ethics and social 56 part one introduction responsibility

56 PART ONE | INTRODUCTION

Ethics and social responsibility are important to a manager’s job because society expects managers and organisations to behave in ethical and socially responsible ways. In fact, many people make decisions about which organisations they will work for,1 and even invest in,2 based on how socially responsible those organisations are. In this module, we examine the concept of an organisation’s social responsibilities and the different ways that organi-sations define what they are. We also examine the importance of organisations and their members behaving ethically, and how organisations can foster ethical behaviour.

What is social responsibility?When we talk about social responsibility—also known as corporate social respons i-bility (CSR)—we mean an organisation’s intentions to go beyond its legal and economic obligations to act in ways that are good for society. Managers regularly confront decisions that have a dimension of social responsibility: philanthropy, pricing, employee relations, resource conservation, product quality and doing business in countries with oppressive governments to name a few. Their organisation’s view of its social responsibilities influences what they decide to do and how they decide.

How do organisations define their social responsibilities?There are three main stances an organisation can take about its social responsibilities: (1) meeting social obligations, (2) being socially responsive or (3) being socially responsible.

Organisations that meet social obligations define their social responsibilities only in terms of doing what the law requires or what is necessary to meet their economic goals. For example, they might minimise waste emissions to meet national pollution standards or develop new packaging materials to comply with packaging safety regulations, but only because the law mandates these actions. The social obligation stance corresponds with the purely economic or classical view that management’s only social responsibility is to maximise profits. But the scandals and backlashes that erupt when companies do

sacrifice social good for profits demonstrate convincingly that society expects organisations to do more than just maximise their profits. This has produced the socioeconomic view of social responsibility, which holds that management’s respon-sibility goes beyond making profits to include protecting and improving society’s welfare.3 How far an organisation takes these responsibilities depends on whether it’s being socially responsive or socially responsible.

Ethics and social responsibility moduleManaging socially responsible and ethical behaviour

Socially irresponsible behaviour by Nestlé prompted a consumer boycott that lasted for more than two decades.4 The boycott protested Nestlé’s use of marketing tactics to sell baby formula in third world countries, putting profits before the welfare of mothers and babies. Extreme examples included dressing salespeople as medical professionals to persuade mothers they shouldn’t breastfeed so that they would lose their breast milk and be forced to buy formula to feed their babies. Millions of babies subsequently died from malnutrition because mothers couldn’t afford formula, over-diluted it to make it last or used contaminated water to make it up, which caused diarrhoeal illnesses.

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 56 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s

| ETHICS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIB IL I TY MODULE 57

Organisations that are socially responsive engage in social actions because there is demand for them and even social pressure to provide them. Managers in these companies are guided by social norms and values and make practical, market-oriented decisions about their actions.5 A company that provides on-site childcare facilities for its employees or packages its products using recycled paper is being socially responsive because working parents and environmentalists have demanded such actions.

Organisations that are socially responsible actively consider the ways in which society is affected by their organisation and its operations. They engage in social actions because they are actively trying to have a positive impact on society, by minimising harm (e.g. by reducing carbon emissions) or by doing something positive for society (e.g. sponsoring a local community group or providing paid leave for employees who do volunteer work).

Should organisations be socially responsible?Good arguments can be made for and against businesses being socially responsible (see Table 1). One way to think about the issue is to consider whether social involvement affects a company’s economic performance. Numerous studies have done just that,6 and most have

social obligationsWhen a business engages in social actions because of its obligation to meet certain economic and legal responsibilities.

socially responsiveWhen a business engages in social actions in response to some popular social need.

socially responsibleWhen a business has intentions, beyond its legal and economic obligations, to do the right things and act in ways that are good for society.

TSNIAGAROF

Public expectations Violation of profit maximisation

Business is being socially responsible only when it pursues its economic interests.

Public opinion now supports businesses pursuing economic and social goals.

Long-run profits

Socially responsible companies tend to have more secure long-run profits.

Ethical obligation

Businesses should be socially responsible because responsible actions are the right thing to do.

Public image

Businesses can create a favourable public image by pursuing social goals.

Better environment

Business involvement can help solve difficult social problems.

Discouragement of further governmental regulation

By becoming socially responsible, businesses can expect less government regulation.

Balance of responsibility and power

Businesses have a lot of power and an equally large amount of responsibility is needed to balance against that power.

