rights, and justice
(Certo & Certo, 2009; Daft, 2010; Hellriegel et al., 2007;
Schermerhorn, 2008). In addition, some include individualism (Daft; Schermerhorn), which is often described as egoism or normative self-interest. Others use Nash’s (1981) 12question framework or a variant thereof (Robbins & Coulter,
2009; Rue & Byars, 2009). Still another (Certo & Certo,
pp. 72–73) lists a number of additional standards besides the
rule-based ethical criteria: namely, the golden rule, the professional ethic, the legal test, and the “TV test,” which asks
managers whether they would “feel comfortable explaining
to a national TV audience” the reasons for their action. Certo
and Certo added that “managers can feel confident that a potential action will be considered ethical by the general public
if it is consistent with one or more” of those standards.
There are, however, some inaccuracies, inconsistencies,
and significant omissions in the discussion of ethical criteria
in the textbooks surveyed. For instance, the statement “many
economists espouse the utilitarian approach, but it has received less support from the general public [ . . . ] utilitarian
ethics have been increasingly challenged and tempered by
the moral rights and justice approaches” (Hellriegel et al.,
2007, p. 93) is vague and misleading. What evidence backs
those assertions? What relevance does public support have
on an ethical theory’s soundness? From the same chapter:
As a guide to ethical behavior in organizations, the moral
rights approach says more about what organizations should
avoid doing—that is violating the moral rights of employees,
customers, and members of society—than it does about what
to do. The justice approach provides more guidance in this
regard. (Hellriegel et al., p. 96, italics in original)
Have positive rights been considered? Besides, is not justice a moral right as well?
Even when accurate, such introductions to normative
ethics lack the necessary assessment. The principles or standards are mentioned but not evaluated, if only briefly. Placing
ethics as a function of self-interest (individualism), the law
(the legal test), or feeling (the TV test), on a par with social
utility or universal moral rights, hints that the standards are
equally sound and interchangeable. That this is not so may
be learned from any reasonable introductory text in ethics
(e.g., Frankena, 1973; Kreeft, 1990; MacIntyre, 1998; Pojman, 2005) or business ethics (e.g., Beauchamp, Bowie,
& Arnold, 2008; DeGeorge, 2009; Donaldson, Werhane, &
Cording, 2007; Shaw & Barry, 2009; Velasquez, 2009). Students may skeptically wonder what is the standards’ practical
relevance, as these are neither systematically applied to business cases in the chapter nor subsequently. Students should
realize that some moral judgments are right, some are wrong,
some better or worse, depending on the soundness of the ethical reasoning supporting them (Velasquez).
A related shortcoming is an inadequate or nonexistent
definition of which kinds of problems are subject to ethical analysis. The chapters reviewed often list several moral
problems, instead of providing a conceptual framework that
enables students to distinguish moral from nonmoral issues
(i.e., problems that are subject to ethical evaluation from
those that are not; Frankena, 1973). Nonmoral behavior (e.g.,
a person’s handwriting) has nothing to do with ethics or
morality, while immoral behavior (e.g., fraud) violates moral
standards. Unlike nonmoral issues, moral problems involve
questions that pose significant consequences for the agent
or for others. Moreover, their ethical evaluation presupposes
that the agent has moral responsibility. That is, the agent is
free to act and knows or can know the standards, and the
nature and consequences of the action or practice for those
affected. Agents are free to act insofar as they have options
and can behave accordingly because, among other things,
they have the relevant power, resources, control, and skills.
The confusion between a moral problem and a moral
dilemma is also common. Although every moral dilemma
poses a moral problem, not every moral problem is a moral
dilemma (Hosmer, 1988). A dilemma is a problem that
presents the decision maker with alternatives, neither of
which is easy nor comfortable because of conflicting rights
or duties that cannot all be fulfilled (Scruton, 1998, p. 125).
The examples provided often do not fit that definition. Behaviors such as accessing sexually explicit images with
the company’s computer, sexual harassment, conflicts of
interest, and promotion based on non–job-relevant criteria
such as race or age (Schermerhorn, 2008, pp. 36–37) do not
exemplify moral dilemmas. There are ample reasons to conclude that all of them are ethically wrong. On the other hand,
whether a company should operate in a country where sex
discrimination is culturally, and even legally, accepted, may
pose a moral dilemma, particularly if it is an emerging market
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
where foreign enterprise is likely to alleviate unemployment
and poverty.
Finally, none of the chapters examined include virtue
ethics as normative criterion in spite of the renewed interest
in this framework, particularly after MacIntyre’s (2007) and
Solomon’s (1993, 2003) influential work. Recent editions of
some widely used business ethics textbooks have profitably
integrated this framework (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 2008; DeGeorge, 2009; Donaldson et al., 2007; Velasquez, 2009).
Just before hearing the Federal District Judge’s 150-year
sentence, Bernard Madoff apologetically “blamed his pride,”
adding that he lived “in a tormented state now” (Henriques,
2009). His lawyer described him as a “deeply flawed individual,” and the judge decried his scheme as “extraordinarily
evil.” These moral judgments pertain to the person’s character. It is not simply that Madoff behaved in ways that harmed
many people, or that his intentions were questionable, or that
he was about to suffer immense material, social, and personal
losses. The ethical life is not merely an aggregate of acts
with positive consequences or good intentions. It involves
the totality of the person’s being, or character. Virtues are
admirable character traits; in the ethical life, they represent
attributes of moral excellence. An overview of virtue ethics
and its importance to personal development and ethical leadership would enrich the introductory discussion to business
ethics (Hartman, 2006; Moore, 2002, 2005; Solomon, 2003).
Reticence in Expressing Normative Judgments
Stating that “some would argue . . . while others” (Certo &
Certo, 2009, p. 73) may be understood by students as indifference toward reaching moral conclusions, or as an endorsement of ethical relativism. Consistent with the previous misconceptions, and probably partly arising from them,
this unwillingness to advance ethical conclusions based on
sound argument may reinforce the mistaken idea that these
are merely opinions, and equally tenable. Moreover, it may
reinforce the students’ hesitation or fear to pass ethical judgment on the moral issues in their personal and professional
lives. Right decision making is modeled by boldly and confidently advancing well-grounded ethical conclusions regarding business cases and issues.
