ethical principles in business essay

Business Essentials
Leadership & Management
Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
Entrepreneurship & Innovation
Digital Transformation
Finance & Accounting
Business in Society
For Organizations
Support Portal
Media Coverage
Founding Donors
Leadership Team

Harvard Business School →
HBS Online →
Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

Career Development
Communication
Decision-Making
Earning Your MBA
Negotiation
News & Events
Productivity
Staff Spotlight
Student Profiles
Work-Life Balance
AI Essentials for Business
Alternative Investments
Business Analytics
Business Strategy
Business and Climate Change
Design Thinking and Innovation
Digital Marketing Strategy
Disruptive Strategy
Economics for Managers
Entrepreneurship Essentials
Financial Accounting
Global Business
Launching Tech Ventures
Leadership Principles
Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
Leading with Finance
Management Essentials
Negotiation Mastery
Organizational Leadership
Power and Influence for Positive Impact
Strategy Execution
Sustainable Business Strategy
Sustainable Investing
Winning with Digital Platforms

What Are Business Ethics & Why Are They Important?

Business professional pressing a graphic that reads "Business Ethics" and is surrounded by icons

27 Jul 2023

From artificial intelligence to facial recognition technology, organizations face an increasing number of ethical dilemmas. While innovation can aid business growth, it can also create opportunities for potential abuse.

“The long-term impacts of a new technology—both positive and negative—may not become apparent until years after it’s introduced,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the online course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “For example, the impact of social media on children and teenagers didn’t become evident until we watched it play out over time.”

If you’re a current or prospective leader concerned about navigating difficult situations, here's an overview of business ethics, why they're important, and how to ensure ethical behavior in your organization.

Access your free e-book today.

What Are Business Ethics?

Business ethics are principles that guide decision-making . As a leader, you’ll face many challenges in the workplace because of different interpretations of what's ethical. Situations often require navigating the “gray area,” where it’s unclear what’s right and wrong.

When making decisions, your experiences, opinions, and perspectives can influence what you believe to be ethical, making it vital to:

Be transparent.
Invite feedback.
Consider impacts on employees, stakeholders, and society.
Reflect on past experiences to learn what you could have done better.

“The way to think about ethics, in my view, is: What are the externalities that your business creates, both positive and negative?” says Harvard Business School Professor Vikram Gandhi in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “And, therefore, how do you actually increase the positive element of externalities? And how do you decrease the negative?”

Related: Why Managers Should Involve Their Team in the Decision-Making Process

Ethical Responsibilities to Society

Promoting ethical conduct can benefit both your company and society long term.

“I'm a strong believer that a long-term focus is what creates long-term value,” Gandhi says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “So you should get shareholders in your company that have that same perspective.”

Prioritizing the triple bottom line is an effective way for your business to fulfill its environmental responsibilities and create long-term value. It focuses on three factors:

Profit: The financial return your company generates for shareholders
People: How your company affects customers, employees, and stakeholders
Planet: Your company’s impact on the planet and environment

Check out the video below to learn more about the triple bottom line, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

Ethical and corporate social responsibility (CSR) considerations can go a long way toward creating value, especially since an increasing number of customers, employees, and investors expect organizations to prioritize CSR. According to the Conscious Consumer Spending Index , 67 percent of customers prefer buying from socially responsible companies.

To prevent costly employee turnover and satisfy customers, strive to fulfill your ethical responsibilities to society.

Ethical Responsibilities to Customers

As a leader, you must ensure you don’t mislead your customers. Doing so can backfire, negatively impacting your organization’s credibility and profits.

Actions to avoid include:

Greenwashing : Taking advantage of customers’ CSR preferences by claiming your business practices are sustainable when they aren't.
False advertising : Making unverified or untrue claims in advertisements or promotional material.
Making false promises : Lying to make a sale.

These unethical practices can result in multi-million dollar lawsuits, as well as highly dissatisfied customers.

Ethical Responsibilities to Employees

You also have ethical responsibilities to your employees—from the beginning to the end of their employment.

One area of business ethics that receives a lot of attention is employee termination. According to Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , letting an employee go requires an individualized approach that ensures fairness.

Not only can wrongful termination cost your company upwards of $100,000 in legal expenses , it can also negatively impact other employees’ morale and how they perceive your leadership.

Ethical business practices have additional benefits, such as attracting and retaining talented employees willing to take a pay cut to work for a socially responsible company. Approximately 40 percent of millennials say they would switch jobs to work for a company that emphasizes sustainability.

Ultimately, it's critical to do your best to treat employees fairly.

“Fairness is not only an ethical response to power asymmetries in the work environment,” Hsieh says in the course. “Fairness—and having a successful organizational culture–can benefit the organization economically and legally.”

Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability | Develop a toolkit for making tough leadership decisions| Learn More

Why Are Business Ethics Important?

Failure to understand and apply business ethics can result in moral disengagement .

“Moral disengagement refers to ways in which we convince ourselves that what we’re doing is not wrong,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “It can upset the balance of judgment—causing us to prioritize our personal commitments over shared beliefs, rules, and principles—or it can skew our logic to make unethical behaviors appear less harmful or not wrong.”