Stockholder interests

Social responsibility will improve a business’s stock price in the long run.

Possession of resources

Businesses have the resources to support public and charitable projects that need assistance.

Superiority of prevention over cures

Businesses should address social problems before they become serious and costly to correct.

Dilution of purpose

Pursuing social goals dilutes business’s primary purpose—economic productivity.

Costs

Many socially responsible actions do not cover their costs and someone must pay those costs.

Too much power

Businesses have a lot of power already and if they pursue social goals they will have even more.

Lack of skills

Business leaders lack the necessary skills to address social issues.

Lack of accountability

There are no direct lines of accountabilityfor social actions.

Table 1 Arguments for and against social responsibility

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 57 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s


found a small positive relationship; no generalisable conclusions can be made because the studies have shown that the relationship is affected by various contextual factors such as company size, industry, economic conditions and regulatory environment.7 It’s also not clear whether social involvement causes higher economic performance or whether companies with high profits can then afford the ‘luxury’ of being socially involved.8 Such concerns can’t be taken lightly. In fact, one study found that if the flawed empirical analyses in these studies were ‘corrected’, social responsibility had a neutral impact on a company’s financial performance.9 Another found that participating in social issues not related to the organisa-tion’s primary stakeholders had a negative effect on shareholder value.10 Despite all these concerns, after re-analysing several studies, other researchers concluded that managers can afford to be (and should be) socially responsible.11

The more relevant consideration for today’s organisations and managers may be the social and competitive consequences of social involvement. Organisations that aren’t at least socially responsive will find it increasingly hard to obtain and keep the support of customers and employees. They may also find themselves overtaken by more socially involved rivals. So the final answer may be that organisations should be socially responsible because they can’t afford not to be!

How can managers identify the ethical thing to do?Social responsibility adds an ethical imperative to do those things that make society better and to not do those that could make it worse. However organisations define their social responsibilities, they are still expected to operate ethically.

Managers can work out which behaviours would be ethical by applying ethical principles in their decision making. As we explained in Chapter 1, ethics commonly refers to a set of rules or principles that defines right and wrong conduct.12 In this section we discuss three main views of ethical behaviour and explain how managers can apply each perspective to determine the most ethical action to take.13 To illustrate, let’s consider the following situation. Imagine you work for an organisation that has a clear policy not to compensate employees for overtime. The team you manage recently had to complete a rush project and some team members ended up working all weekend. Would it be unethical to tell these employees that they could take two ‘sick’ days to make up for their lost weekend?14

The utilitarian view of ethics defines ethical behaviour solely on the basis of outcomes or consequences. The goal of utilitarianism is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. The utilitarian view of whether to tell some employees that they could take the extra sick days would consider whether doing so created the greatest good for the greatest number. If you did tell those who worked over the weekend to take the extra sick days, they would be happy because they would be getting two days off. But the rest of the team, and any other employees, would be unhappy because they didn’t get extra sick days when they worked overtime. The other managers would also be unhappy, because now their staff might also expect to get extra sick days. This option clearly isn’t creating the greatest good for the greatest number, so you shouldn’t do it.

The rights view of ethics defines ethical behaviour as behaviour that respects and protects people’s individual liberties and privileges, including the rights to privacy, freedom of conscience, free speech and due process. The goal of the rights view is to avoid interfering with the rights of others who might be affected by the decision. To apply the rights view of ethics, you would determine who is affected and then evaluate each option to decide whether it would compromise anyone’s individual rights and freedoms. If a course of action contravenes a person’s rights, it should be discarded. But it all depends on what rights you consider. Let’s say that you believe every employee has a right to be treated equally. According to the rights view of ethics, it would be ethical to tell employees they could take the extra sick days only if that maintained everyone’s right to be treated equally. In this situation you would be compro-mising that right, because people are being treated differently: some are being compensated for overtime and others are not. So it wouldn’t be ethical to give out the extra sick days.

