Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm
Ethical
Ethical decision-making: decision-making
an integrative model
for business practice
359
J.R.C. Pimentel
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Received April 2008
J.R. Kuntz Revised August 2008
Accepted October 2008
Department of Philosophy, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, and
Detelin S. Elenkov
Department of Management and Marketing, Angelo State University,
San Angelo, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer an interdisciplinary review of the existing research on
ethical behavior – informed by philosophical theories, social sciences, and applied business research –
and identifies the merits and limitations of the extant theories, including the applicability of
prescriptive frameworks and models to business practice.
Design/methodology/approach – Following the review, the paper advances a descriptive model of
ethical decision-making criteria that elucidates how individual, organizational, and environmental
variables interact to influence attitude formation across critical components of an ethical issue.
Findings – The model advanced expands upon other existing frameworks and provides a
comprehensive and simultaneous assessment of the interplay between individual-level variables
(e.g. demographic variables, position in the organisation), the structure and climate of the organisation
in which the decisions are made, and the social and political features of the business environment.
Practical implications – The proposed model can be used as a training tool and it holds several
advantages over the extant alternatives, namely versatility (it is adaptable to the specific
organizational context in which respondents are required to conceptualize the dilemma and generate
courses of action), and scope (the model allows for the simultaneous assessment of a myriad of
cross-level variables).
Originality/value – The paper offers a comprehensive decision-making model that can be used to
examine ethical decisions in business settings, to investigate potential differences in decision-making
accuracy and ethical reasoning between groups and individuals, and to examine the impact of
changing ethical climates in organizational strategy.
Keywords Decision-making, Business ethics, Business environment
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The examination of ethical behavior in organizational contexts has merited considerable
interest in the past two decades from researchers and practitioners alike. However, the
theories and frameworks proposed have failed to clearly integrate decision-making European Business Review
Vol. 22 No. 4, 2010
components and intervenients across levels of analysis, and to provide a consistently pp. 359-376
employable definition of what constitutes ethical behavior in business practice. The q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0955-534X
inconsistency across theoretical models and subsequent empirical findings is largely DOI 10.1108/09555341011056159
EBR attributed to the fact that business ethics has been investigated under the lens of several
22,4 disciplines with different foci and methodological orientations, and few attempts at
offering an interdisciplinary approach can be encountered. Rationale for ethical
behavior and decision-making processes has been offered mainly from the perspective of
classical moral theories borrowed from the discipline of philosophy, and from applied
business theories founded on economical and sociological principles. While the
360 philosophical approach examines ethical behaviors using classical normative theories to
explain ethical choices, namely those that fall within the teleological and deontological
frameworks, the applied business perspective provides a broad array of descriptive and
prescriptive frameworks, utilizing methods that range from anecdotal evidence to
the examination of relationships among decision-makers and organizational variables.
As a result, ethical behavior research has provided integrated frameworks that, even if
theoretically sound and open to empirical cross-sectional testing, largely miss the scope
of ethical decision making in business settings. The presently available models are
insufficient for either of two reasons:
(1) they fail to find that individuals’ characteristics are integral to the identification
of ethical dilemmas; and
(2) they limit themselves to ethical evaluations that fall within the boundaries of
teleological and deontological normative theory.
The latter limitation leaves out normative evaluations that reflect ethical
characteristics such as “closeness,” “relationships,” and “moral virtue” (Slote, 2001;
Swanton, 2003; Hursthouse, 1999). Failure to integrate these essential properties of
moral decision making and other aspects of a broader array of ethical theories has led
to the construction of models that are, at best, incomplete. Note, however, the present
paper can only gesture at the limits of deontological and teleological ethical theories
and propose that future models for ethical decision making in business include these
other important and legitimate ethical perspectives.