Clearly, an applied ethics chapter or lecture does not represent indoctrination or preaching; no genuinely philosophical
endeavor does. Coercively imposing standards differs from
freely deliberating on the reasons why the standards ought to
be accepted, modified, or rejected. Ethics does the latter. An
ethical principle, in order to be so, is well justified and, therefore, persuasive. Arbitrariness or coercion does not make the
standard ethically mandatory; its sound justification does.
Budding managers must develop problem-solving skills
that systematically integrate ethical reasoning in order to
make better decisions, and to be able to confidently and
cogently defend these. Students should exercise their ethical
reasoning skills by systematically applying ethical principles
67
to business cases and issues, and everyday moral questions.
They should also be encouraged to engage in sound ethical
reflection and argument not as a dull and taxing drill, but
as a stimulating and rewarding undertaking. Just as physical
exercise is good for general well-being, the ethical reasoning
and behavior muscle must be regularly exercised in order to
achieve integral health. As is the case with all exercise, discipline and effort are required, but the benefits are well worth it.
BUSINESS ETHICS EDUCATION: OVERVIEW
Since almost every managerial decision has a moral dimension, it is essential that ethical reasoning be integrated to
problem solving and decision making. Formal education in
ethics has been shown to enhance ethical awareness, judgment, and commitment, particularly in young adults whose
reasoning skills are in a state of flux (Duska, 1991; Glenn,
1992; James & Cohen, 2004; Piper, Gentile, & Parks, 1993;
Rest, 1988; Stead & Miller, 1988; Williams & Dewett, 2005).
Accordingly, even at an introductory level, that discussion
must be accurate and systematic, lest students end up believing that business ethics is just a decorative art, wishful thinking, or, worse, a self-serving, vague, or ambivalent
undertaking. A business ethics education built on mistaken
philosophical foundations “trivializes” the topic and “cheats
students” (Klein, 1998, p. 567).
Although there are many good reasons to require a standalone business ethics course in the BBA and MBA curricula (Acevedo, 2001), this is not always the case. As often the
business student’s first look at this discipline, the introductory
management course is an ideal arena in which to learn the importance of ethical leadership and management, and to start
developing the proper problem-solving and decision-making
frameworks in which ethical criteria and methods are necessary. Its business ethics and CSR component is probably the
closest many business students will get to a foundation in the
criteria, concepts, and methods of normative ethics. Other
core courses, such as finance, accounting, marketing, and
operations are commonly not expected to step in and fill any
such void, given their already wide, and highly specialized,
range of topics. Applications of ethics to cases in these fields
often presuppose that the management course has reasonably covered those foundations. In order for students to have
an adequate ethical basis, management educators are urged
to heed this article’s recommendations in their coverage of
business ethics; namely:
• Accurately discuss fundamental concepts such as ethics
and morality, moral problems and moral dilemmas, business ethics and corporate social responsibility;
• Accurately distinguish between ethics and law;
• Avoid statements that may imply that ethical principles
are relative, or that ethical judgments or conclusions are
simply opinions and, as such, are all equally reasonable;
68
A. ACEVEDO
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
• Discuss fundamental universal and objective ethical principles, and systematically apply them to business issues
and cases; and
• Confidently formulate ethical judgments or conclusions
based on sound ethical reasoning.
As Lewin (1951) famously stated, there is nothing more
practical than a good theory. Why would we conscientiously
discuss leadership and motivation theories if it were otherwise? Why, for instance, would leadership researchers demur
about the lack of definitional clarity in the field? (Gini, 1997;
Rost, 1993). Ethical theory deserves no less (Klein, 1998).
Once a person is familiar with sound ethical reasoning principles and methods, any moral problem—whether personal,
group, organizational, or systemic—may be tackled and the
decision confidently and persuasively defended. That education is even more necessary in fragmented societies. Far
from dismissing intuition, creativity, and emotion (Gaudine
& Thorne, 2001; ten Bos & Willmott, 2001), orderly thinking
based on proper principles and methods is more likely to render them fruitful. Fuzzy, or plainly wrong, thinking regarding
ethical matters may do a lot of harm, while systematic, right
reasoning a lot of good to all or most of the parties involved.
Ignoring the costs of ethically wrong behavior, and the benefits of what is ethically right, is hazardous to personal and
organizational health. Would Enron et al. be textbook cases
of ethical wrongdoing and ignoble corporate death had their
decision makers applied sound ethical reasoning and acted
accordingly? Were the resources used in rationalization, deception, and researching legal loopholes well invested?
Although right thinking is an essential aim of any
university-based academic program, it would be unwarranted
to claim that learning ethical reasoning skills will stop all
morally questionable corporate conduct, or that lacking them
will inevitably lead to immoral behavior. Moral courage, for
one, is oftentimes required to act in accordance with the right
decision. On the other hand, a virtuous person, a person of
moral integrity, habitually recognizes and acts on the best alternative. Yet, these outstanding persons also need proper ethical reasoning skills to confidently and cogently justify and
argue their decisions. Many a basically good person in a corrupt organizational setting has been rhetorically beaten when
lacking sound reasoning and argumentation skills. Sound arguments may persuade recalcitrant wrongdoers to mend their
ways.
Business schools have been asked to “rediscover” their
academic roots as “university departments” (Pfeffer & Fong,
2004, pp. 1514–1515; Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004).
They have been admonished for “propagating ideologically
inspired amoral theories” that have “freed their students from
any sense of moral responsibility” (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 76). Inaccurate discussions of business ethics and CSR may prove to
be even worse. A faulty set of tools may inadvertently bring
to its possessor a sense of self-assurance and self-reliance
that is ill-supported. Management has successfully borrowed
theories from psychology, sociology, and economics aiming
to explain, influence, and predict organizational, group, and
individual behavior. As a properly human endeavor, this is
not enough; neither as a true profession. As both, management must be built on sound ethical underpinnings. Outside
the proper normative ethical framework, explanation and prediction of human behavior are useful but sorely lacking. Answering “How do they behave?” and “Will they likely behave
so?” does not answer “Ought they to do so? Is it right?” Improving ethics education in management, along the lines recommended in this essay, enables better answers to the latter.
