Journal of Business Ethics最新文献

This study provides comprehensive evidence on the link between boardroom diversity and reduction of carbon emissions. Analyzing data from a sample of 344 UK-listed non-financial and unregulated firms over the period from 2005 to 2021, our findings indicate that task-oriented (i.e., tenure) and structural (i.e., insider/outsider) board diversity are important for reducing corporate carbon emissions while relational diversity does not appear to be useful. Furthermore, the study explores the role of external carbon governance, such as the Paris Agreement, on firms with weaker internal governance structures. The findings reveal that external governance plays a critical role in curbing emissions when internal governance is not effective. Overall, our research offers valuable insights for management and regulatory bodies on the interplay between various governance mechanisms internal and external to a firm. This knowledge could guide them in determining the right mix and degree of diversity in the boardroom to achieve environmental goals.

Citing corporate concentration and lax enforcement since the Reagan era, the Biden administration has declared a new era of aggressive antitrust prosecution, bringing antimonopoly actions against tech giants such as Meta, Google, and Amazon. But what’s so bad about monopoly or corporate concentration? The standard answer appeals to economic consequences, such as higher prices or deadweight losses. This paper offers a different framework. It argues monopolizing can be a form of cheating, which is a wrong that attaches to means, not just ends; an athlete who cheats but loses still does wrong. In particular, this paper argues that certain market-controlling strategies constitute a form of cheating I call ‘structural cheating,’ best illustrated by the metaphor of creating an unlevel playing field: rather than compete fairly on merits such as product quality and price, a firm that acquires rivals biases the market in its favor, thereby entrenching a dominant position that effectively forces would-be competitors to compete uphill. By framing (alleged) antitrust violations as cheating, while using the FTC’s lawsuit against Facebook (now Meta) as a test case, this paper provides a needed corrective to those citing market success as evidence of merit or skill. A further upshot is the structural cheating account better explains the distinctively problematic features of social media market concentration than Heath’s Market Failures Approach. More generally, this paper provides a normative lens for analyzing fair market competition and shows why it’s not only winning or losing that counts in capitalism, but how one plays the game.

This study investigates the influence of old directors on corporate social responsibility (CSR) using roughly 25,000 firm-year observations from 2001 to 2015 in the United States. We employ the widely used selection, optimization, and compensation (SOC) model from psychology to explain the CSR decisions of old directors. Our results indicate that firms with a higher percentage of old directors tend to have lower engagement in CSR activities. To address endogeneity, we adopt the difference-in-differences method and use the event of sudden deaths and unexpected retirements of old directors and find that our results remain robust. Our analysis also reveals that the negative impact of old directors on CSR is more significant in firms where directors receive fewer reputational spillover benefits from CSR initiatives and/or firms exhibiting poor corporate governance. In addition, this adverse impact of old directors comes from two effects: a reduction in efforts to enhance CSR strengths and an increase in inaction to address CSR concerns. Overall, these findings suggest that the CSR decision-making process of old directors involves assessing the costs and benefits of CSR engagements, consistent with our hypothesis derived from the SOC model.

Reporting peers’ counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) is important for maintaining an ethical organization, but is a significant and potentially risky action. In Bandura’s Theory of Moral Thought and Action (Bandura, 1991) he states that such acts require significant moral agency, which is generated when an individual possesses adequate moral self-regulatory capacities to address the issue and is in a context that activates and reinforces those capacities. Guided by this theory, we assess moral potency (i.e., moral courage, moral efficacy, and moral ownership) as key capacities predicting peer reporting intentions and assess three contextual factors influencing the generation and effects of moral potency: whether a potential informant (1) works for an ethical leader, (2) is embedded in a psychologically safe climate promoting interpersonal risk-taking, and (3) operates in a more normal or extreme context. We assess the proposed model across three field studies entailing both normal and extreme (i.e., firefighting units) contexts. Results show that ethical leaders raise employees’ moral potency, promoting greater willingness to report their peers’ CWBs. In normal work contexts, psychological safety positively moderated both the relationship between ethical leadership and moral potency and between moral potency and peer reporting intentions. However, psychological safety had the opposite effects in more extreme work contexts. Whereas psychological safety strengthens the positive association between moral potency and peer reporting intentions in normal work contexts, in contexts where individuals are more frequently exposed to extreme events, psychological safety weakens this relationship, thus highlighting the unforeseen downsides of psychological safety in extreme contexts.