The present paper has three main purposes. First, to offer a review of the existing
research on ethical behavior informed by philosophical theories, social sciences, and
applied business research. Second, to identify potential and limitations of the extant
theories of ethical behavior with respect to criteria selected, levels of analysis, integration
between constructs of interest, and applicability of prescriptive frameworks and models to
business practice. Third, to propose a descriptive framework of ethical decision-making
criteria that integrates the extant approaches at different levels of analysis. This approach
incorporates a number of factors that account for variation in the analysis and
interpretation of components of an ethical dilemma, including individual differences,
knowledge of organizational norms, and social and legal environment.
Demographic variables
Moral agency, or the choice to engage in a particular course of action given an ethical
dilemma, has been presented in the extant literature as an individual-level phenomenon.
This assumption led a number of researchers to investigate the antecedents of ethical
decision making from the standpoint of individual differences. Gender, age, and work
experience are amidst the most frequently examined variables (Forte, 2004; McDevitt
et al., 2007; Valentine and Rittenburg, 2007). Despite the growing evidence suggesting
EBR a relationship between demographic variables and ethical stance, the research findings
22,4 are often conflicting. It is plausible that the inconsistent findings stem from the
employment of differing frameworks and models in the investigation of individual
differences and decision making. In practice, ethical intent and ethical behavior have
been examined based on three perspectives:
(1) a scenario-based approach that assesses intent to act in an ethical manner;
362 (2) the examination of the interaction between moral reasoning and demographic
variables in determining ethical behavior; and
(3) a dilemma-based approach that considers the interaction between the content of
the ethical dilemma and the decision-maker’s characteristics.
The scenario-based approach involves tests of individual differences based on rating
scales that provide information on the degree to which decision-makers intend to act
ethically (McDaniel et al., 2001; McDevitt et al., 2007; Terpstra et al., 1993; Valentine and
Rittenburg, 2007). Findings are unanimous with regard to the impact of gender differences
in ethical intent: women report lower intention to behave unethically than men. While
competing theories defend that organizational and societal characteristics (e.g. glass
ceiling effect) mediate this relationship, the empirical findings are consistent across
non-professional samples (McDaniel et al., 2001; Terpstra et al., 1993) and professional
samples (Valentine and Rittenburg, 2007). From a practical standpoint, it is possible that
women are more likely to recognize ethical dilemmas and to adopt a more conservative
moral stance to decision making when a dilemma is presented. Research findings also
suggest that older workers display greater intention to act ethically than younger subjects
when presented with a hypothetical dilemma (Terpstra et al., 1993; Valentine and
Rittenburg, 2007), as do individuals with more work experience. From a lifecycle
standpoint, age and work experience will be highly correlated and confound empirical
results. In practice, age and experience level will be associated with greater exposure to
and internalization of organizational norms with regard to the resolution of dilemmas,
greater likelihood of acknowledging ethical dilemmas and to provide more appropriate
solutions based on previous experience with similar situations, and broader wealth of
knowledge allowing a more thorough situational analysis with better understanding of the
decision’s impact on relevant stakeholders and organizational processes.
The second approach presented entails the investigation of the degree to which the
interaction of moral reasoning with demographic characteristics explains interpersonal
differences in ethical behavior (Gowthorpe et al., 2002; Shultz and Brender-Ilan, 2004;
Stedham et al., 2007). Despite the criticism regarding their limited applicability to
organizational settings, research has devoted considerable attention to the predominance
of particular moral approaches to decision making among individuals of specific age,
gender, and managerial groups. Contrary to the empirical findings from scenario-based
studies, research on the impact of personal moral philosophies on ethical decision making
tends to elicit conflicting results. While some researchers argue that organizational
members do not differ in their moral approaches to decision making based on age, gender,
and position in the organization (Gowthorpe et al., 2002), others contend that age is directly
associated with preference for the deontological approach in detriment of a relativist
approach (Shultz and Brender-Ilan, 2004). Researchers also appear to disagree with respect
to the propensity for a particular approach to moral reasoning according to gender,
and no consensus is found regarding women’s preference for the deontological approach
or a relativist approach to decision making (Shultz and Brender-Ilan, 2004; Stedham et al., Ethical
2007). A possible explanation for the discrepancies between the scenario-based and the decision-making
moral reasoning approaches concerns the differing models from which research questions
are generated. For instance, Gowthorpe et al.’s (2002) comprehensive framework includes
self-referential, consequentialist, deontological, and appearance-referential moral theory
dimensions, whereas Shultz and Brender-Ilan (2004) incorporated egoism, utilitarianism,
deontology, relativism, and justice perspectives in the examination of the influence of 363
interpersonal differences on ethical behavior. While there is considerable overlap between
the proposed dimensions, the existing differences bring forth different conclusions.