REFERENCES
Acevedo, A. (2001). Of fallacies and curricula: A case of business ethics.
Teaching Business Ethics, 5, 157–170.
Alsop, R. (2007, June 19). Talking B-school: Why teaching of ethics continues to be lacking. Wall Street Journal, 7.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2011). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation.
Tampa, FL: Author.
Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., & Arnold, D. G. (Eds.). (2008). Ethical
theory and business (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Camenisch, P. R. (1981). Business ethics: On getting to the heart of the
matter. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1, 59–69.
Certo, S. C., & Certo, S. T. (2009). Modern management: Concepts and
skills (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Collins, J. W. (1994). Is business ethics an oxymoron? Business Horizons,
37(5), 1–8.
Crook, C. (2005). The good company. The Economist, 374(8410), 3–18.
Daft, R. L. (2010). Management (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
DeGeorge, R. T. (2009). Business ethics (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Dolhenty, J. (2009). The myth of moral relativism. Documentation Service,
XXII(8), 7–12.
Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Donaldson, T., Werhane, P. H., & Cording, M. (Eds.). (2007). Ethical issues
in business: A philosophical approach (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Duska, R. F. (1991). What’s the point of a business ethics course? Business
Ethics Quarterly, 1, 335–354.
Etzioni, A. (2002, August 4). When it comes to ethics, B-schools get an F.
The Washington Post, B4.
Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well
by doing good. Business Horizons, 50, 247–254.
Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175–187.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4,
75–91.
Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 323–330.
Glenn, J. R. (1992). Can a business and society course affect the ethical
judgment of future managers? Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 217–223.
Gross, D. (2009). Dumb money: How our greatest financial minds
bankrupted the nation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Handy, C. (2002). What’s a business for? Harvard Business Review, 80(12),
49–55.
Hartman, E. M. (2006). Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 68–81.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Managing: A
competency-based approach (11th ed.). Fresno, CA: South-Western.
Henriques, D. B. (2009, June 30). Madoff, apologizing, is given 150 years.
The New York Times, Al.
Hoaas, D. J., & Wilcox, D. C. (1995). The academic coverage of business
ethics: Does economics measure up? American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 54, 289–303.
Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business
Horizons, 31(4), 9–15.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility:
A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics,
82, 213–231.
James, H. S. Jr., & Cohen, J. P. (2004). Does ethics training neutralize
the incentives of the prisoner’s dilemma? Evidence from a classroom
experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 53–61.
Jennings, M. M. (1999). What’s happening in business schools? The Public
Interest, 137, 25–32.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true
profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 70–77.
Klein, E. R. (1998). The one necessary condition for a successful business ethics course: The teacher must be a philosopher. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 8, 561–574.
Kreeft, P. (1990). Making choices: Practical wisdom for everyday moral
decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
Kreeft, P. (1999). A refutation of moral relativism. San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers.
New York, NY: Harper.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility
in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence.
Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115–136.
MacIntyre, A. (1998). A short history of ethics (2nd ed.). South Bend, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). South
Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution distinction: MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 19–32.
Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 659–685.
Nash, L. L. (1981). Ethics without the sermon. Harvard Business Review,
59(6), 78–90.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Some
lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41,
1501–1520.
69
Piper, T. R., Gentile, M. C., & Parks, S. D. (1993). Can ethics be taught?
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Pojman, L. P. (2005). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rest, J. R. (1988). Can ethics be taught in professional schools?
The psychological research. Ethics: Easier Said than Done, 1, 22–
26.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Rue, L., & Byars, L. (2009). Management (13th ed.). Chicago, IL: McGrawHill/Irwin.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2008). Management (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Scruton, R. (1998). An intelligent person’s guide to philosophy. New York,
NY: Penguin.
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2009). Moral issues in business (11th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Solomon, R. C. (1993). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in
business. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics
in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 43–62.
Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2004). Rethinking the business
school. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1521–1531.
Stead, B. A., & Miller, J. J. (1988). Can social awareness be increased
through business school curricula? Journal of Business Ethics, 7,
553–560.
Ten Bos, R., & Willmott, H. (2001). Towards a post-dualistic business ethics:
Interweaving reason and emotion in working life. Journal of Management
Studies, 38, 769–793.
Tett, G. (2009). Fool’s gold: How the bold dream of a small tribe at J. P.
Morgan was corrupted by Wall Street greed and unleashed a catastrophe.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Tipton, M., Bharadwaj, S., & Robertson, D. (2009). Regulatory exposure of
deceptive marketing and its impact on firm value. Journal of Marketing.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1431978
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming
professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 2, 189–205.
Velasquez, M. G. (2009). Business ethics (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of
corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Williams, S. D., & Dewett, T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics:
A review and research agenda. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 12, 109–120.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions in
Business Ethics Education
Alma Acevedo
To cite this article: Alma Acevedo (2013) But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions
in Business Ethics Education, Journal of Education for Business, 88:2, 63-69, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
Published online: 04 Dec 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 644
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:56
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 63–69, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions
in Business Ethics Education
Alma Acevedo
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
As a human endeavor and profession, management must be built on sound ethical underpinnings. Accordingly, introductory management courses customarily introduce business ethics
and corporate social responsibility in order to develop the students’ ethical awareness and
reasoning. Yet, some common misconceptions regarding the discipline are also present in
these introductions to the topic, as evidenced by a review of a sample of popular management
textbooks. Their discussion, with recommendations, aims to improve the teaching and learning
of ethics in management and, hence, managerial problem solving and decision making.
Keywords: business education, business ethics, business schools, ethical relativism, social
responsibility
Recent infamous cases and a global financial crisis partly
blamed on corporate greed (Gross, 2009; Tett, 2009) have
made the discussion of applied ethics ever more pressing.
