Journal of Business Ethics最新文献

In this article, we examine the ethical implications of randomised control trials (RCTs) as a practice of quantification in international development. Often referred to as the “gold standard” for the evaluation of development interventions, RCTs are lauded for their ability to generate supposedly objective, unbiased, and rigorous evidence to inform policy decisions for poverty alleviation. At the same time, critiques of quantification within and beyond development challenge claims of objectivity and neutrality, raising epistemological and ethical questions regarding the role of quantitative research, the numbers they produce, and the processes triggered by practices of quantification. Building on these critiques, this study develops a decolonial analysis of the RCT methodology. We argue that RCTs, by enacting the coloniality of being, knowledge, and power, serve to perpetuate global coloniality, and its core organising principle, namely colonial difference. The study contributes to ongoing conversations addressing the ethical stakes of knowledge production and (de)coloniality.

We explore whether digital inclusion, a public policy designed to provide high-speed internet infrastructure for historically digitally excluded populations, is associated with the social and ethical challenge of financial inclusion. Using evidence from a sizable P2P lender in the U.S., we document that digital inclusion is positively associated with P2P lending penetration and that this relation is more pronounced in counties with limited commercial bank loan penetration and higher minority populations. Our new evidence from cross-sectional tests suggests that digital inclusion plays a key role in financial inclusion, particularly in regions with more vulnerable and/or underserved populations. In consequence tests, we document that high-risk borrowing is less likely to be denied in counties with higher digital inclusion and that digital inclusion is positively associated with P2P lending efficiency in the form of more repeated borrowing, decreased funding time, and improved funding fulfillment. In addition, we show that the availability of alternative information, a plausible channel through which digital inclusion is related to financial inclusion, is positively associated with efficiency in P2P lending. Our findings indicate that digital inclusion can empower financial service providers and other stakeholders to collaboratively fulfill their ethical and social responsibilities to meet the financial needs of historically marginalized groups.

Integrating norms of reciprocity, affect theory of social exchange, and ambivalence literature, we investigated how leader-member exchange (LMX) ambivalence influences employees’ interpersonal behaviors toward supervisors. Study 1, with a time-lagged field method, revealed that LMX ambivalence was positively related to both employee-rated supervisor-directed helping and deviant behaviors and that such relationships were mediated by emotional ambivalence toward supervisors. We also confirmed the amplification effects of workplace gossip about supervisors (WGS). Specifically, while receiving more positive WGS (PWGS) or less negative WGS (NWGS) could strengthen the positive relationship between emotional ambivalence and supervisor-directed helping behaviors, receiving less PWGS or more NWGS would accentuate the positive effect of emotional ambivalence on supervisor-directed deviant behaviors. Study 2 replicated our results with a scenario-based method and offered evidence for the mediating effect of emotional ambivalence toward supervisors. Study 3 included supervisor-rated helping and deviant behavior and a subjective measure of emotional ambivalence and again confirmed the mediating role of emotional ambivalence. Our findings extend knowledge of the interpersonal consequences of LMX ambivalence.

In this article, we seek to explore the different normative claims made around commons organizing and how the advent of the digital commons introduces new ethical questions. We do so by unpacking and categorizing the specific ethical dimensions that differentiate the commons from other forms of organizing and by discussing them in the light of debates around the governance of participative organizations, the cornerstone of commons organizing (Ostrom in Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990). Rather than contesting commons organizing or endorsing it blindly, our goal is to critically reflect on its deontological and instrumental assumptions, and analyze the arguments upholding that it possesses ethical qualities that render it fairer, more equitable and sustainable than other centralized or hierarchical models—as well as any forms of privatization. We conclude by assessing the definitional dislocation of the digital commons where, unlike traditional commons, extractability can be endless and generate unintended consequences such as commodification or alienation. Taking stock of recent debates around the digital commons, we open the debate for future possible research avenues on normative claims, particularly under rapidly changing technological conditions.

Research into consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives has expanded in the past four decades, yet the evidence thus far provided does not paint a cohesive picture. Results suggest both positive and negative consumer reactions to CSR, and unless such mixed findings can be reconciled, the outcome might be an amalgamation of disparate empirical results rather than a coherent body of knowledge. The current meta-analysis therefore tests whether the mixed findings might reflect consumers’ distinct, altruistic inferences across various contingency factors. On the basis of 337 effect sizes, involving 584,990 unique respondents, in 162 studies published between 1996 and 2021, this study reveals that altruistic inferences are central to the current CSR paradigm, such that they mediate the effects of CSR initiatives on consumer responses across multiple contingencies. The mediation by altruistic inferences is stronger (weaker) in conditions favorable to dispositional (situational) motive attributions. Furthermore, consumers respond more favorably to cause marketing or philanthropy rather than business-related CSR initiatives, when the initiative is environmental (vs. social), the firm’s offering is utilitarian (vs. hedonic), the CSR initiative takes place in self-expressive (vs. survival) cultures and in earlier (vs. later) periods. These findings offer several ethical implications, and they inform both practical recommendations and an agenda for further research directions.

We examine the impact of corporate culture on environmental performance using a sample of 7199 firm-year observations over the period of 2002–2018. We find that stronger corporate culture improves environmental performance, measured by the amount of toxic chemical release (TCR). Our result is both statistically and economically significant. We also show that cultural norms of innovation, quality and teamwork as well as a technology-oriented corporate culture have a greater impact on enhancing environmental performance. Further analyses show that managerial competence and strong institutional ownership moderate the relationship between corporate culture and environmental performance. We introduce the decomposition of expected and unexpected components of TCR and document that firms with a strong corporate culture implement strategies to reduce the unexpected component of TCR in addition to the expected component of TCR. Finally, we document that strong corporate culture and environmental performance improve firms’ financial performance. Our results are robust to several sensitivity tests and procedures to mitigate endogeneity and self-selection problems. From a practical point of view, our findings suggest that a firm’s culture can determine its environmental sustainability and ethical practices.

This paper proposes that Hannah Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil furnishes both philosophical and empirical elements to understand not only the Nazi crimes but also cases of wrongdoing by and within current organizations. It is suggested that Arendt provides three relevant standpoints to how wrongdoing is banalized within organizations: a critique of bureaucratic administration, an account of the role of interactive socialization, and a reflection on the cognitive and meaning-attribution processes. Arendt originally connected these three dimensions to thoughtlessness, understood as a process of routinization in which organizations discourage critical thinking, personal responsibility, and reflection about the ultimate meaning and consequences of actions and decisions. As opposed to this, thoughtfulness is proposed as an approach based on meaningful pursuit within organizations to avoid some of the normative, cognitive, and routine elements that encourage, justify, and reproduce the banalization of misconduct.

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.