Moral disengagement can also lead to questionable decisions, such as insider trading .

“In the U.S., insider trading is defined in common, federal, and state laws regulating the opportunity for insiders to benefit from material, non-public information, or MNPI,” Hsieh explains.

This type of unethical behavior can carry severe legal consequences and negatively impact your company's bottom line.

“If you create a certain amount of harm to a society, your customers, or employees over a period of time, that’s going to have a negative impact on your economic value,” Gandhi says in the course.

This is reflected in over half of the top 10 largest bankruptcies between 1980 and 2013 that resulted from unethical behavior. As a business leader, strive to make ethical decisions and fulfill your responsibilities to stakeholders.

How to Implement Business Ethics

To become a more ethical leader, it's crucial to have a balanced, long-term focus.

“It's very important to balance the fact that, even if you're focused on the long term, you have to perform in the short term as well and have a very clear, articulated strategy around that,” Gandhi says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

Making ethical decisions requires reflective leadership.

“Reflecting on complex, gray-area decisions is a key part of what it means to be human, as well as an effective leader,” Hsieh says. “You have agency. You must choose how to act. And with that agency comes responsibility.”

Related: Why Are Ethics Important in Engineering?

Hsieh advises asking the following questions:

Are you using the “greater good” to justify unethical behavior?
Are you downplaying your actions to feel better?

“Asking these and similar questions at regular intervals can help you notice when you or others may be approaching the line between making a tough but ethical call and justifying problematic actions,” Hsieh says.

How to Become a More Effective Leader | Access Your Free E-Book | Download Now

Become a More Ethical Leader

Learning from past successes and mistakes can enable you to improve your ethical decision-making.

“As a leader, when trying to determine what to do, it can be helpful to start by simply asking in any given situation, ‘What can we do?’ and ‘What would be wrong to do?’” Hsieh says.

Many times, the answers come from experience.

Gain insights from others’ ethical decisions, too. One way to do so is by taking an online course, such as Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , which includes case studies that immerse you in real-world business situations, as well as a reflective leadership model to inform your decision-making.

Ready to become a better leader? Enroll in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to be a more effective leader.

About the Author

Search Search Please fill out this field.

Ethics in Leadership

Employee ethics, ethics by industry, benefits of business ethics.

Business Ethics FAQs

The Bottom Line

The importance of business ethics.

Pete Rathburn is a copy editor and fact-checker with expertise in economics and personal finance and over twenty years of experience in the classroom.

The system of moral and ethical beliefs that guides the values, behaviors, and decisions of a business organization and the individuals within that organization is known as business ethics .

Some ethical requirements for businesses are codified into law. Environmental regulations, the minimum wage, and restrictions against insider trading and collusion are all examples of the government setting forth minimum standards for business ethics.

What qualifies as business ethics in history has changed over time and the different areas of ethics are important to every business.

Key Takeaways

Business ethics involve a guiding standard for values, behaviors, and decision-making.
Ethics for business have changed over time but they're important for every company.
Running a business with ethics at its core from the top down is essential for company-wide integrity.
Behaving in a consistently ethical manner can lock in a solid reputation and long-term financial rewards for companies.
Employees tend to remain loyal to, and perform more effectively for, a company with a high standard of ethics.

A management team sets the tone for how an entire company runs on a day-to-day basis. When the prevailing management philosophy is based on ethical practices and behavior, leaders within an organization can direct employees by example. They can guide them in making decisions that are beneficial to them as individuals and to the organization as a whole.

Building on a foundation of ethical behavior helps create long-lasting positive effects for a company. One such effect is the ability to attract and retain highly talented individuals. Another is a positive reputation within the community.

Running a business in an ethical manner from the top down establishes stronger bonds between individuals on the management team. This, then, creates greater stability within the company.

When management leads an organization in an ethical manner, employees follow in those footsteps . Employees make better decisions in less time when business ethics are a guiding principle. This increases productivity and overall employee morale.

When employees work in a way that is based on honesty and integrity, the whole organization benefits. Employees who work for a corporation that demands a high standard of business ethics in all facets of operations are more likely to perform their job duties at a higher level. They're also more inclined to stay loyal to that organization.

Impact of Bad Behavior

Enron Corporation, an American energy and commodity services company, collapsed after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigated its improper accounting practices and revealed that the company hid massive losses and liabilities while paying its executives millions. Thousands of employees suddenly were left jobless. Several executives were convicted of federal crimes. The company's unethical behavior also led to the downfall of one of the oldest and biggest accounting firms, Arthur Andersen.

Business ethics differ from industry to industry, and nation to nation . The nature of a business' operations has a major influence on the ethical issues with which it must contend.

Ethics Concerning Clients

For example, an ethical quandary can arise for an investment brokerage when the best decision for a client and their money runs counter to what pays the brokerage the highest commission. A media company that produces TV content aimed at children may feel an ethical obligation to promote good values and eschew off-color material in its programming.

Ethics Concerning the Environment

A striking example of industry-specific business ethics is in the energy field. Companies that produce energy, particularly nonrenewable energy , face unrelenting scrutiny on how they treat the environment.