They suggest that the very survival and success of business depend on its ethical footing. Deceptive marketing, for
instance, has been shown to deeply cut shareholder value
(Tipton, Bharadwaj, & Robertson, 2009). Stakeholders demand transparent and honest corporate governance and accountability. Companies are likely to “do well by doing good”
(Falck & Heblich, 2007).
Just as business uses societal resources in order to operate and profit, it has a duty to fairly reciprocate in goods
and services that foster human development (Collins, 1994;
Donaldson, 1982; Khurana & Nohria, 2008). The businesssociety contract imposes ethical obligations. Business has
been fittingly described as a community of members who
have rights and whose purpose is, ultimately, the flourishing of society (Camenisch, 1981; Handy, 2002; Hartman,
2006). Its managers are “agents of society’s interest in thriving economic enterprises” (Khurana & Nohria, p. 76, italics
in original). This reality grounds management’s claims to be
a profession, and business’ very legitimacy (Khurana, 2007;
Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Trank & Rynes, 2003).
Correspondence should be addressed to Alma Acevedo, University of
Puerto Rico, School of Business Administration, Department of Management, P. O. Box 23332, University Station, San Juan 00931–3332, Puerto
Rico. E-mail: aacgerencia@gmail.com
ETHICS EDUCATION: A BUSINESS SCHOOL
IMPERATIVE
Business schools have been repeatedly called to provide ethical leadership (Alsop, 2007; Etzioni, 2002; Hosmer, 1988).
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International’s accreditation standards (2011) highlight this
concern. A key component of a business school’s mission is
the education of professionals who will lead organizations,
make decisions, and implement them using ethically sound
principles and practices. Accordingly, one of the objectives of
the management course, often one of the first in the bachelor
of business administration (BBA) and master of business administration (MBA) curricula, is to develop students’ moral
awareness and ethical problem solving and decision making
competencies.
The coverage of ethics in management textbooks was
found to be “extensive” more than ten years ago (Hoaas &
Wilcox, 1995). This remains true today. All of the introductory management textbooks reviewed (Certo & Certo, 2009;
Daft, 2010; Hellriegel, Jackson, & Slocum, 2007; Robbins &
Coulter; Rue & Byars, 2009; Schermerhorn, 2008) dedicate
a chapter to business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR). They often cover the factors that influence
managerial ethical decisions, the institutionalization of ethics
(e.g., ethical structures, ethics training, codes of ethics), sustainable development, and ethics in the international context. More specialized issues such as social investments,
social audits, and social entrepreneurship are also becoming standard features (Certo & Certo; Robbins & Coulter;
64
A. ACEVEDO
Rue & Byars; Schermerhorn). All of the textbooks reviewed have been in print for at least nine editions; their authors have published extensively in management and related
areas.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Is this introductory coverage accurate and sufficient? Are
its theoretical underpinnings sound? College students often
either employ legal, moral, or psychological criteria to ethically evaluate situations, or claim that to judge is wrong
since everyone is entitled to their opinions and all of these
are equally tenable (Dolhenty, 2009; Jennings, 1999; Pojman,
2005). Their ethical reasoning skills need development. Does
that introductory material provide students adequate grounds
on which to ethically solve problems and reach the best decisions? Does it provide a proper reference to management
professors, some of whom may lack formal training in moral
philosophy (Hosmer, 1988; Klein, 1998)?
The business ethics and CSR chapters reviewed, though
commendable, reveal a series of misconceptions, some of
which mirror students’ and society’s. The concepts ethics,
morality, and law; ethical relativism and moral relativism;
and business ethics and CSR are frequently confused. The
normative framework tends to be inadequate, and ethical
conclusions are left unstated or unjustified. In this article I examine each of these misconceptions with the goal of improving the teaching and learning of ethics in management and,
hence, managerial problem solving and decision making.
Confusion Between the Concepts Ethics,
Morality , and Law
In the reviewed textbooks, similar to in everyday language,
ethics is frequently defined as morality (e.g., “the code of
moral principles and values that governs the behaviors of
a person or group with respect to what is right or wrong”
[Daft, 2010, p. 130]). Formally speaking, however, ethics is
not morality, but the philosophical study of morality (DeGeorge, 2009; Frankena, 1973; Velasquez, 2009). As such,
ethics systematizes, questions, modifies, and justifies—when
justifiable—morality. It may even reject social and individual
moral standards regarding acceptable and desirable values
and behaviors if found to be objectionable or groundless. For
example, although bribery may be accepted in some countries, it is ethically questionable.
As a set of social or individual standards regarding good
character and right conduct, morality is influenced by customs and culture and is, therefore, relative or contingent (Velasquez, 2009). It may change according to time and society.
Unlike ethics, morality is generally characterized by a set of
negative, specific rules, some of which may be inconsistent,
questionable, or even fall outside the realm of ethics. Arguing
that lying is wrong while justifying tax cheating or expense
padding is an instance of moral incongruity. Ethics, on the
other hand, identifies, develops, and justifies basic universal
and objective principles regarding what the moral agent ought
to be and do (Kreeft, 1990). Because they are universal, they
apply to every moral agent regardless of society, group, or
generation. Because they are objective, they are independent
of personal tastes, fashion, or other purely subjective conditions. Since college age students are already steeped in social
morality, teaching morality instead of ethics involves real opportunity costs for them and society. It may even degenerate
into a moralism that only caricatures philosophical ethics.
Students are also misled when ethics is conceived to be
equivalent to law, as when a legal test is listed among the
standards from which to choose in order to make the right
decision (Certo & Certo, 2009, p. 73). Although important in
a management text, the extensive coverage of legal matters
in the business ethics and CSR chapter (e.g., Rue & Byars,
2009) may be understood as implying that ethical and legal norms are equivalent. Even at an introductory level, and
because of it, their distinction must be unequivocally established lest students conclude that legal behavior suffices for
the ethical personal or organizational life. That ethics, similar to the law, has a normative nature does not mean that
they are related in all aspects. Although law refers to rules
of conduct, its realm and justification, as well as its methods
and conclusions, are not the same as those of ethics. Legal
behaviors are not necessarily ethical (e.g., legal but unethical
lies) while some behaviors are illegal but ethically justified
(e.g., some cases of civil disobedience). Behaviors that violate ethical criteria may, eventually, be codified into laws, as
has happened with workplace race discrimination and sexual harassment in some countries. However, these practices
are ethically wrong not because those laws were approved,
nor only when and where they bind. They are ethically
wrong because, among other reasons, they violate human
dignity.