Moreover, there has been recent debate on the possibility that decision makers may
consider different moral positions simultaneously when faced with a dilemma (Stedham
et al., 2007). This proposition further suggests that the examination of ethical behavior
requires a dynamic and integrative framework, and calls for the deconstruction of moral
reasoning dichotomies to explain decision-making processes.
Finally, the dilemma-based approach highlights dilemma characteristics and their
moral intensity as determinants of ethical behavior. Dilemma-based research explores the
role of individual differences in determining which criteria are considered in ethical
decisions. In practice, empirical findings suggest that younger individuals are susceptible
to their peers’ input when faced with an ethical dilemma, whereas older individuals
consider perceived seriousness as a critical criterion for ethical decisions (Barnett, 2001).
These research findings propose that the nature and characteristics of an ethical dilemma
will be perceived differently and elicit different courses of action depending on the
characteristics of the decision-maker. This constitutes a promising shift from a
perspective of ethical decision-making rooted on personal moral theories and moral
development to a contingency perspective that comprises both the decision-maker’s
characteristics and the nature of the dilemma presented. Future research would benefit
from further exploration of ethical dilemmas’ characteristics that influence ethical
judgments and behavioral intent, and the moderating role of individual-level variables.
Regardless of the methodology adopted, gender, age, and level of experience have
represented the primary individual-level variables of interest in ethical decision-making
research, namely their role as moderators. With regard to gender, there has been
considerable debate on the differences between men and women regarding their ethical
stance and behaviors. One of the most widely accepted explanations for gender
differences in ethical decision making involves the role of socialization in generating
interests, expectations, and values that are unique to men or to women. Results from a
meta-analytical study examining gender differences in ethical perceptions in a business
context suggest that these differences are moderated by the nature of the dilemma and
by work experience (Franke et al., 1997). Regarding the latter, it is plausible that as men
and women are socialized into the work environment their ethical perceptions become
more associated with business-related factors and structural constraints, and less
influenced by social roles stemming from societal norms. The implications of this
meta-analytical study are twofold. First, the findings challenge the assumption that men
and women bring unchangeable values into the work context. The fluid nature of
individuals’ perspectives on values and behaviors as the socialization process in
organizations occurs may explain some of the conflicting findings presented in this
section and potentially preclude the use of stable frameworks (e.g. personal moral
philosophy approaches) to explain ethical decision-making patterns across individuals.
EBR Second, the moderating role of socialization and organizational variables on ethical
22,4 values highlights the importance of examining interactions between individual
differences (e.g. gender and work experience) and of further investigating the
relationship between organizational characteristics (i.e. formal codes of ethical conduct,
ethical leadership programs, strategic goals) and ethical decisions. The following section
will describe ethical behaviors and decision making in the context of some of the
364 predominant organization-level perspectives and frameworks.
Organization-based theories
Ethical capability represents the most promising theory within organization-based
research in ethical behavior. This theory comprises the integration of variables at
different levels of analysis. It acknowledges the relationship between leadership
characteristics, behaviors, and organizational effectiveness. Moreover, it advocates Ethical
organizational systems and administrative practices that create and sustain strong decision-making
ethical climates, as well as consistency between organizational practices and legal
guidelines. To date, the existing literature has failed to present empirical testing of the
proposed theory in relation to the quality of ethical decisions.