One misstep, whether it's a minor coal ash spill at a power plant or a major disaster such as the 2010 BP ( BP ) oil spill, can force a company to answer for its actions. Numerous regulatory bodies and society at large may pursue whether the company skirted its duty to protect the environment in an aggressive pursuit of higher profits.

A stringent, clearly defined system of environmental ethics is paramount for an energy company if it wants to thrive in a climate of increased regulations and public awareness on environmental issues.

Companies such as Amazon ( AMZN ) and Google ( GOOGL ), which conduct most of their operations online, are not scrutinized for their environmental impact the way energy companies such as BP and Exxon ( XOM ) are. When it comes to protecting their customers' privacy and security, however, their ethics are examined very closely.

Ethics Concerning Privacy

A particular area in which technology companies must make tough ethical decisions is marketing. Advancements in data mining technology enable businesses to track their customers' movements online and sell that data to marketing companies or use it to match customers with advertising promotions.

Many people view this type of activity as a major invasion of privacy. However, such customer data is invaluable to businesses, as they can use it to increase profits substantially. Thus, an ethical dilemma is born. To what extent is it appropriate to spy on customers' online lives to gain a marketing advantage?

The importance of business ethics reaches far beyond employee loyalty and morale or the strength of a management team bond. As with all business initiatives, the ethical operation of a company is directly related to profitability in both the short and long term.

The reputation of a business in the surrounding community, among other businesses, and for individual investors is paramount in determining whether a company is a worthwhile investment . If a company is perceived to operate unethically, investors are less inclined to buy stock or otherwise support its operations.

Companies have more and more of an incentive to be ethical as the area of socially responsible and ethical investing keeps growing. The increasing number of investors seeking out ethically operating companies to invest in is driving more firms to take this issue more seriously.

What Is Meant by Business Ethics?

Business ethics represents a standard of behavior, admired values, trustworthy methods of operation, and respect for customers that a company incorporates, and insists that all employees adhere to, as it functions from day to day.

How Do Business Ethics Benefit Companies?

By behaving according to a high ethical standard, companies can strengthen the drive to succeed internally among executives, management teams, and staff. Furthermore, companies can attract and keep investors who themselves are attracted to companies that align with their own standards of ethical behavior. In other words, business ethics can help companies build long-lasting, solid reputations and financial success.

Why Do Some Companies Have Bad Business Ethics?

That's a good question, especially when the financial advantages arising from a high degree of ethical behavior can be so great. A couple of reasons may be that some CEOs, management teams, or employees may feel it's just easier to work outside of an ethical standard. They may reach certain financial goals faster and not care about the long-term repercussions. It may seem to be less expensive to work without moral and ethical boundaries. Where money is concerned, good ethics can be forgotten.

With consistent ethical behavior comes an increasingly positive public image. There are few other considerations as important to potential investors and current shareholders . To retain a positive image, businesses must be committed to operating on an ethical foundation as it relates to the treatment of employees, respecting the surrounding environment , and fair market practices in terms of price and consumer treatment.

Forbes. " 5 Most Publicized Ethics Violations by CEOs ."

British Petroleum. " BP Initiates Response to Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill ."

Google. " Google Privacy Policy ."

Amazon Web Services. " Privacy Notice ."

Terms of Service
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy

February 21, 2024
Uncategorized

What Are Business Ethics and Their Importance

Manaferra Content

In the contemporary business realm, the phrase “What are business ethics?” has garnered significant attention, reflecting a growing emphasis on ethical practices within corporate environments. As organizations adapt to changing social attitudes and stricter regulations, the need for ethical behavior is more crucial than ever.

This blog post aims to break down the concept of business ethics and emphasize their significant role in contemporary business. It covers the basic principles, their impact on a company’s sustainability and reputation, and practical methods for integrating ethical considerations into decision-making. Exploring this topic will provide a deeper understanding of how business ethics contribute to trust, accountability, and long-term success in the business world.

The Definition Business Ethics

Business ethics refers to the set of principles and standards that guide the conduct of individuals and organizations in the business world. It involves making decisions based on moral values and principles rather than solely on legal obligations.

While legal requirements establish the minimum standards of behavior, business ethics extends beyond these mandates to encompass broader moral and social responsibilities. This includes fairness, honesty, transparency, and respect for all stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, and the community.

Ethical behavior in business not only helps in complying with regulations but also contributes to creating a positive business environment. When companies prioritize ethical conduct, they build trust and credibility with stakeholders, foster strong relationships, enhance their reputation, and ultimately contribute to long-term success and sustainability.

Why Are Business Ethics Important?

Business ethics play a crucial role in shaping a company’s reputation and fostering positive relationships with stakeholders. As an organization conducts business with integrity, transparency, and a commitment to doing right, its employees, customers, investors, and the wider community considers it more trustworthy and credible.

Moreover, by prioritizing ethical behavior, organizations mitigate the risk of legal and reputational damage while also positioning themselves for long-term success. The success comes as ethical practices directly contribute to sustainable growth by attracting loyal customers, retaining talented employees, and attracting responsible investors.