In addition, while the agent’s intentions for the legal act
do not necessarily add to or detract from its lawfulness, they
are important for the ethical act. Lawfully filing personal tax
forms out of fear of a U.S. Internal Revenue Service audit
does not detract from the act’s lawfulness, but is relevant for
its ethical evaluation. Refraining from wrong behavior out
of fear of its negative consequences places the motivation
outside the agents and may call into question their ethical
integrity. Should those negative consequences be few or unlikely, such agents may not behave correctly since their act
does not stem from autonomously accepted ethical norms.
Ultimately, in the ethical (good) life, rewards and punishments are, in reality, internal to the agent and do not depend
on external administration or enforcement. Unlike ethical
principles, laws are relative to society and generation, and are
established by authoritative bodies that may amend or abolish
them. Legal decisions are strongly influenced by precedents
and written legal codes. Majority opinion or written rules do
not determine the soundness of ethical conclusions.
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
Confusion Between the Concepts Ethical
Relativism and Moral Relativism
Statements such as “discrimination against women and minorities was deemed unethical by our culture and subsequently made illegal in 1964” (Hellriegel et al., 2007, p. 81)
and “although this business practice [bribery] is unethical
(and illegal) in the United States, it’s acceptable in Mexico”
(Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 102) confuse ethical relativism
with moral relativism. They imply that ethical principles are
relative to cultural and time frames. The fact that bribery and
discrimination have been accepted does not make them any
less questionable from an ethical, human rights, standpoint.
Likewise, some statements suggest that ethical principles and
judgments are purely subjective, or contingent on personal
opinion (e.g., “some would argue that the company is being unethical due to its selfishness in this situation while
others would argue that the company is being ethical because it is acting in the best interests of stockholders” [Certo
& Certo, 2009, p. 73]). That moral conclusions may differ
means neither that ethical principles and judgments merely
state individual opinions, preferences, or feelings, nor that
all are equally sound.
Moral relativism states that moral judgments differ, or
may differ, throughout human history, among societies,
among groups or individuals in the same society, or even
within individuals’ lives. Experience shows this to be true,
particularly with regard to controversial matters such as capital punishment, euthanasia, and stem cell research. The statement “race discrimination has been accepted by some societies” does not express an ethical judgment but, rather, an
empirical observation.
Ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the normative claim that there are no universal and objective ethical principles. Ethical relativism—that ethical principles
are contingent and subjective because moral judgments are
thus—is questionable (DeGeorge, 2009; Dolhenty, 2009;
Kreeft, 1990, 1999; Pojman, 2005; Velasquez, 2009). There
are sound reasons to repudiate race discrimination. That human dignity ought to be respected is a norm that holds universally. That it has been violated does not undermine its validity,
but grounds the judgment that such a behavior is wrong. If
ethical relativism were true, what would concepts such as
good, bad, just, or unjust mean? Concluding, for instance,
that bribery is unfair would be impossible, or meaningless,
because there would be no criteria to support that judgment.
Neither would there be criteria on which to evaluate ethical
development or degeneration. Ethical relativism contradicts
human reason and common experience.
Moreover, varying moral conclusions may be reached
from the same universal and objective ethical principles
(Dolhenty, 2009; Kreeft, 1990; Pojman, 2005) simply because of different assessment of the consequences, different
evidence, or definitions. For example, two managers may
disagree on whether marketing genetically modified foods
65
is morally right, while appealing to the common good as
the ethical principle. Their conclusions do not differ because
ethical principles are relative, but because they have assessed
differently the consequences that accrue from the practice or
gathered conflicting data regarding its health effects.
Although thought to advance tolerance (e.g., Robbins &
Coulter, 2009, p. 102), ethical relativism actually harbors intolerance and disorder. The absence of ethical criteria brings
about confusion and hesitation, breeding grounds for intransigence and dictatorship. The reluctance to emit ethical
judgments is not tolerance, but indifference (Kreeft, 1999).
Tolerating every behavior, regardless of its ethical standing,
contradicts the very meaning of virtue. Acknowledging the
diversity of human behavior does not necessarily imply their
ethical approval or disapproval. Recognizing, for instance,
that cheating and fraud occur does not imply that these behaviors are ethically right. Tolerating these practices does not
represent virtue, but vice.
Confusion Between the Terms Business Ethics
and Corporate Social Responsibility
Seldom formally defined in the chapters reviewed, business
ethics is the philosophical study of morality in the business environment (DeGeorge, 2009; Klein, 1998; Velasquez,
2009). As such, it rigorously examines the moral principles,
practices, and problems of the firm at the systemic, organizational, group, and personal levels. The ethical evaluation
of economic systems and of organizational strategies, policies, systems, and actions, as well as of group and employee
character and behaviors, are all part of the realm of business
ethics.
CSR, on the other hand, has been variously defined (Jamali, 2008; Lockett, Moon, & Visser, 2006). In the textbook
chapters surveyed, it is often defined as an obligation to serve
the interests of both, business and society (Certo & Certo,
2009; Daft, 2010; Rue & Byars, 2009; Schermerhorn, 2008).
It involves negative (e.g., not to harm) and positive duties
(e.g., to contribute to the common good). Though less frequently, the term has also been defined as an intention beyond
business’s “legal and economic obligations, to do the right
things and act in ways that are good for society” (Robbins
& Coulter, 2009, p. 93). An intention, however, does not
necessarily imply compliance.
