Journal of Business Ethics最新文献

This study examines inter-firm buyer–supplier relationships through an ethical lens. Drawing on the concept of reciprocity in social exchange theory as well as resource dependence theory, we examine the effect of customers’ unethical practices on their suppliers’ intention to continue their business relationships with their customers. Specifically, we distinguish two types of unethical practices: unfair business practices, which directly target suppliers and socially irresponsible practices, which have an impact on wider society. Integrating social exchange theory and resource dependence theory, we investigate the effects of two moderating factors: suppliers’ dependence on their customers and the benefits derived from the supplier–customer relationship. Using data obtained from 506 managers from small-to-medium-sized firms, our findings show that both customers’ unfair business practices and socially irresponsible practices have negative relationships with their suppliers’ intention to continue the relationships. These effects are moderated by supplier dependence and benefits derived from their customers. Overall, our study shows that intention to continue in these relationships, in response to unethical practices by customers, is bounded by supplier self-interest and resource dependence. Our study is one of the few to examine suppliers’ responses to unethical practices and our findings are consistent with the notion of weak reciprocity, rather than strong reciprocity that predominates in the literature.

The existing literature on unethical pro-family behavior has mainly focused on its precursors, the outcomes of unethical pro-family behavior remain largely unknown. Building on the role theory, the current study presents an integrative model examining the effects of unethical pro-family behavior on actors’ work and life. Across an experiment and a multi-source, multi-wave field study, we found that employees who engage in unethical pro-family behavior experience role conflict, which further triggers their work withdrawal behavior and family emotional exhaustion. Moreover, we identify work role expansion as an essential boundary condition of the effect of unethical pro-family behavior on employees’ work and life. Specifically, the positive correlation between unethical pro-family behavior and role conflict and the indirect impact of unethical pro-family behavior on work withdrawal behavior as well as family emotional exhaustion via role conflict were weaker when work role expansion was high. Overall, this study provides insights into the consequences, mechanism, and boundary condition pertinent to employees’ unethical pro-family behavior.

Despite the appeal of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ as an ethical ideal for businesses to pursue, applying this utilitarian principle in practice proves challenging. This is not least due to fundamental disagreements as to what constitutes the ‘greatest good.’ For example, the concept of ‘wellbeing’ now commonly proposed as a way of apprehending the greatest good is itself subject to widely varying interpretations. Drawing on an in-depth qualitative study of 64 managers in different sectors and country contexts, we explore this variation through the lens of constructivist ethics, asking how and why managers systematically differ in their ethical meaning-making around wellbeing. Our theorizing advances constructivist ethics by relating these differences to developmental stages identified in constructivist psychology, finding that systematic variations in ethical meaning-making are shaped by differences in actors’ capacities to process complexity. Our analysis reveals that managers’ ethical meaning-making about wellbeing is subjective, socially constructed, dynamic, and evolutionary, progressing in stages that we differentiate with a novel concept of ‘subjective wellbeing complexity.’ We contribute to practice by discussing how managers’ ability to work with more complex conceptions of wellbeing can be purposefully enhanced through stage-by-stage capacity-building in the form of ‘vertical development.’

This paper brings into focus the concept of organizational secrecy by senior managers in the context of a major strategic change program. Underpinned by legitimation theory and utilizing a narrative methodology and a longitudinal investigation, we draw upon data from 52 interviews with 13 senior managers conducted at 3 months intervals over the course of 12 months. Our findings reveal that senior managers utilized seven discursive legitimation strategies to justify keeping secret that the organization intended to downsize, and they used a different mix of legitimation strategies as the change process evolved. We labeled these discursive legitimation strategies as (1) Naturalization, (2) Rationalization, (3) Moralization, (4) Authorization, (5) Proceduralization, (6) Valorization, and (7) Demonization. Theoretically we bring a temporal perspective to understanding organizational secrecy and the central role that discursive legitimation plays. We show that the use of these discursive legitimation strategies are anchored to meta-narratives describing work practices and values associated with the organization’s culture. And that managers use discursive legitimation to manage the ethical implications of secrecy.

This paper considers the value and extent to which socially responsible HRM enhances understanding of HR practices in the corporate hotel sector. The paper seeks to address two research questions. Firstly, what are the underlying management philosophies guiding models of HRM within the upper market corporate hotel sector? Secondly, how do the resultant HR practices impact the employee experience of work and well-being? Qualitative case studies were conducted in two high end hotels within the UK. Semi structured interviews (n = 30) were carried out at various levels of the organisation to gain multiple perspectives, including frontline employees, line managers, senior management and HR practitioners. Investigation of the experiences of frontline employees uncovered evidence of a socially irresponsible approach to HRM in each case study. Hidden and deceptive management philosophies were uncovered that shaped the nature of the HR practices used, and resulted in negative outcomes for the well-being of employees. This paper extends the limited research base which has considered socially irresponsible HRM, and extends the concept by demonstrating the central role that management philosophy plays in determining the responsibleness of an HRM approach. The paper also demonstrates the utility of SRHRM models in contexts where practices are rarely socially responsible.