In a time of increasing polarization, how can we address sensitive topics and ensure that university classrooms remain places of healthy discussions and ethical deliberations? This paper addresses this important question by drawing on unique qualitative data from our students’ accounts of their experience in an organizational ethics course. We developed the course using a novel pedagogical strategy centered around the creation of an artistic portfolio. We find that student engagement in an alternative individual space, such as the artistic portfolio, supports them in developing (inter)personal skills in preparation for constructive participation in sensitive discussions and ethical deliberation in the classroom. Additionally, engagement with the artistic portfolio provides them with an alternative means for alleviating tension that arises from these discussions and a space for expressing their opinions. Our findings highlight the role of the portfolio as an individual safe haven that supports teachers in facilitating a positive classroom atmosphere and guides students through challenging discussions and deliberations intrinsic to responsible management education. Considering these new insights, we advocate for a shift from a collective to an individual perspective on safety in academia. This transition liberates the classroom from the constraints and limitations often associated with the establishment of collective safe spaces.

Discussions of why corporations should cultivate a diverse workforce emphasize justice- and profit-based reasons. This paper defends a distinct third rationale of legitimacy-based reasons for diversity. I articulate and defend the market power account of firm legitimacy, which holds that private firms, much like governmental institutions, have a moral obligation to justify the power they exercise over stakeholder groups when those groups lack meaningful rights of exit from their relationship with the firm. Firms can discharge this obligation by incorporating moral diversity into managerial teams that decide company policy. Moral diversity confers both epistemic and moral advantages onto teams tasked with solving complex problems that impact disparate stakeholder groups. These advantages confer proceduralist legitimacy onto implemented policies, giving impacted groups reason to accept those policies, even when those groups find those policies objectionable on other grounds.

Pecuniary externalities—costs imposed on third parties mediated through the price system—have typically received little philosophical attention. Recently, this has begun to change. In two separate papers, Richard Endörfer (Econ Philos 38, pp. 221–241, 2022) and Hayden Wilkinson (Philos Public Affairs 50: 202–238, 2022) place pecuniary externalities at center stage. Though their arguments differ significantly, both conclude pecuniary externalities are in some sense morally problematic. If the state is not called on to regulate pecuniary externalities, then, at the very least, individuals should be conscious of how their productive and consumptive decisions affect others by changing prices. We disagree. Both arguments fail, in that neither gives us reason to think pecuniary externalities are cause for moral concern. Unless a new argument emerges, pecuniary externalities should be left alone.

Despite numerous chief executive officers (CEOs) citing their religious convictions as the primary guiding framework for their decision-making, leadership behavior, business philosophy, and motivation to contribute to society, the impact of CEOs’ religious convictions is relatively limited in the business literature. However, the widespread yet potentially ambiguous impact of CEO religiosity, encompassing both a CEO’s religious denomination and level of religiosity, on individual, organizational, economical, and societal levels remains a neglected area of research. This gap is attributed to challenges in conceptualizing and measuring this multifaceted construct, with existing research scattered and predominantly confined to the ethics domain. Notably, this oversight is significant given the pivotal role that CEOs, as primary decision-makers, play in organizational dynamics. This article aims to address this gap by conducting a systematic literature review of 50 articles focused on CEO religiosity, seeking to enhance the understanding of personal religion in the business world. Through an analysis of publication trends, methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, and empirical findings, the review not only offers insights for future research and theorizing but also proposes a conceptual framework for understanding and advancing CEO religiosity research. Additionally, this review identifies specific areas warranting further investigation, thereby highlighting existing research gaps and providing explicit starting points for future research. Through these contributions, this article provides a blueprint for future research on CEO religiosity and holds significant implications for management practice.

Seeking to better understand how nonprofit organizations (NPOs) manage hybridity, we investigated what distinguishes NPOs that combine multiple logics in productive and unproductive ways. We collected and analyzed data from six case studies of NPOs delivering social services in Australia. Our findings reveal that organizational members of NPOs take a perspective on their hybrid nature which comprises four elements: motivational framing, actor engagement, resourcing attitude, and governance orientation. NPOs that combine multiple logics in productive and unproductive ways, respectively, are distinguished by (1) a compelling or confused motivational framing for combining logics; (2) actors having active and shared, or passive and isolated, engagement with multiple logics; (3) attitudes toward resourcing multiple logics that are either coherent or competitive; and (4) a governance orientation toward multiple logics as opportunities to leverage or problems to resist. Our findings contribute to the literature by deepening understanding of the interplay between complex constellations of multiple logics in NPOs, including religious and professional logics. We also develop a model of organizational perspectives on hybridity and their implications for distinguishing NPOs that productively harness tensions between logics.