Another crucial benefit of business ethical practices is that they cultivate the moral compass of future professionals, preparing them to navigate complex ethical dilemmas in their careers. By integrating ethics into the curriculum, students develop a deeper understanding of the importance of integrity and social responsibility, laying the foundation for personal and professional growth. In result, this will lead to a business environment that doesn’t work for the benefit of the shareholders, but all stakeholders involved.

Ethical Principles

Understanding and adhering to key ethical principles is critical for guiding decision-making processes and promoting ethical conduct within organizations. These principles, including integrity, fairness, responsibility, and respect, serve as guiding values that shape behaviors and interactions across various contexts.

When companies and corporations conduct business with ethical principles in mind, their trust with stakeholders becomes stronger, as such, it contributes to long-term success and sustainability. Let’s explore each of these principles in detail to understand their significance and practical application in organizational settings.

Integrity involves honesty, consistency, and adherence to moral values, even when faced with difficult decisions. It entails being truthful and transparent in all business dealings and maintaining consistency between words and actions.

For example, a company demonstrating integrity would openly disclose any potential conflicts of interest to its stakeholders, ensuring trust and credibility.

Fairness requires treating all individuals impartially and equitably, regardless of personal biases or interests. It involves providing equal opportunities and resources to all stakeholders and making decisions based on objective criteria.

An example of fairness in action would be a company implementing non-discriminatory hiring practices and offering fair wages and benefits to all employees, regardless of their age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, or disability.

Responsibility

Another crucial ethical principle is responsibility which entails recognizing and fulfilling one’s obligations towards stakeholders and society at large. It involves considering the impact of decisions on all affected parties and taking proactive measures to mitigate any negative consequences.

For instance, a responsible corporation would implement environmentally sustainable practices to minimize its carbon footprint and protect natural resources.

Respect involves valuing the dignity, rights, and autonomy of all individuals and treating them with civility and consideration. It encompasses listening to diverse perspectives, fostering inclusivity, and honoring confidentiality

An example of respect would be a company actively promoting diversity and inclusion initiatives and creating a supportive work environment where employees feel valued and respected.

Benefits of Practicing Business Ethics

Prioritizing ethics in business operations yields numerous advantages contributing to organizational success and sustainability. Recent research examining consumer attitudes toward brands regarding business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) underscores the significant impact of ethical conduct on brand attitude, emphasizing the importance of business ethics in shaping consumer perceptions. While this finding highlights the value of ethical behavior, it does not diminish the importance of CSR, which remains vital for firms and society.

Moreover, businesses prioritizing ethics often attract top talent-seeking employers with strong values, fostering a skilled and motivated workforce. Below we will discuss some of the ways ethical practices help organizations in their business.

Ethical practices enhance employee morale

Ethical behavior can significantly enhance employee morale within an organization. Employees who perceive that their company operates with integrity and fairness feel valued and respected, leading to higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment.

This positive work environment encourages greater employee engagement and productivity, ultimately contributing to organizational success and sustainability.

Ethical practices improve innovation and creativity

Fostering an ethical organizational culture can also lead to increased innovation and creativity among employees. When individuals feel empowered to voice their ideas and opinions without fear of reprisal, they are more likely to collaborate freely and think outside the box.

This open and supportive environment cultivates a culture of innovation, where employees are encouraged to explore new possibilities and solutions to challenges. As a result, businesses that prioritize ethics not only uphold their reputation but also drive innovation and adaptability, ensuring long-term success in today’s dynamic business landscape.

Challenges in Upholding Business Ethics

While strides have been made in business ethics, maintaining ethical standards is still challenging for businesses. They encounter obstacles like prioritizing short-term financial gains, navigating the global business landscape, and balancing stakeholder interests.

Recognizing and addressing these challenges is crucial for promoting integrity and sustainability within organizations. Let’s explore the main hurdles businesses face in upholding ethical conduct.

Pressure for short-term financial results

While the evolution of business ethics is commendable, the path to ethical business conduct is challenging. One of the primary obstacles businesses face is the pressure to deliver short-term financial results, often leading companies to compromise on ethical standards in pursuit of immediate gains. The temptation to cut corners, engage in dubious practices, or prioritize profit over principles can be overwhelming, especially in competitive industries.

Interested in pursuing a degree?

Fill out the form and get all admission information you need regarding your chosen program.

This will only take a moment.

Message Received!

Thank you for reaching out to us. we will review your message and get right back to you within 24 hours. if there is an urgent matter and you need to speak to someone immediately you can call at the following phone number:.

By clicking the Send me more information button above, I represent that I am 18+ years of age, that I have read and agreed to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy , and agree to receive email marketing and phone calls from UOTP. I understand that my consent is not required to apply for online degree enrollment. To speak with a representative without providing consent, please call +1 (202) 274-2300

We value your privacy.

This challenge underscores the importance of fostering a culture that values long-term sustainability over short-term gains and prioritizes ethical decision-making at all levels of the organization.