In recent years, a scholarly movement has taken hold that is critical of work and organizational psychology (WOP). Referred to as critical work and organizational psychology (CWOP), this movement problematizes some of the foundational premises of WOP, including its lack of reflexivity on its own values and ethics. While bringing increased attention to reflexivity and ethics as vital to critical theorizing and praxis, CWOP has yet to concertedly engage with ethics. This conceptual paper has two aims. The first is to outline existing ethical approaches in CWOP. Reviewing the literature, we suggest there are currently three tentative critical–ethical positions: (1) a critique of mainstream WOP for its ethical failures, (2) espousal of a radical humanist ethics, and (3) an ethics of ambiguity. The latter is embedded in CWOP literature, but not yet articulated as such. Our second aim is therefore to make an ethics of ambiguity a recognized and explicitly embraced form of ethics that is rooted in a sustained engagement with the conceptualization of subjectivity as such. To clarify the risks inherent to theorizing ethics without a sufficiently robust understanding of subjectivity, we juxtapose ‘blank subjectivity’ with ‘troubled subjectivity,’ two notions informed by psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. We argue that a theory of subjectivity as troubled is at the heart of an ethics of ambiguity. The paper concludes by discussing the contribution of an ethics of ambiguity to CWOP, while also pointing to some convergences between the different critical–ethical positions.

Undocumented migrant workers are among a group of marginalized stakeholders who are severely exploited at their workplace and across broader society. Despite recent scholarly discussions in marginalized stakeholder theory and migration studies, our understanding of how undocumented workers experience marginalization in noncooperative spaces remains very limited. In noncooperative spaces, uncooperative powerful actors deliberately thwart cooperation with local marginalized stakeholders and fail to develop supportive institutional frameworks, such as regulative and transparent governance principles. To address these issues, we conducted interviews with 47 undocumented workers and civil society workers in Italy. Our findings reveal that the marginalization experienced by undocumented workers encompasses socio-economic immobility, systemic incapability, and a sense of meaninglessness. Further, our research challenges the principles of stakeholder capitalism inherent in traditional stakeholder theory, revealing the inadequacy of conventional notions in noncooperative spaces where marginalized stakeholders deal with disempowerment and immobility. We delve into the silent and tacit collusion among uncooperative firms in these spaces, shedding light on the ways in which this problematic cooperation leads to the creation of normative harm. Moreover, we introduce the experience of meaninglessness as an internal barrier hindering migrant inclusion, underscoring the imperative need for widespread immigration reforms and normative changes to foster an environment conducive to meaningful transformations for migrants.

In this editorial essay, we argue that Generative Artificial Intelligence programs (GenAI) draw on what we term a “hypercommons”, involving collectively produced inputs and labour that are largely invisible or untraceable. We argue that automatizing the exploitation of common inputs, in ways that remix and reconfigure them, can lead to a crisis of academic authorship in which the moral agency involved in scholarly production is increasingly eroded. We discuss the relationship between the hypercommons and authorship in terms of moral agency and the ethics of academic production, speculating on different responses to the crisis of authorship as posed by GenAI.

This paper investigates Street Fight Radio’s consumer community’s resistance to neoliberal financial consumer responsibilization. Extant scholarship critiques consumer responsibilization on ethical grounds for placing too much responsibility on consumers at the expense of institutional actors. It also describes some forms of aversion to parts of the responsibilization process among individuals and short-lived consumer collectives. However, it falls short of analyzing community-driven resistance to financial consumer responsibilization writ large, or consumers’ efforts to responsibilize other stakeholders. Our netnographic and ethnographic study of Street Fight Radio (SFR), a populist grassroots political comedy radio show and podcast with a strong anti-neoliberal consumer community, addresses these previous theoretical limitations. Drawing from Foucault’s counter-conduct concept, we show how SFR’s consumer community bolsters and sustains community-level resistance to financial consumer responsibilization. It encourages consumers to push for collective protections from markets and responsibilize other actors to address systemic, structural precarity. Our analysis makes novel contributions by theorizing the role of community in sustaining resistance to consumer responsibilization and by demonstrating the role of precarious consumers’ performative staging of supposedly excessive, irresponsible consumption in reorienting consumer ethics.

Although ethics research shows that prospective penalties for tax fraud can increase taxpayers’ compliance with tax laws, we do not have a clear understanding of how perceptions of penalty severity impact tax compliance. To address this gap, I first conduct a survey to establish what propriety of penalty severity encourages compliance. I then examine experimentally whether taxpayers’ compliance is jointly influenced by penalty severity and social norms. I expect social norms to moderate the impact of penalty severity because social norms provide a contextual cue about the scope and relevance of an ethical issue. Specifically, I expect that when taxpayers anchor (do not anchor) on information about social norms, the positive impact of penalty severity on tax compliance is suppressed (not suppressed). My results are as predicted. I conclude that governments can increase compliance with tax laws by imposing appropriately severe tax fraud penalties and carefully considering the release of information related to compliance norms.