The justice view of ethics focuses on choosing actions that fulfil principles of procedural, distributive and compensatory justice. Procedural justice requires that decision processes need to be consented to by those affected and to be administered impartially. In this case, the employees who’ll be affected by your decision to award extra sick days

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 58 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s


haven’t consented to this process, so it doesn’t have procedural justice. Distributive justice requires that rewards and punishments be distributed equitably and based on performance, which in this case would mean that anyone who worked over weekends would get extra sick days to make up for the days they lost. However, you would be giving the extra sick days only to the members of your team who worked that weekend (not any other team member or employee), so that would not be distributive justice. If procedural or distributive justice is compromised, it might still be ethical to give the weekend workers the extra sick days as compensatory justice. Compensatory justice requires that if distributive or procedural justice is compromised, those injured by the inequitable distribution of rewards should be compensated. But, in fact, you would be creating an unequal distribution because you would be giving the extra sick days only to the people who worked over that weekend, not to everyone who worked overtime. So according to the justice view, you shouldn’t award the extra sick days.

As you can see, conclusions about whether an action is ethical depend on how we define the ethical dilemma, who we consider to be affected by the action and which rights we consider under the rights approach. More importantly, conclusions about whether an action is ‘ethical’ depend on which ethical standard is applied. This means that people who adopt different ethical principles will draw different conclusions about what is ethical behaviour and what is not.

How does cultural diversity influence ethical behaviour?The ethical principles adopted in particular cultures determine what is considered ethical behaviour. For instance, many Asian cultures subscribe to Confucian ethics. Confucian ethics define morally acceptable behaviour as characterised by compassion for fellow human beings (ren), moral righteousness (yi), observing correct etiquette and protocols when taking action (li), wisdom and trustworthiness. Moreover, Confucian ethics emphasise harmony, social relationships and obligations, reciprocity and a focus on what’s best for society rather than what’s in the best interests of an individual person.15 So a person holding Confucian ethical values would hold very different views of ethical behaviour than, say, a person adopting utilitarian ethical principles.

Managers need to understand how views of ethical behaviour might differ, and how to deal with those differences. For instance, the organisation might broaden its view of ethical behaviour to include the views of different cultures. Alternatively, it might use training programs to educate employees about its ethical values so that employees could determine how the organisation’s values might differ from their own and how they should reconcile those differences when they arise.

Organisations that operate in multiple countries and cultural systems must also decide whose view of ‘ethical’ behaviour should determine organisational actions. For instance, when managers encounter practices that are ethical in the local culture but unethical according to their home country, they have to decide whether to adopt the local view or use their home country’s view. Managers who decide to follow local customs rather than those of their own country risk being seen as compromising their ethical principles or applying different standards in different countries. Whichever view managers adopt, they need to be prepared to explain and justify their choices, and accept that not everybody will support them.

What factors influence ethical and unethical behaviour?How people behave when they face an ethical dilemma is influenced by their stage of moral development, their personal characteristics, the intensity of the issue, the organisation’s structure and the organisation’s culture (see Figure 1).

Research indicates that as people develop their moral judgement they change the way they determine the ‘right’ thing to do.16 Initially, they may define the ‘right’ course of action as the one that best serves their own self-interest by helping them to meet the expectations of authority figures, avoid getting punished for doing the ‘wrong’ thing or

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 59 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s


get rewarded for doing the ‘right’ thing. As their moral judgement develops, they define what is ‘right’ according to what other people think, whether these are the views of the significant people in their lives (e.g. family members or role models) or the views of society that are defined in rules and law. People with highly developed moral judgement determine the ‘right’ thing to do by using guiding principles they adopt for themselves, which may be universally held principles of rights and justice or their own personal ethical principles. So the stage of a person’s development will influence how they evaluate ethical options and their reasoning about what they should do and why.

Characteristics such as an individual’s personality also affect how they handle ethical dilemmas. For instance, studies have found that a person’s levels of empathy and narcissism affect their likelihood of engaging in ethical decision making and that each of the Big Five personality variables (agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, extroversion and openness to experience) influence how people will behave as ethical leaders.17

The intensity of the issue is another influence on how people deal with ethical dilemmas. Issue intensity is determined by six characteristics.18 The first characteristic is the amount of harm (or good) that will be caused by the action. The second characteristic is the concentration of harm, meaning how many people will be affected. The third char-acteristic is the probability of harm—how likely it is that the action will actually cause the harm or good we expect. The fourth characteristic is the immediacy of the consequences,

meaning how much time we expect will occur before the consequences of the action are felt. The fifth characteristic is the degree of consensus that the action is wrong. The sixth characteristic is the proximity of the victims, meaning how closely connected the decision maker feels to the people who are affected. The stronger each of these characteristics is, the more intense the issue will be.

