Journal of Business Ethics最新文献

This study explored how the nature of CEOs’ human capital affects the scope of their firms’ corporate social responsibility initiatives. By integrating upper echelons theory with the attention-based view of the firm, the analyses showed that generalist CEOs with a broader range of knowledge and skills tend to aim their firms’ corporate social responsibility efforts toward a broader range of responsibility domains than do specialist CEOs with a narrower range of knowledge and skills. The difference is weaker when a firm’s board has a sustainability committee or when industry peers are active in a broad range of corporate social responsibility domains. These findings are supported by data on S&P 1500 firms spanning 2000 to 2018.

Contemporary society operates beyond safe boundaries of the Earth system. Returning to a safe operating space for humanity within Earth system boundaries is a question of justice. The relevance of the economy—and thus of business—for bringing society back to a safe and just operating space highlights the importance of business ethics research for understanding the role of business in Earth system justice. In this commentary, we explore the relevance of business ethics research for understanding the crucial role of business in the dynamics of the Earth system. We do so by integrating the perspectives of business ethics and system-oriented sustainability science on the basis of the theory of metabolic rift, which explains how the dynamics of capitalism result in the destruction of the natural environment. On this basis, we argue that a mutually reinforcing relationship between perpetual economic growth and profit seeking behaviour of business, which we call the loop of unsustainability, continually deepens the metabolic rift and keeps business from effectively contributing to Earth system justice. This perspective allows us to formulate firm-level and system-level preconditions for attaining Earth system justice, and to sketch a research agenda that links business ethics scholarship with questions of Earth system justice.

Virtue signaling serves to express moral and ethical values publicly, showcasing commitment to social and sustainable ideals. This research, conducted with non-WEIRD samples to mitigate the prevalent WEIRD bias (i.e., the tendency to solely rely on samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies), examines whether the scarcely studied virtue-signaling construct mediates the influence of consumers’ attachment anxiety (vs. avoidance) on their green purchase behavior and prosocial responses. Drawing on attachment theory and the emerging virtue-signaling literature, the current work reports the results from three studies (N_total = 898) in which consumers’ attachment patterns were not only measured, as in most prior related research, but also manipulated. Study 1 confirmed the unique ability of measured attachment anxiety, but not attachment avoidance, to predict consumers’ green purchase behavior and prosocial tendencies, with virtue signaling mediating these links. Study 2 manipulated participants’ attachment patterns, finding further support for the mediating role of virtue signaling between attachment anxiety (vs. avoidance) and these dependent variables. Study 3 provided a more nuanced account for our virtue-signaling conceptualization by documenting that self-oriented, but not other-oriented, virtue signaling mediated the link between attachment anxiety and both our key outcomes in public contexts. From a managerial viewpoint, these findings indicate that anxiously attached consumers constitute a potentially lucrative segment for companies seeking to expand their market share of sustainable and ethically produced products.

30 years ago, R. Edward Freeman levied an influential challenge against the “separation thesis”, which maintains that ethical and business concerns are distinct and separable. However, achieving an integration of empirical and normative research continues to pose significant challenges. In this article, it is argued that the tradition of philosophical pragmatism offers a pathway to bridge this divide. While Freeman’s critique is rooted in pragmatism, it falls short of fully embracing the pragmatist turn as advocated by Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey, who extended the methodologies of empirical inquiry to ethical issues. Typically, this pragmatist turn has been sidelined due to the formidable objection that norms and values cannot be empirically confirmed nor disconfirmed. This objection is critically examined, arguing that it is largely based on conceptions of science associated with positivism and logical empiricism, effectively challenged by pragmatism. Embracing a pragmatist perspective, it is argued, can substantially enhance both theoretical and empirical research within business ethics. This approach entails integrating observations that pertain to the values, norms and responsibilities of businesses. Conversely, with a comprehensive understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of such proposals, observations can help determine which ethical theories and perspectives best accommodate empirical findings. Additionally, pragmatism presents a novel approach to the role of business in society, enabling businesses to engage in democratic processes of inquiry into value.