Defining CSR as an obligation raises a number of questions: Which, specifically, are these obligations? Why are
they so? What is the relative weight or importance of each
and why? What is the relative weight or importance of the interests of each of the stakeholders—stockholders or owners,
employees and unions, customers, suppliers, lenders, distributors, competitors, government, community, and social
interest groups—and why? What ought to be done whenever
there is a conflict among those obligations and why? Students should be aware that a systematic ethical examination
is required to rightly answer such questions.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
66
A. ACEVEDO
CSR, therefore, is not synonymous with business ethics,
but a part thereof. A corporation that behaves ethically acts
socially responsibly, albeit not solely so. A corporation that is
socially responsible is not necessarily ethical (e.g., one whose
behavior stems only from a concern with profit, social acceptance, the law, or the avoidance of social rebuke). Socially
responsible practices do not replace ethical reasoning and
commitment, but must be subject to ethical assessment. Enron, for instance, was well known for its CSR practices such
as corporate philanthropy, environmental leadership, and a
CSR task force; it had a code of ethics and a triple-bottomline report (Vogel, 2005). Nonetheless, it has become one
of the most notorious textbook cases of ethical wrongdoing.
The massive fraud at the company inflicted enormous and
lasting human, social, and economic costs. Not surprisingly,
some have argued that an emphasis on CSR may actually
“distract attention” from more fundamental ethical questions
and evaluation and that, consequently, it neither overrides nor
substitutes business ethics (Crook, 2005).
Inadequate Normative Framework
Most of the textbook chapters studied provide a brief
overview of normative ethics in the form of the traditional
rule-based criteria of utilitarianism, moral rights, and justice
(Certo & Certo, 2009; Daft, 2010; Hellriegel et al., 2007;
Schermerhorn, 2008). In addition, some include individualism (Daft; Schermerhorn), which is often described as egoism or normative self-interest. Others use Nash’s (1981) 12question framework or a variant thereof (Robbins & Coulter,
2009; Rue & Byars, 2009). Still another (Certo & Certo,
pp. 72–73) lists a number of additional standards besides the
rule-based ethical criteria: namely, the golden rule, the professional ethic, the legal test, and the “TV test,” which asks
managers whether they would “feel comfortable explaining
to a national TV audience” the reasons for their action. Certo
and Certo added that “managers can feel confident that a potential action will be considered ethical by the general public
if it is consistent with one or more” of those standards.
There are, however, some inaccuracies, inconsistencies,
and significant omissions in the discussion of ethical criteria
in the textbooks surveyed. For instance, the statement “many
economists espouse the utilitarian approach, but it has received less support from the general public [ . . . ] utilitarian
ethics have been increasingly challenged and tempered by
the moral rights and justice approaches” (Hellriegel et al.,
2007, p. 93) is vague and misleading. What evidence backs
those assertions? What relevance does public support have
on an ethical theory’s soundness? From the same chapter:
As a guide to ethical behavior in organizations, the moral
rights approach says more about what organizations should
avoid doing—that is violating the moral rights of employees,
customers, and members of society—than it does about what
to do. The justice approach provides more guidance in this
regard. (Hellriegel et al., p. 96, italics in original)
Have positive rights been considered? Besides, is not justice a moral right as well?
Even when accurate, such introductions to normative
ethics lack the necessary assessment. The principles or standards are mentioned but not evaluated, if only briefly. Placing
ethics as a function of self-interest (individualism), the law
(the legal test), or feeling (the TV test), on a par with social
utility or universal moral rights, hints that the standards are
equally sound and interchangeable. That this is not so may
be learned from any reasonable introductory text in ethics
(e.g., Frankena, 1973; Kreeft, 1990; MacIntyre, 1998; Pojman, 2005) or business ethics (e.g., Beauchamp, Bowie,
& Arnold, 2008; DeGeorge, 2009; Donaldson, Werhane, &
Cording, 2007; Shaw & Barry, 2009; Velasquez, 2009). Students may skeptically wonder what is the standards’ practical
relevance, as these are neither systematically applied to business cases in the chapter nor subsequently. Students should
realize that some moral judgments are right, some are wrong,
some better or worse, depending on the soundness of the ethical reasoning supporting them (Velasquez).
A related shortcoming is an inadequate or nonexistent
definition of which kinds of problems are subject to ethical analysis. The chapters reviewed often list several moral
problems, instead of providing a conceptual framework that
enables students to distinguish moral from nonmoral issues
(i.e., problems that are subject to ethical evaluation from
those that are not; Frankena, 1973). Nonmoral behavior (e.g.,
a person’s handwriting) has nothing to do with ethics or
morality, while immoral behavior (e.g., fraud) violates moral
standards. Unlike nonmoral issues, moral problems involve
questions that pose significant consequences for the agent
or for others. Moreover, their ethical evaluation presupposes
that the agent has moral responsibility. That is, the agent is
free to act and knows or can know the standards, and the
nature and consequences of the action or practice for those
affected. Agents are free to act insofar as they have options
and can behave accordingly because, among other things,
they have the relevant power, resources, control, and skills.
The confusion between a moral problem and a moral
dilemma is also common. Although every moral dilemma
poses a moral problem, not every moral problem is a moral
dilemma (Hosmer, 1988). A dilemma is a problem that
presents the decision maker with alternatives, neither of
which is easy nor comfortable because of conflicting rights
or duties that cannot all be fulfilled (Scruton, 1998, p. 125).
The examples provided often do not fit that definition. Behaviors such as accessing sexually explicit images with
the company’s computer, sexual harassment, conflicts of
interest, and promotion based on non–job-relevant criteria
such as race or age (Schermerhorn, 2008, pp. 36–37) do not
exemplify moral dilemmas. There are ample reasons to conclude that all of them are ethically wrong. On the other hand,
whether a company should operate in a country where sex
discrimination is culturally, and even legally, accepted, may
pose a moral dilemma, particularly if it is an emerging market
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
where foreign enterprise is likely to alleviate unemployment
and poverty.
Finally, none of the chapters examined include virtue
ethics as normative criterion in spite of the renewed interest
in this framework, particularly after MacIntyre’s (2007) and
Solomon’s (1993, 2003) influential work. Recent editions of
some widely used business ethics textbooks have profitably
integrated this framework (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 2008; DeGeorge, 2009; Donaldson et al., 2007; Velasquez, 2009).