The organisation’s structure can influence how people handle ethical dilemmas by influencing the type of dilemmas they face and the guidance they have in dealing with them. Formal organisational structures for assigning roles and responsibilities, managing performance and allocating rewards affect whether people make ethical choices by influencing the incentives and rewards for behaving in an ethical manner.19 We explain more about how this occurs in Chapter 5.

Organisational culture affects how people handle ethical dilemmas because, as we noted in Chapter 2, the culture defines how people should behave. If the culture emphasises ‘winning at all costs’, then individuals are more likely to engage in unethical behaviour. Conversely, if the culture stresses ethical values and behaviours, then employees are more likely to make ethical choices.

ModeratorsEthicaldilemma

Stage of moraldevelopment

Individualcharacteristics

Issueintensity

Structuralvariables

Organisationalculture

Ethical/unethicalbehaviour

Figure 1 Factors that affect ethical and unethical behaviour

Source: S. Robbins, R. Bergman, I. Stagg and M. Coulter, Management, 6th edn (Sydney: Pearson, 2012), p. 181, Figure 5.3.

How closely involved or affected a person is by an ethical issue affects how they will handle it. For example, a decision about laying off local staff has more intensity than a decision to lay off staff who work in other countries.

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 60 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s


How can managers encourage ethical behaviour?Managers can encourage ethical behaviour by hiring employees with high ethical standards but they can also foster ethical actions by establishing codes of ethics, leading by example, providing ethics training and implementing protective mechanisms for employees who face ethical dilemmas.

CODES OF ETHICSCodes of ethics are popular tools for attempting to reduce ambiguity about what’s ethical and what’s not.20 A code of ethics is a formal document that states an organisation’s primary values and the ethical rules it expects managers and non-managerial employees to follow. For instance, Woolworths uses its Code of Conduct to define its expectations that employees: always act in the best interests of customers, shareholders and colleagues; meet the highest standards of behaviour and appearance; comply with the law and with company policies; protect company assets, information and reputation; be respectful, friendly and safe; and conduct business fairly, truthfully and honestly.21 Ideally, these codes should be specific enough to guide organisational members in what they’re supposed to do yet loose enough to allow for freedom of judgement. Research shows that 97% of organisations with more than 10 000 employees have written codes of ethics. Even in smaller organisations, nearly 93% have them.22 And codes of ethics are becoming more popular globally. Research by the Institute for Global Ethics shows that shared values such as honesty, fairness, respect, responsibility and caring are pretty much universally embraced worldwide.23

The effectiveness of such codes depends heavily on whether management supports them and ingrains them into the corporate culture, and how individuals who break the codes are treated.24 If management considers them to be important, regularly reaffirms their content, follows the rules themselves and publicly reprimands rule breakers, ethics codes can be a strong foundation for an effective corporate ethics program.25

ETHICAL LEADERSHIPAs a manager, what you do is far more important than what you say in getting employees to act ethically. For example, if managers take company resources for their personal use, or give some employees special favours, they imply that such behaviour is acceptable for everyone. Managers also set the tone by their reward and punishment practices. When an employee is rewarded for achieving impressive results in an ethically questionable manner, it indicates to others that those ways are acceptable. When an employee does something unethical, managers must discipline the offender and publicise the fact by making the outcome visible to everyone in the organisation. This practice sends a message that doing wrong has a price and it’s not in employees’ best interests to act unethically! (See Figure 2 for suggestions on being an ethical leader.)

empathyThe ability to understand other people’s needs.

narcissismThe degree to which people focus on themselves and their own interests ahead of those of other people.

code of ethicsA formal document that states an organisation’s primary values and the ethical rules it expects managers and non-managerial employees to follow.

• Be a good role model by being ethical and honest.

• Tell the truth always.

• Don’t hide or manipulate information.

• Be willing to admit your failures.

• Share your personal values by regularly communicating them to employees.

• Stress the organisation’s or team’s important shared values.

• Use the reward system to hold everyone accountable to the values.

Source: S. Robbins, D. DeCenzo and M. Coulter, Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and Applications, 8th edn (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2013), Figure 3–3.