Recognizing and defining the ethical dilemma. Most organizational decisions concern
routine procedures and lead to the anticipated outcomes. These decisions are informed
by guidelines and norms particular to the organization or the business industry.
However, the fast-changing nature of the business environment presents novel
situations that require the delineation of unique courses of action. In addition, changes
in the workforce composition, organizational culture, and emphasis on social
responsibility enlarge the scope of decision options and create dilemma situations
where formerly a straightforward approach elicited the desired outcomes. Hence, the
decision-makers’ ability to recognize that a particular situation may represent an
ethical dilemma is critical to the success of organizations. Informed by extant research,
we suggest that the relationship between the nature of the dilemma, individual
differences (e.g. age, gender, managerial level, business experience, and cultural
background), organizational characteristics, and the alignment between organizational
systems, the legal environment, and other extra-organizational factors (i.e. ethical
capability) determine the extent to which decision-makers are able to recognize a
situation as an ethical dilemma.
Identify relevant stakeholders and the impact of decisions on these stakeholders.
A second step to making a sound decision with regard to an ethical dilemma involves
the decision-maker’s capability to identify relevant stakeholders and the impact of the
selected course of action on these individuals. Similar to the requirements for dilemma
identification and definition, the decision-makers ability to identify relevant
stakeholders and the differential impact of ethical decisions on different
stakeholders is highly dependent upon individual characteristics. For instance, it is
expected that the higher the managerial position occupied by the decision-maker and
the greater the level of experience, the more likely it is that this individual has formed
networks and possesses knowledge of the key stakeholders that will be impacted by
business decisions. Furthermore, the decision-maker’s cultural background and gender
will expectedly enhance awareness of the impact of administrative decisions and
internal policies on minority strata of the workforce.
The organization’s ethical capability will also determine how effectively
decision-makers anticipate the impact of business decisions and become aware of key
individuals. Organizational systems that emphasize learning and open communication
across levels facilitate information exchange regarding relevant stakeholders and
provide input with respect to the impact of particular decisions based on well-informed
risk analysis.
Identify organizational values and norms relevant to the ethical issue. Following the Ethical
analysis of the ethical dilemma, its characteristics, relevant stakeholders, and the decision-making
impact of prospective decisions on those stakeholders, decision makers must consider
internal and external boundaries prior to proposing a course of action. Organizational
values and procedural norms represent internal boundaries that determine important
aspects of ethical conduct, namely decision latitude, the involvement of particular
organizational members, and the choice of a specific solution. We suggest that 373
individual and organizational characteristics influence the decision-maker’s capacity to
align ethical decisions with organizational values, and to adequately integrate
organizational procedures with subsequent action courses. The interaction between
individual differences (e.g. managerial position and level of experience) and ethical
capability will expectedly influence the extent to which decision-makers are able to
identify relevant organizational values and norms and use this knowledge to integrate
ethical decisions with the organization’s mission and strategic direction. In practice,
individuals with longer organizational tenure and occupying a higher position in the
organization will have privileged access to strategic information and more familiarity
with the organization’s mission and goals than individuals that are newer to the
organization or that are not as involved in strategic planning activities. In addition,
organizations with ethical capability will possess sound knowledge of business ethics
and foster open communication systems that allow for that wealth of knowledge to
disseminate across units and to adequately inform ethical decision making. Hence, the
accurate identification of organizational values and procedures relevant to ethical
decision making will be facilitated when decision-makers possess sufficient experience,
exposure, and information to permit the alignment between the organization’s
direction and the proposed ethical decisions.