Just before hearing the Federal District Judge’s 150-year
sentence, Bernard Madoff apologetically “blamed his pride,”
adding that he lived “in a tormented state now” (Henriques,
2009). His lawyer described him as a “deeply flawed individual,” and the judge decried his scheme as “extraordinarily
evil.” These moral judgments pertain to the person’s character. It is not simply that Madoff behaved in ways that harmed
many people, or that his intentions were questionable, or that
he was about to suffer immense material, social, and personal
losses. The ethical life is not merely an aggregate of acts
with positive consequences or good intentions. It involves
the totality of the person’s being, or character. Virtues are
admirable character traits; in the ethical life, they represent
attributes of moral excellence. An overview of virtue ethics
and its importance to personal development and ethical leadership would enrich the introductory discussion to business
ethics (Hartman, 2006; Moore, 2002, 2005; Solomon, 2003).
Reticence in Expressing Normative Judgments
Stating that “some would argue . . . while others” (Certo &
Certo, 2009, p. 73) may be understood by students as indifference toward reaching moral conclusions, or as an endorsement of ethical relativism. Consistent with the previous misconceptions, and probably partly arising from them,
this unwillingness to advance ethical conclusions based on
sound argument may reinforce the mistaken idea that these
are merely opinions, and equally tenable. Moreover, it may
reinforce the students’ hesitation or fear to pass ethical judgment on the moral issues in their personal and professional
lives. Right decision making is modeled by boldly and confidently advancing well-grounded ethical conclusions regarding business cases and issues.
Clearly, an applied ethics chapter or lecture does not represent indoctrination or preaching; no genuinely philosophical
endeavor does. Coercively imposing standards differs from
freely deliberating on the reasons why the standards ought to
be accepted, modified, or rejected. Ethics does the latter. An
ethical principle, in order to be so, is well justified and, therefore, persuasive. Arbitrariness or coercion does not make the
standard ethically mandatory; its sound justification does.
Budding managers must develop problem-solving skills
that systematically integrate ethical reasoning in order to
make better decisions, and to be able to confidently and
cogently defend these. Students should exercise their ethical
reasoning skills by systematically applying ethical principles
67
to business cases and issues, and everyday moral questions.
They should also be encouraged to engage in sound ethical
reflection and argument not as a dull and taxing drill, but
as a stimulating and rewarding undertaking. Just as physical
exercise is good for general well-being, the ethical reasoning
and behavior muscle must be regularly exercised in order to
achieve integral health. As is the case with all exercise, discipline and effort are required, but the benefits are well worth it.
BUSINESS ETHICS EDUCATION: OVERVIEW
Since almost every managerial decision has a moral dimension, it is essential that ethical reasoning be integrated to
problem solving and decision making. Formal education in
ethics has been shown to enhance ethical awareness, judgment, and commitment, particularly in young adults whose
reasoning skills are in a state of flux (Duska, 1991; Glenn,
1992; James & Cohen, 2004; Piper, Gentile, & Parks, 1993;
Rest, 1988; Stead & Miller, 1988; Williams & Dewett, 2005).
Accordingly, even at an introductory level, that discussion
must be accurate and systematic, lest students end up believing that business ethics is just a decorative art, wishful thinking, or, worse, a self-serving, vague, or ambivalent
undertaking. A business ethics education built on mistaken
philosophical foundations “trivializes” the topic and “cheats
students” (Klein, 1998, p. 567).
Although there are many good reasons to require a standalone business ethics course in the BBA and MBA curricula (Acevedo, 2001), this is not always the case. As often the
business student’s first look at this discipline, the introductory
management course is an ideal arena in which to learn the importance of ethical leadership and management, and to start
developing the proper problem-solving and decision-making
frameworks in which ethical criteria and methods are necessary. Its business ethics and CSR component is probably the
closest many business students will get to a foundation in the
criteria, concepts, and methods of normative ethics. Other
core courses, such as finance, accounting, marketing, and
operations are commonly not expected to step in and fill any
such void, given their already wide, and highly specialized,
range of topics. Applications of ethics to cases in these fields
often presuppose that the management course has reasonably covered those foundations. In order for students to have
an adequate ethical basis, management educators are urged
to heed this article’s recommendations in their coverage of
business ethics; namely:
• Accurately discuss fundamental concepts such as ethics
and morality, moral problems and moral dilemmas, business ethics and corporate social responsibility;
• Accurately distinguish between ethics and law;
• Avoid statements that may imply that ethical principles
are relative, or that ethical judgments or conclusions are
simply opinions and, as such, are all equally reasonable;
68
A. ACEVEDO
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
• Discuss fundamental universal and objective ethical principles, and systematically apply them to business issues
and cases; and
• Confidently formulate ethical judgments or conclusions
based on sound ethical reasoning.
As Lewin (1951) famously stated, there is nothing more
practical than a good theory. Why would we conscientiously
discuss leadership and motivation theories if it were otherwise? Why, for instance, would leadership researchers demur
about the lack of definitional clarity in the field? (Gini, 1997;
Rost, 1993). Ethical theory deserves no less (Klein, 1998).
Once a person is familiar with sound ethical reasoning principles and methods, any moral problem—whether personal,
group, organizational, or systemic—may be tackled and the
decision confidently and persuasively defended. That education is even more necessary in fragmented societies. Far
from dismissing intuition, creativity, and emotion (Gaudine
& Thorne, 2001; ten Bos & Willmott, 2001), orderly thinking
based on proper principles and methods is more likely to render them fruitful. Fuzzy, or plainly wrong, thinking regarding
ethical matters may do a lot of harm, while systematic, right
reasoning a lot of good to all or most of the parties involved.
Ignoring the costs of ethically wrong behavior, and the benefits of what is ethically right, is hazardous to personal and
organizational health. Would Enron et al. be textbook cases
of ethical wrongdoing and ignoble corporate death had their
decision makers applied sound ethical reasoning and acted
accordingly? Were the resources used in rationalization, deception, and researching legal loopholes well invested?