Complexities of the global business environment

Furthermore, the interconnected global business environment introduces complexities that demand heightened ethical awareness. Companies operating in multiple jurisdictions must navigate diverse legal and cultural landscapes, requiring a nuanced approach to ethics. This presents challenges such as ensuring compliance with varying regulatory frameworks, respecting cultural norms and practices, and addressing ethical dilemmas that may arise from conflicting cultural values.

Developing comprehensive ethical guidelines and training programs tailored to the specific cultural contexts in which a company operates can help mitigate these challenges and promote ethical behavior across borders.

Balancing stakeholder interests

Additionally, balancing the interests of various stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the community, poses another significant challenge in upholding business ethics. Conflicting stakeholder interests may create ethical dilemmas, forcing companies to make difficult decisions that impact different groups differently.

For example, decisions related to layoffs, product pricing, or environmental policies may prioritize the interests of shareholders over those of employees or the community. Striking a balance between competing interests while upholding ethical principles requires careful consideration, transparent communication, and a commitment to stakeholder engagement and accountability.

Fostering an Ethical Business Environment

Fostering an ethical business environment necessitates developing and implementing effective strategies for establishing ethical policies in the workplace. This begins with creating clear and comprehensive ethical guidelines that outline the company’s values, principles, and expectations regarding ethical behavior.

Ethics training and education for employees are essential to ensure understanding and adherence to these policies. Providing ongoing training sessions, workshops, and resources helps cultivate ethical awareness and equips employees with the knowledge and skills to navigate ethical dilemmas.

Furthermore, the importance of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms cannot be overstated in maintaining ethical standards. Regular audits, compliance checks, and internal controls help promptly identify and address potential ethical breaches. Implementing channels for reporting ethical concerns, such as ethics hotlines or anonymous reporting systems, encourages transparency and accountability within the organization.

These mechanisms, when coupled with appropriate disciplinary measures for violations, help reinforce the importance of ethical conduct and ensure accountability at all levels of the organization. By integrating these strategies into the organizational culture, businesses can foster an environment where ethical behavior is valued, promoted, and upheld as a cornerstone of corporate integrity and success.

The bottom line

In conclusion, exploring business ethics reveals a crucial aspect of modern commerce. These ethics, rooted in principles like integrity, fairness, responsibility, and respect, shape organizational operations and decisions beyond legal requirements. Prioritizing ethical conduct enhances reputation and stakeholder relationships and fosters a positive business environment for long-term success. Despite challenges, such as attracting talent, boosting morale, and fostering innovation, upholding ethical standards underscores the essential role ethics play in today’s business landscape. Integrating ethical principles helps businesses navigate ethical dilemmas, build trust, and contribute to a sustainable, socially responsible business environment.

Ready to take your career to the next level? Explore POTOMAC’s comprehensive business programs today! From Bachelor of Science in Business to Master of Business Administration , at POTOMAC you gain valuable, practical skills that will help you build a successful career.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does personal morality influence business ethics.

Personal morality influences business ethics by shaping individuals’ decision-making processes and guiding their behavior toward ethical or unethical actions in business contexts.

What are examples of ethical practices in business?

Examples of ethical practices in business include:

Maintaining transparency in financial reporting;
Giving a fair shot in job application people from different background;
Adhering to environmental sustainability standards.

How do business ethics vary across countries?

Business ethics can vary across countries due to differences in cultural norms, legal regulations, and societal values. While some ethical principles may be universal, the interpretation and application of these principles can differ significantly between countries.

Share it with your friends!

Explore more.

Accounting vs. Finance Degree: Which Major to Choose?

12 Important Bookkeeping Skills You Need for a Successful Career

Recent resources.

What Are the Best Study Techniques You Should Try?

Top 10 Types of Assessment of Learning

How Long Is a College Semester?

Characteristics of Visual Learners

INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE?

Chat with an Admissions Officer Now!

Associates Degree
Bachelors Degrees
Masters Degrees
Doctoral Degrees
Faculty & Staff
Accreditation
Student Experience

QUICK LINKS

Admission Requirements
Military Students
Financial Aid

Request More Information

Business Ethics Journal Review

Edited by alexei marcoux & chris macdonald — issn 2326-7526.

About BEJR — Now 10 years in!
Books Received
Instructions for Authors
Past Issues
The Editors

Student’s Guide to Writing Critical Essays in Business Ethics (and beyond)

Here is some advice for writing critical essays, in business ethics but also in other fields. There is of course much more to say on the topic, but this is a start.

Writing your own critical essay:

What kinds of criticisms should you offer in your essay? There are a nearly infinite number of errors or problems that you might spot in an essay or book that you want to critique. Here are a few common ones to look for, to get you started:

Point out one or more logical fallacies. Did the author present a false dilemma , for example? Or an argument from ignorance ? Has the author presented a false analogy or a hasty generalization ?
Critique the scope of the author’s claim. For example, does the author claim that his or her conclusion applies to all cases, rather than just to the small number of cases he or she has actually argued for?
Point out unjustified assumptions. Has the author made questionable assumptions about some matter of fact, without providing evidence? Alternatively, has the author assumed that readers share some questionable ethical starting point, perhaps a belief in a particular debatable principle?
Point out internal contradictions. Does the author say two things that, perhaps subtly, contradict each other?
Point out undesirable implications / consequences. Does the author’s position imply, perhaps accidentally, some further conclusion that the author (or audience) is unlikely to want to accept, upon reflection?