Identify legal regulations and environmental characteristics relevant to the ethical
issue. The last stage of the decision-making model involves the identification of
external boundaries (i.e. legal guidelines and other environmental factors) that
influence the implementation of a particular decision. We postulate that the interaction
between individual-level variables (e.g. experience level, managerial level, and cultural
background) and the organization’s ethical capability will determine the
decision-maker’s ability to identify external boundaries and to consider them when
making decisions. In practice, the extra-organizational component of ethical capability
encompasses a thorough knowledge of local and international codes of conduct for
businesses that will more likely be accessible to individuals in top managerial
positions, or possessed by organizational members that have greater experience with
local and/or international business environments. In addition, dynamic environments
will likely imply more flexible boundaries, which will restrict the range of reliable
information a manager can gather to formulate decisions.
Concluding remarks
The present addressed some of the limitations of the extant literature and current
research in ethical decision making, and proposed a model that highlights the factors
that intervene in the interpretation of ethical dilemmas. Acknowledgment of these
factors serves to rectify common errors and biases in decision making. Taking into
account empirical evidence from the existing literature allows decision-makers to
survey their own reasons for adopting a specific ethical stance, and to identify external
EBR constraints to the accurate definition of ethical dilemmas and implementation of action
22,4 courses. The range of possible pitfalls for ethical decisions is so extensive that it is
unlikely that a single individual would be able to account for them all. In this sense, the
pervasive scope of the empirical literature leads us to suggest that ethical
organizations will benefit from forming synergistic teams for decision-making tasks.
Team members can be selected and provide input on the basis of their ability and
374 experience with particular ethical domains in a business environment. The model
presented proposes some of these domains, namely knowledge of organizational
norms, legal guidelines, and cultural considerations. Longitudinal research is needed to
test this model in an applied setting, and its implications for effective decision
outcomes. Contrary to other existing frameworks, the model presented here does not
aim at providing a stepwise description of ethical decision making from dilemma
recognition to behavioral action and analysis of consequences. Instead, the model
illustrates the individual, organizational, and environmental variables that influence
attitude formation across critical components of an ethical issue.
Models for ethical decision making, including the present one, lack the integration of
ethical foresight. That is, they fail to account for future ethical climates that will be
hostile towards organizations’ current decisions. An organization’s reputational credit
can be earned far before it is cashed-in by taking into account how current decisions
will be viewed in future ethical climates. Hence, we suggest that the refinement of the
current model should also include measures that make relevant future ethical climates
to inform present decisions.
References
Barnett, T. (2001), “Dimensions of moral intensity and ethical decision-making: an empirical
study”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 1038-57.
Bartlett, D. (2003), “Management and business ethics: a critique and integration of ethical
decision-making models”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 223-35.
Brown, M.E. (2007), “Misconceptions of ethical leadership: how to avoid potential pitfalls”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 140-55.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning
perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 97, pp. 117-34.
Buller, P. and McEvoy, G.M. (1999), “Creating and sustaining ethical capability in the multi-national
corporation”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 326-43.
Burke, F. (1999), “Ethical decision-making: global concerns, frameworks, and approaches”,
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 529-40.
Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment”,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B., Grojean, M.W. and Ehrhart, M. (2001), “An organizational climate
regarding ethics: the outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect them”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 197-217.
Di Lorenzo, V. (2007), “Business ethics: law as a determinant of business conduct”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 71, pp. 275-99.
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T.W. (1994), “Toward a unified conception of business ethics:
integrative social contracts theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 252-84.
Ferrell, O. and Gresham, L. (1985), “A contingency framework for understanding ethical Ethical
decision-making in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 87-96.
decision-making
Forte, A. (2004), “Antecedents of managers’ moral reasoning”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 51,
pp. 315-47.
Franke, G.R., Crown, D.F. and Spake, D.F. (1997), “Gender differences in ethical perceptions of
business practices: a social role theory perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82
No. 6, pp. 920-34. 375
Freeman, S.J. and Francis, P.C. (2006), “Casuistry: a complement to principle ethics and a
foundation for ethical decisions”, Counseling Values, Vol. 50, pp. 142-53.
Fuqua, D.R. and Newman, J.L. (2006), “Moral and ethical issues in human systems”, Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58, pp. 206-15.
