{"title":"Are HRM practitioners required to possess competence in corporate ethics? A content analysis of qualifications in Australia and Asia","authors":"Michael Segon, Chris Booth, Andrew Roberts","doi":"10.1007/s13520-024-00206-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ethical cultures, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainability strategies are increasingly being addressed through formal organisational policies and structures. This is evidenced by codes of ethics, conduct, whistle-blowing reporting lines, anti-bribery and corruption policies, and broader stakeholder and environmental engagement strategies. In the United States, corporate ethics managers are responsible for these functions, supported by specific professional and university-level qualifications. However, this is not the case in Australia and Asia where the role appears delegated to human resource personnel in organisations. Human resource management (HRM) is increasingly advanced as a formal profession, yet whether corporate ethics content features as a significant component of the HRM profession is unclear. Expert knowledge is a foundation of a profession along with the duty to act within the limits of that knowledge and expertise. This paper scopes what constitutes professional expert knowledge. It examines corporate ethics expertise and HRM within this context. Major Australian and Asian organisations are examined to verify that HRM Departments, and thus HRM practitioners, are responsible for managing corporate ethics. Given the seniority and strategic importance of this function, the content of selected Masters in HRM and related fields are examined to identify the extent of ethics content. This is considered in the light of the expertise required to manage corporate ethics, and conclusions are drawn whether the HRM discipline is appropriately qualified to manage this function. Finally, recommendations and further research towards advancing the role and function of corporate ethics managers in general are proposed.</p>","PeriodicalId":54051,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-024-00206-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Ethical cultures, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainability strategies are increasingly being addressed through formal organisational policies and structures. This is evidenced by codes of ethics, conduct, whistle-blowing reporting lines, anti-bribery and corruption policies, and broader stakeholder and environmental engagement strategies. In the United States, corporate ethics managers are responsible for these functions, supported by specific professional and university-level qualifications. However, this is not the case in Australia and Asia where the role appears delegated to human resource personnel in organisations. Human resource management (HRM) is increasingly advanced as a formal profession, yet whether corporate ethics content features as a significant component of the HRM profession is unclear. Expert knowledge is a foundation of a profession along with the duty to act within the limits of that knowledge and expertise. This paper scopes what constitutes professional expert knowledge. It examines corporate ethics expertise and HRM within this context. Major Australian and Asian organisations are examined to verify that HRM Departments, and thus HRM practitioners, are responsible for managing corporate ethics. Given the seniority and strategic importance of this function, the content of selected Masters in HRM and related fields are examined to identify the extent of ethics content. This is considered in the light of the expertise required to manage corporate ethics, and conclusions are drawn whether the HRM discipline is appropriately qualified to manage this function. Finally, recommendations and further research towards advancing the role and function of corporate ethics managers in general are proposed.
期刊介绍:
The Asian Journal of Business Ethics (AJBE) publishes original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business in Asia, including East, Southeast and South-central Asia. Like its well-known sister publication Journal of Business Ethics, AJBE examines the moral dimensions of production, consumption, labour relations, and organizational behavior, while taking into account the unique societal and ethical perspectives of the Asian region. The term ''business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while ''ethics'' is understood as applying to all human action aimed at securing a good life. We believe that issues concerning corporate responsibility are within the scope of ethics broadly construed. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organizational behaviour will be analyzed from a moral or ethical point of view. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies, non-government organizations and consumer groups.The AJBE viewpoint is especially relevant today, as global business initiatives bring eastern and western companies together in new and ever more complex patterns of cooperation and competition.