In general, a good critical essay should:

Describe and explain in neutral terms the article or book being critiqued. Before you start offering criticism, you should demonstrate that you understand the point of view you are critiquing.
Be modest. Your goal should be to offer some insight, rather than to win a debate. Rather than to “show that Smith is wrong” or “prove that Sen’s view is incorrect,” you should set your aims on some more reasonable goal, such as “casting doubt” on the view you are critiquing, or “suggesting reason why so-and-so should modify her view.”
Be fair. Sometimes this is referred to as the “principle of charity.” It has nothing to do with donating money. Rather, it is about giving the other side what you owe them, namely a fair reading. Your goal is not to make the author whose work you are criticizing sound dumb. Rather, the goal is to make her sound smart, but then to make yourself sound smart, too, but showing how her view could be improved.
Be well structured . Professors love structure. Remember: a critical essay is not just a bunch of ideas; it is an orderly attempt to convince someone (in most cases, your professor) of a particular point of view. Your ideas will only have real punch if you put them in a suitable structure. That’s not all that hard. For example, make sure your opening paragraph acts as a roadmap for what follows — telling the reader where you’re going and how you propose to get there. Make sure each paragraph in the body of your essay has a main point (a point connected to the goal of your essay!) and that its point is clearly explained.
Stick to two or maybe three main arguments . “The three main problems with Jones’s argument are x, y, and z.”
Be clear. That means not just that your essay should be clearly structured, but also that each sentence should be clear. Proof-reading is important: get someone with good writing skills to proof-read your essay for you. If you can’t do that before your deadline, you can proof-read your essay yourself by reading it out loud. We’re serious. It is much easier to spot errors in your own writing if you read out loud.

A few more tips:

Cite your sources carefully. Use whichever citation method your professor says to use. If in doubt, use one of the established methods (such as APA or Chicago ). But whatever you do, make sure to give credit to the people whose ideas you use, if you want to avoid being charged with plagiarism.
Use what you’ve learned in class. Your professor would love nothing more than to know that you’ve been paying attention. So try to make use of some of the concepts discussed in class, or in your course textbook.
Don’t try to sound like an author. Just say what you want to say. Trying to sound like an author just leads people to use big words they don’t understand and to write complex sentences that overshoot their grammatical skills. Just write it more or less the way you would say it out loud, in short, clear sentences.
Follow instructions. Failing to follow instructions is easily the most common way students screw up when writing critical essays. Read the assignment instructions through carefully — twice! — and then if anything is unclear, ask your professor for clarification.

Looking for essay topics? Check out Business Ethics Highlights .

See also: The Concise Encyclopedia of Business Ethics

BEJR is published by

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Business Ethics

Exchange is fundamental to business. ‘Business’ can mean an activity of exchange. One entity (e.g., a person, a firm) “does business” with another when it exchanges a good or service for valuable consideration, i.e., a benefit such as money. ‘Business’ can also mean an entity that offers goods and services for exchange, i.e., that sells things. Target is a business. Business ethics can thus be understood as the study of the ethical dimensions of the exchange of goods and services, and of the entities that offer goods and services for exchange. This includes related activities such as the production, distribution, marketing, sale, and consumption of goods and services (cf. Donaldson & Walsh 2015; Marcoux 2006b).

Questions in business ethics are important and relevant to everyone. Almost all of us “do business”, or engage in a commercial transaction, almost every day. Many of us spend a major portion of our lives engaged in, or preparing to engage in, exchange activities, on our own or as part of organizations. Business activity shapes the world we live in, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill.

Business ethics in its current incarnation is a relatively new field, growing out of research by moral philosophers in the 1970’s and 1980’s. But scholars have been thinking about the ethical dimensions of commerce at least since the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC).

This entry summarizes research on central questions in business ethics, including: What sorts of things can be sold? How can they be sold? In whose interests should firms be managed? Who should manage them? What do firms owe their workers, and what do workers owe their firms? Should firms try to solve social problems? Is it permissible for them to try to influence political outcomes? Given the vastness of the field, of necessity certain questions are not addressed.

1. Varieties of business ethics

2. corporate moral agency, 3.1 ends: shareholder primacy or stakeholder balance, 3.2 means: control by shareholders or others too, 4. important frameworks for business ethics, 5.1 the limits of markets, 5.2 product safety and liability, 5.3 advertising, 5.5 pricing, 6.1 hiring and firing, 6.2 compensation, 6.3 meaningful work, 6.4 whistleblowing, 7.1 corporate social responsibility, 7.2 corporate political activity, 7.3 international business, 8. the status of business ethics, other internet resources, related entries.

Many people engaged in business activity, including accountants and lawyers, are professionals. As such, they are bound by codes of conduct promulgated by professional societies. Many firms also have detailed codes of conduct, developed and enforced by teams of ethics and compliance personnel. Business ethics can thus be understood as the study of professional practices, i.e., as the study of the content, development, enforcement, and effectiveness of the codes of conduct designed to guide the actions of people engaged in business activity. This entry will not consider this form of business ethics. Instead, it considers business ethics as an academic discipline.