Gatewood, R.D. and Carroll, A.B. (1991), “Assessment of ethical performance of organization
members: a conceptual framework”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 587-690.
Gowthorpe, C., Blake, J. and Dowds, J. (2002), “Testing the bases of ethical decision-making: a
study of the New Zealand auditing profession”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-56.
Graaf, G. (2006), “Discourse and descriptive business ethics”, Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 246-58.
Hill, R.P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T. and Manullang, D. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility
and socially responsible investing: a global perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 70, pp. 165-74.
Hinman, L.M. (1999), Contemporary Moral Issues, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitel, S. (1986), “A general theory of marketing ethics”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Hursthouse, R. (1999), On Virtue Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jones, T.M. (1991), “Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent
model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 366-95.
Jones, T.M., Felps, W. and Bigley, G.A. (2007), “Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions:
the role of stakeholder culture”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 137-55.
Maclagan, P. (2007), “Hierarchical control or individuals’ moral autonomy? Addressing a
fundamental tension in the management of business ethics”, Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 48-61.
McDaniel, C., Shoeps, N. and Lincourt, J. (2001), “Organizational ethics: perceptions of employees
by gender”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 33, pp. 245-56.
McDevitt, R., Giapponi, C. and Tromley, C. (2007), “A model of ethical decision making: the
integration of process and content”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 73, pp. 219-29.
Rachels, J. and Rachels, S. (2005), The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy,
4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Reich, S. (2005), “When firms behave responsibly, are the roots national or global?”, International
Social Science Journal, Vol. 57 No. 185, pp. 509-28.
Roth, W.F. (2007), Ethics in the Workplace: A Systems Perspective, Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Shultz, T. and Brender-Ilan, Y. (2004), “Beyond justice: introducing personal moral philosophies
to ethical evaluations of human resource practices”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 302-16.
EBR Slote, M. (2001), Morals from Motives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
22,4 Spicer, A., Dunfee, T.W. and Bailey, W.J. (2004), “Does national context matter in ethical
decision-making? An empirical test of integrative social contracts theory”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 610-20.
Stedham, Y., Yamamura, J.H. and Beekun, R.I. (2007), “Gender differences in business ethics:
justice and relativist perspectives”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,
376 pp. 163-74.
Swanton, C. (2003), Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Terpstra, D.E., Rozell, E. and Robinson, R.K. (1993), “The influence of personality and
demographic variables on ethical decisions related to insider trading”, Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 127 No. 4, pp. 375-89.
Trevino, L.K. (1986), “Ethical decision-making in organizations: a person situation interactionist
model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 601-17.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V. and Milner, C. (2002), “Transformational
leadership and moral reasoning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 304-11.
Valentine, S.R. and Rittenburg, T.L. (2007), “The ethical decision making of men and women
executives in international business situations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71,
pp. 125-34.
Weaver, G., Trevino, L.K. and Agle, B. (2005), “Somebody I look up to: ethical role models in
organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 313-30.
Wempe, B. (2004), “On the use of the social contract model in business ethics”, Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 332-41.
Further reading
Broussine, M. and Miller, C. (2005), “Leadership, ethical dilemmas, and good authority in public
service partnership working”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 379-91.
Fulmer, R.M. (2004), “The challenge of ethical leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 307-17.
Lefkowitz, J. (2006), “The constancy of ethics amidst the changing world of work”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 245-68.
Lurie, Y. and Albin, R. (2007), “Moral dilemmas in business ethics: from decision procedures to
edifying perspectives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 71, pp. 195-207.
Taylor, R. (1998), “The ethic of care versus the ethic of justice: an economic analysis”, Journal of
Socio-Economics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 479-93.
van Oosterhout, J., Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. and Kaptein, M. (2006), “The internal morality of
contracting: advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 521-39.
Corresponding author
J.R.C. Pimentel can be contacted at: joana.pimentel@canterbury.ac.nz