Although right thinking is an essential aim of any
university-based academic program, it would be unwarranted
to claim that learning ethical reasoning skills will stop all
morally questionable corporate conduct, or that lacking them
will inevitably lead to immoral behavior. Moral courage, for
one, is oftentimes required to act in accordance with the right
decision. On the other hand, a virtuous person, a person of
moral integrity, habitually recognizes and acts on the best alternative. Yet, these outstanding persons also need proper ethical reasoning skills to confidently and cogently justify and
argue their decisions. Many a basically good person in a corrupt organizational setting has been rhetorically beaten when
lacking sound reasoning and argumentation skills. Sound arguments may persuade recalcitrant wrongdoers to mend their
ways.
Business schools have been asked to “rediscover” their
academic roots as “university departments” (Pfeffer & Fong,
2004, pp. 1514–1515; Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004).
They have been admonished for “propagating ideologically
inspired amoral theories” that have “freed their students from
any sense of moral responsibility” (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 76). Inaccurate discussions of business ethics and CSR may prove to
be even worse. A faulty set of tools may inadvertently bring
to its possessor a sense of self-assurance and self-reliance
that is ill-supported. Management has successfully borrowed
theories from psychology, sociology, and economics aiming
to explain, influence, and predict organizational, group, and
individual behavior. As a properly human endeavor, this is
not enough; neither as a true profession. As both, management must be built on sound ethical underpinnings. Outside
the proper normative ethical framework, explanation and prediction of human behavior are useful but sorely lacking. Answering “How do they behave?” and “Will they likely behave
so?” does not answer “Ought they to do so? Is it right?” Improving ethics education in management, along the lines recommended in this essay, enables better answers to the latter.
REFERENCES
Acevedo, A. (2001). Of fallacies and curricula: A case of business ethics.
Teaching Business Ethics, 5, 157–170.
Alsop, R. (2007, June 19). Talking B-school: Why teaching of ethics continues to be lacking. Wall Street Journal, 7.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2011). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation.
Tampa, FL: Author.
Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., & Arnold, D. G. (Eds.). (2008). Ethical
theory and business (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Camenisch, P. R. (1981). Business ethics: On getting to the heart of the
matter. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1, 59–69.
Certo, S. C., & Certo, S. T. (2009). Modern management: Concepts and
skills (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Collins, J. W. (1994). Is business ethics an oxymoron? Business Horizons,
37(5), 1–8.
Crook, C. (2005). The good company. The Economist, 374(8410), 3–18.
Daft, R. L. (2010). Management (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
DeGeorge, R. T. (2009). Business ethics (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Dolhenty, J. (2009). The myth of moral relativism. Documentation Service,
XXII(8), 7–12.
Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Donaldson, T., Werhane, P. H., & Cording, M. (Eds.). (2007). Ethical issues
in business: A philosophical approach (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Duska, R. F. (1991). What’s the point of a business ethics course? Business
Ethics Quarterly, 1, 335–354.
Etzioni, A. (2002, August 4). When it comes to ethics, B-schools get an F.
The Washington Post, B4.
Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well
by doing good. Business Horizons, 50, 247–254.
Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 175–187.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4,
75–91.
Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 323–330.
Glenn, J. R. (1992). Can a business and society course affect the ethical
judgment of future managers? Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 217–223.
Gross, D. (2009). Dumb money: How our greatest financial minds
bankrupted the nation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Handy, C. (2002). What’s a business for? Harvard Business Review, 80(12),
49–55.
Hartman, E. M. (2006). Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 68–81.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:56 11 January 2016
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Managing: A
competency-based approach (11th ed.). Fresno, CA: South-Western.
Henriques, D. B. (2009, June 30). Madoff, apologizing, is given 150 years.
The New York Times, Al.
Hoaas, D. J., & Wilcox, D. C. (1995). The academic coverage of business
ethics: Does economics measure up? American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 54, 289–303.
Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business
Horizons, 31(4), 9–15.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility:
A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics,
82, 213–231.
James, H. S. Jr., & Cohen, J. P. (2004). Does ethics training neutralize
the incentives of the prisoner’s dilemma? Evidence from a classroom
experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 53–61.
Jennings, M. M. (1999). What’s happening in business schools? The Public
Interest, 137, 25–32.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true
profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 70–77.
Klein, E. R. (1998). The one necessary condition for a successful business ethics course: The teacher must be a philosopher. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 8, 561–574.
Kreeft, P. (1990). Making choices: Practical wisdom for everyday moral
decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
Kreeft, P. (1999). A refutation of moral relativism. San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers.
New York, NY: Harper.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility
in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence.
Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115–136.
MacIntyre, A. (1998). A short history of ethics (2nd ed.). South Bend, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). South
Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution distinction: MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 19–32.
Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 659–685.
Nash, L. L. (1981). Ethics without the sermon. Harvard Business Review,
59(6), 78–90.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Some
lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41,
1501–1520.
69
Piper, T. R., Gentile, M. C., & Parks, S. D. (1993). Can ethics be taught?
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Pojman, L. P. (2005). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rest, J. R. (1988). Can ethics be taught in professional schools?
The psychological research. Ethics: Easier Said than Done, 1, 22–
26.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Rue, L., & Byars, L. (2009). Management (13th ed.). Chicago, IL: McGrawHill/Irwin.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2008). Management (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Scruton, R. (1998). An intelligent person’s guide to philosophy. New York,
NY: Penguin.
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2009). Moral issues in business (11th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Solomon, R. C. (1993). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in
business. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics
in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 43–62.
Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2004). Rethinking the business
school. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1521–1531.
Stead, B. A., & Miller, J. J. (1988). Can social awareness be increased
through business school curricula? Journal of Business Ethics, 7,
553–560.
Ten Bos, R., & Willmott, H. (2001). Towards a post-dualistic business ethics:
Interweaving reason and emotion in working life. Journal of Management
Studies, 38, 769–793.
Tett, G. (2009). Fool’s gold: How the bold dream of a small tribe at J. P.
Morgan was corrupted by Wall Street greed and unleashed a catastrophe.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Tipton, M., Bharadwaj, S., & Robertson, D. (2009). Regulatory exposure of
deceptive marketing and its impact on firm value. Journal of Marketing.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1431978
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming
professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 2, 189–205.
Velasquez, M. G. (2009). Business ethics (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of
corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Williams, S. D., & Dewett, T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics:
A review and research agenda. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 12, 109–120.