The academic field of business ethics is shared by social scientists and normative theorists. But they address different questions. Social scientists try to answer descriptive questions like: Does corporate social performance improve corporate financial performance, i.e., does ethics pay (Vogel 2005; Zhao & Murrell 2021)? Why do people engage in unethical behavior (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel 2011; Werhane et al. 2013). How can we make them stop (Warren, Gaspar, & Laufer 2014)? I will not consider such questions here. This entry focuses on questions in normative business ethics, most of which are variants on the question: What is ethical and unethical in business?

Normative business ethicists (hereafter the qualifier ‘normative’ will be assumed) tend to accept the basic elements of capitalism. That is, they assume that the means of production can be privately owned and that markets—featuring voluntary exchanges between buyers and sellers at mutually agreeable prices—should play an important role in the allocation of resources. Those who reject capitalism will see some debates in business ethics (e.g., about firm ownership and control) as misguided.

Some entities “do business” with the goal of making a profit, and some do not. Pfizer and Target are examples of the former; Rutgers University and the Metropolitan Museum of Art are examples of the latter. An organization identified as a ‘business’ is typically understood to be one that seeks profit, and for-profit organizations are the ones that business ethicists focus on. But many of the ethical issues described below arise also for non-profit organizations and individual economic agents.

One way to think about business ethics is in terms of the moral obligations of agents engaged in business activity. Who can be a moral agent? Individual persons, obviously. What about firms? This is treated as the issue of “corporate moral agency” or “corporate moral responsibility”. Here ‘corporate’ does not refer to the corporation as a legal entity, but to a collective or group of individuals. To be precise, the question is whether firms are moral agents and morally responsible considered as ( qua ) firms, not considered as aggregates of individual members of firms.

We often think and speak as if corporations are morally responsible. We say things like “Costco treats its employees well” or “BP harmed the environment in the Gulf of Mexico”, and in doing so we appear to assign agency and responsibility to firms themselves (Dempsey 2003). We may wish to praise Costco and blame BP for their behavior. But this may be just a metaphorical way of speaking, or a shorthand way of referring to certain individuals who work in these firms (Velasquez 1983, 2003). Corporations are different in many ways from paradigm moral agents, viz., people. They don’t have minds, for one thing, or bodies, for another. The question is whether corporations are similar enough to people to warrant ascriptions of moral agency and responsibility.

In the business ethics literature, French is a seminal thinker on this topic. In early work (1979, 1984), he argued that firms are morally responsible for what they do, and indeed should be seen as “full-fledged” moral persons. He bases this conclusion on his claim that firms have internal decision-making structures, through which they cause events to happen, and act intentionally. Some early responses to French’s work accepted the claim that firms are moral agents, but denied that they are moral persons. Donaldson (1982) claims that firms cannot be persons because they lack important human capacities, such as the ability to pursue their own happiness (see also Werhane 1985). Other responses went further and denied that firms are moral agents. Velasquez (1983, 2003) argues that, while corporations can act, they cannot be held responsible for their actions, because those actions are brought about by the actions of their members. In later work, French (1995) recanted his claim that firms are moral persons, though not his claim that they are moral agents.

Debate about corporate moral agency and moral responsibility rages on in important new work (Orts & Smith 2017; Sepinwall 2016). One issue that has received sustained attention is choice. Appealing to discursive dilemmas, List & Pettit (2011) argue that the decisions of corporations can be independent of the decisions of their members (see also Copp 2006). This makes the corporation an autonomous agent, and since it can choose in the light of values, a morally responsible one. Another issue is intention. A minimal condition of moral agency is the ability to form intentions. Some deny that corporations can form them (S. Miller 2006; Rönnegard 2015). If we regard an intention as a mental state, akin to a belief or desire, or a belief/desire complex, they may be right. But not if we regard an intention in functionalist terms (Copp 2006; Hess 2014), as a plan (Bratman 1993), or in terms of reasons-responsiveness (Silver forthcoming). A third issue is emotion. Sepinwall (2017) argues that being capable of emotion is a necessary condition of moral responsibility, and since corporations aren’t capable of emotion, they aren’t morally responsible. Again, much depends on what it means to be capable of emotion. If this capability can be given a functionalist reading, as Björnsson & Hess (2017) claim, perhaps corporations are capable of emotion (see also Gilbert 2000). Pursuit of these issues lands one in the robust and sophisticated literature on collective responsibility and intentionality, where firms feature as a type of collective. (See the entries on collective responsibility , collective intentionality , and shared agency .)

Another question asked about corporate moral agency is: Does it matter? Perhaps BP itself was morally responsible for polluting the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps certain individuals at BP were. What hangs on this? Some say: a lot. In some cases there may be no individual who is morally responsible for the firm’s behavior (List & Pettit 2011; Phillips 1995), and we need someone to blame, and perhaps punish. Blame may be the fitting response, and blame (and punishment) incentivizes the firm to change its behavior. Hasnas (2012) says very little hangs on this question. Even if firms are not morally responsible for the harms they cause, we can still require them to pay restitution, condemn their culture, and subject them to regulation. Moreover, Hasnas says, we should not blame and punish firms, for our blame and punishment inevitably lands on the innocent.