Figure 2 Being an ethical leader

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 61 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s


ETHICS TRAININGMany organisations use ethics training programs to encourage ethical behaviour. For instance, Yahoo! has developed an animated and interactive ethics training module that explains the company’s code of conduct, provides resources to help employees understand it and outlines scenarios that employees might face that require ethical judgement.27 Critics of ethics training programs argue that people establish their individual value systems when they’re young, so these are set before they become organisational members. However, several studies have shown that values can be learned after early childhood, that teaching ethical problem solving can make an actual difference in ethical behaviours,28 that training has increased individuals’ level of moral development29 and that ethics training increases awareness of ethical issues in business.30

FORMAL PROTECTIVE MECHANISMSFormal protective mechanisms that protect and guide employees dealing with ethical dilemmas help encourage and improve ethical behaviour. For instance, an appointed ethics officer can help employees who face a dilemma to talk out the situation they face and the options they have, and may even champion the most ethical alternatives. Ethics hotlines and protection for people who do ‘blow the whistle’ (whistle-blowers) on unethical practices help identify unethical behaviour and signal that the organisation is really committed to ethical conduct.

Organisational rules and policies can guide ethical behaviour but they can’t cover every situation that requires ethical judgement.31 Fundamentally, improving ethical conduct in any organisation relies on all employees, managers and non-managerial employees developing their skills in making ethical choices. (See the ‘Developing your ethics skill’ box.)

How organisations treat whistle-blowers like Toni Hoffmann sends an important signal about the organisation’s emphasis on ethical behaviour.26 While working as a senior nurse at Bundaberg Hospital in Queensland, Toni blew the whistle on Dr Jayant Patel, a surgeon at the hospital, for performing unnecessary surgery on patients, falsifying medical records, being criminally careless in his surgical practices and touching patients without first washing his hands because, as he told staff, ‘doctors don’t have germs’. Toni was ignored, then ostracised for raising her concerns, but was later vindicated when a subsequent formal inquiry into Patel’s behaviour found that Toni’s actions had been critical in preventing further tragedies.

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 62 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s


About the skill

Making ethical choices can often be difficult. What can you do to enhance your managerial abilities in acting ethically? Here are some guidelines.

Steps in developing the skill

• Know your organisation’s policy on ethics. This policy will help you to clarify what is permissible and the managerial discretion you have. It becomes YOUR code of ethics.

• Understand the ethics policy. Just having the policy in your hand doesn’t guarantee that it will achieve what it is intended to do. You need to fully understand it. If the policy doesn’t exist, or doesn’t cover the situation you face, you can still take several steps before you deal with the ethical dilemma.

• Think before you act. Ask yourself, ‘Why am I going to do what I’m about to do? What led up to the problem? What is my true intention in taking this action? Is my reason valid? Or are there ulterior motives behind it, such as demonstrat-ing organisational loyalty? Will my action injure someone? Would I disclose to my boss or my family what I’m going to do?’ Remember, it’s your behaviour and your actions. You need to make sure that you’re not doing something that will jeopardise your role as a manager, your organisation or your reputation.

• Ask yourself what-if questions. Use the following questions to help shape your actions: ‘What if I make the wrong decision? What will happen to me? To my job? What if my

actions were described, in detail, on the local TV news or in the newspaper? Would it bother or embarrass me or those around me? What if I get caught doing something unethi-cal? Am I prepared to deal with the consequences?’

• Seek opinions from others. You can also ask for advice from other managers. Maybe they’ve been in a similar situation and can share the benefit of their experience. Or maybe they can just listen and act as a sounding board for you.

• Do what you truly believe is right. You have a conscience, and you are responsible for your behaviour. Whatever you do, if you truly believe it was the right action to take, then what others say is immaterial. You need to be true to your own internal ethical standards. Ask yourself: ‘Can I live with what I’ve done?’

Practising the skillFind a copy of your university’s code of conduct or the code of ethics of any organisation to which you belong. Or obtain a copy of the code of ethics for a professional organisation you hope to join after graduating. Evaluate the code’s provisions and policies. Are you uncomfortable with any of the code’s provisions? Why? Is any part of the code routinely violated? Why do you think these violations occur? What are the usual conse-quences of such violations? Do you think these consequences are appropriate?

If you had trouble obtaining the code of conduct, find out why. Under what circumstances is it normally distributed, posted or otherwise made available to members?

Developing your skillethics

Endnotes

1 R. Sroufe and D. Ramos, ‘MBA Program Trends and Best Practices in Teaching Sustainability: Live Project Courses’, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education (September 2011), pp. 349–69.

2 Responsible Investment Association Australasia, ‘What is Responsible Investment?’, <www.responsibleinvestment.org/what-is-responsible-investment/responsible-investment-defined>, accessed 22 February 2013.

3 See, for instance, N. A. Ibrahim, J. P. Angelidis and D. P. Howell, ‘The Corporate Social Responsiveness Orientation of Hospital Directors: Does Occupational Background Make a Difference?’, Health Care Management Review (Spring 2000), pp. 85–92.

4 J. Krasny, ‘Every Parent Should Know the Scandalous History of Infant Formula’, Business Insider (25 June 2012), <www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scandal-2012-6?op=1>, accessed 23 February 2013.

5 See, for example, D. J. Wood, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review (October 1991), pp. 703–8; and S. L. Wartick and P. L. Cochran, ‘The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review (October 1985), p. 763.

6 See, for instance, R. Lacy and P. A. Kennett-Hensel, ‘Longitudinal Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Relationships’, Journal of Business Ethics (December 2010), pp. 581–97; S. Arendt and M. Brettel, ‘Understanding the Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Identity, Image, and Firm Performance’, Management Decision, 48, no. 10 (2010), pp. 1469–92; J. Peloza, ‘The Challenge of Measuring Financial Impacts from Investments in Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Management (December 2009), pp. 1518–41; J. D. Margolis and H. Anger Elfenbein, ‘Do Well by Doing Good? Don’t Count on It’, Harvard Business Review

whistle-blowerA person who raises a concern about wrongdoing by an organisation or a group of people within it.

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 63 20/06/13 11:29 AM

Sample

page

s


Photo credits

Page 56: Copyright: ffolas / Shutterstock; Page 60: Copyright: wavebreakmedia / Shutterstock; Page 62: Lyndon Mechielsen /

Newspix / News Ltd / 3rd Party Managed Reproduction & Supply Rights.

(January 2008), pp. 19–20; M. L. Barnett, ‘Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review (July 2007), pp. 794–816; D. O. Neubaum and S. A. Zahra, ‘Institutional Ownership and Corporate Social Performance: The Moderating Effects of Investment Horizon, Activism, and Coordination’, Journal of Management (February 2006), pp. 108–31; B. A. Waddock and S. B. Graves, ‘The Corporate Social Performance–Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal (April 1997), pp. 303–19; J. B. McGuire, A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal (December 1988), pp. 854–72; K. Aupperle, A. B. Carroll and J. D. Hatfield, ‘An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability’, Academy of Management Journal (June 1985), pp. 446–63; and P. Cochran and R. A. Wood, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal (March 1984), pp. 42–56.

7 J. Peloza, ‘The Challenge of Measuring Financial Impacts from Investments in Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Management (December 2009), pp. 1518–41.

8 B. Seifert, S. A. Morris and B. R. Bartkus, ‘Having, Giving, and Getting: Slack Resources, Corporate Philanthropy, and Firm Financial Performance’, Business & Society (June 2004), pp. 135–61; and J. B. McGuire, A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal (December 1988), pp. 854–72.

9 A. McWilliams and D. Siegel, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification?’, Strategic Management Journal (June 2000), pp. 603–9.

10 A. J. Hillman and G. D. Keim, ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line?’, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2001), pp. 125–39.

11 M. Orlitzky, F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes, ‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance’, Organization Studies, 24, no. 3 (2003), pp. 403–41.

12 S. A. DiPiazza, ‘Ethics in Action’, Executive Excellence (January 2002), pp. 15–16.

13 This section based on G. F. Cavanaugh, D. J. Moberg and M. Valasquez, ‘The Ethics of Organizational Politics’, Academy of Management Journal (June 1981), pp. 363–74; and M. A. Hitt, J. S. Black, L. W. Porter and D. Hanson, Management (Sydney: Pearson, 2007), pp. 153–6.

14 This example based on J. F. Viega, T. D. Golden and K. Dechant, ‘Why Managers Bend Company Rules’, Academy of Management Executive (May 2004), pp. 84–90.

15 Explanation of Confucian ethics based on P. K. Ip, ‘Is Confucianism Good for Business Ethics in China?’, Journal of Business Ethics (September, 2009), pp. 463–76.

16 This section based on Linda K. Treviño, Gary R. Weaver and Scott J. Reynolds, ‘Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review’, Journal of Management (December 2006), pp. 951–90; and S. Robbins, R. Bergman, I. Stagg and M. Coulter, Management, 6th edn (Sydney: Pearson, 2012), p. 181.

17 T. A. Brown, J. A. Sautter, L. Littvay, A. C. Sautter and B. Bearners, ‘Ethics and Personality: Empathy and Narcissism as

Moderators of Ethical Decision Making in Business Students’, Journal of Education for Business, 85, no. 4 (2010), pp. 203–8; and K. Kalshoven, D. N. Den Hartog and A. H. B. De Hoogh, ‘Ethical Leader Behavior and Big Five Factors of Personality’, Journal of Business Ethics (May 2011), pp. 349–66.

18 Explanation based on S. Robbins, R. Bergman, I. Stagg and M. Coulter, Management, 6th edn (Sydney: Pearson, 2012), pp. 185–6.

19 H. S. James, ‘Reinforcing Ethical Decision Making through Organisational Structure’, Journal of Business Ethics (November, 2000), pp. 43–58.

20 D. H. Schepers, ‘Setting Global Standards: Guidelines for Creating Codes of Conduct in Multinational Corporations’, Business and Society (December 2003), p. 496; and B. R. Gaummitz and J. C. Lere, ‘Contents of Codes of Ethics of Professional Business Organizations in the United States’, Journal of Business Ethics (January 2002), pp. 35–49.

21 Woolworths Limited, ‘Code of Conduct’, <www.woolworthslimited.com.au/icms_docs/130465_Code_of_Conduct.pdf>, accessed 23 February 2013.

22 M. Weinstein, ‘Survey Says: Ethics Training Works’, Training (November 2005), p. 15.

23 J. E. Fleming, ‘Codes of Ethics for Global Corporations’, Academy of Management News (June 2005), p. 4.

24 T. F. Shea, ‘Employees’ Report Card on Supervisors’ Ethics: No Improvement’, HR Magazine (April 2002), p. 29.

25 See also A. G. Peace, J. Weber, K. S. Hartzel and J. Nightingale, ‘Ethical Issues in eBusiness: A Proposal for Creating the eBusiness Principles’, Business and Society Review (Spring 2002), pp. 41–60.

26 Based on H. Thomas, ‘Jayant Patel whistleblower “treated like a leper” by Queensland Health’, The Australian (16 December 2011), <www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/patel-whistleblower-treated-like-a-leper-by-queensland-health/story-fn6tcs23-1226223423898>, accessed 23 February 2013; and R. Sandall, ‘Doctor Death in Bundaberg’, Quadrant (December 2005), <www.rogersandall.com/doctor-death-in-bundaberg>, accessed 23 February 2013.

27 E. Finkel, ‘Yahoo Takes New “Road” on Ethics Training’, Workforce Management Online (July 2010).

28 T. A. Gavin, ‘Ethics Education’, Internal Auditor (April 1989), pp. 54–7.

29 L. Myyry and K. Helkama, ‘The Role of Value Priorities and Professional Ethics Training in Moral Sensitivity’, Journal of Moral Education, 31, no. 1 (2002), pp. 35–50; and W. Penn and B. D. Collier, ‘Current Research in Moral Development as a Decision Support System’, Journal of Business Ethics (January 1985), pp. 131–6.

30 J. A. Byrne, ‘After Enron: The Ideal Corporation’, BusinessWeek (19 August 2002), pp. 68–71; D. Rice and C. Dreilinger, ‘Rights and Wrongs of Ethics Training’, Training & Development Journal (May 1990), pp. 103–9; and J. Weber, ‘Measuring the Impact of Teaching Ethics to Future Managers: A Review, Assessment, and Recommendations’, Journal of Business Ethics (April 1990), pp. 182–90.

31 X. Deroy and S. Clegg, ‘When events interact with business ethics’, Organization, 18, no. 5 (2011), pp. 637–53.

M02_ROBB4015_02_LT_M02.indd 64 20/06/13 9:12 AM

Sample

page

s

ethics and social 56 part one introduction responsibility

Documents