3. The ends and means of corporate governance

There is significant debate about the ends and means of corporate governance, i.e., about who firms should be managed for, and who should (ultimately) manage them. Much of this debate is carried on with the large publicly-traded corporation in view.

There are two main views about the proper ends of corporate governance. According to one view, firms should be managed in the best interests of shareholders. It is typically assumed that managing firms in shareholders’ best interests requires maximizing their wealth (cf. Hart & Zingales 2017; Robson 2019). This view is called “shareholder primacy” (Stout 2012) or—in order to contrast it more directly with its main rival (to be discussed below) “shareholder theory”. Shareholder primacy is the dominant view about the ends of corporate governance in business schools and in the business world.

A few writers argue for shareholder primacy on deontological grounds, i.e., by appealing to rights and duties. On this argument, shareholders own the firm, and hire managers to run it for them on the condition that the firm is managed in their interests. Shareholder primacy is thus based on a promise that managers make to shareholders (Friedman 1970; Hasnas 1998). In response, some argue that shareholders do not own the firm. They own stock, a type of corporate security (Bainbridge 2008; Stout 2012); the firm itself may be unowned (Strudler 2017). Others argue that managers do not make, explicitly or implicitly, any promises to shareholders to manage the firm in a certain way (Boatright 1994). More writers argue for shareholder primacy on consequentialist grounds. On this argument, managing firms in the interests of shareholders is more efficient than managing them in any other way (Hansmann & Kraakman 2001; Jensen 2002). In support of this, some argue that, if managers are not given a single objective that is clear and measurable—viz., maximizing shareholder value—then they will have greater opportunity for self-dealing (Stout 2012). The consequentialist argument for shareholder primacy run into problems that afflict many versions of consequentialism: in requiring all firms to aim at a certain objective, it does not allow sufficient scope for personal choice (Hussain 2012). Most think that people should be able to pursue projects, including economic projects, that matter to them, even if those projects do not maximize shareholder value.

The second main view about the proper ends of corporate governance is given by stakeholder theory. This theory was first put forward by Freeman in the 1980s (Freeman 1984; Freeman & Reed 1983), and has been refined by Freeman and collaborators over the years (see, e.g., Freeman 1994; Freeman et al. 2010; Freeman, Harrison, & Zyglidopoulos 2018; Jones, Wicks, & Freeman 2002; Phillips, Freeman, & Wicks 2003). According to stakeholder theory—or at least, early formulations of it—instead of managing the firm in the best interests of shareholders only, managers should seek to “balance” the interests of all stakeholders, where a stakeholder is anyone who has a “stake”, or interest (including a financial interest), in the firm. Blair and Stout’s (1999) “team production” theory of corporate governance offers similar guidance.

To be clear, in a firm in which shareholders’ interests are prioritized, other stakeholders will benefit too. Employees will receive wages, customers will receive goods and services, and so on. The debate between shareholder and stakeholder theorists is about what to do with the residual revenues, i.e., what’s left over after firms meet their contractual obligations to employees, customers, and others. Shareholder theorists think they should be used to maximize shareholder wealth. Stakeholder theorists think they should be used to benefit all stakeholders.

To its critics, stakeholder theory has seemed both incompletely articulated and weakly defended. With respect to articulation, one question that has been pressed is: Who are the stakeholders (Orts & Strudler 2002, 2009)? The groups most commonly identified are shareholders, employees, the community, suppliers, and customers. But other groups have stakes in the firm, including creditors, the government, and competitors. It makes a great deal of difference where the line is drawn, but stakeholder theorists have not provided a clear rationale for drawing it in one place rather than another. Another question is: What does it mean to “balance” the interests of all stakeholders, other than not always giving precedence to shareholders’ interests (Orts & Strudler 2009)? With respect to defense, critics have wondered what the rationale is for managing firms in the interests of all stakeholders. In one place, Freeman (1984) offers an instrumental argument, claiming that balancing stakeholders’ interests is better for the firm strategically than maximizing shareholder wealth (see also Blair & Stout 1999; Freeman, Harrison, & Zyglidopoulos 2018). (Defenders of shareholder primacy say the same thing about their view.) In another, he gives an argument that appeals to Rawls’s justice as fairness (Evan & Freeman 1988; cf. Child & Marcoux 1999).

In recent years, questions have been raised about whether stakeholder theory is appropriately seen as a genuine competitor to shareholder primacy, or is even appropriately called a “theory”. In one article, Freeman and collaborators say that stakeholder theory is simply “the body of research … in which the idea of ‘stakeholders’ plays a crucial role” (Jones et al. 2002). In another, Freeman describes stakeholder theory as “a genre of stories about how we could live” (1994: 413). It may be, as Norman (2013) says, that stakeholder is now best regarded as “mindset”, i.e., a way of looking at the firm that emphasizes its embeddedness in a network of relationships. In this case, there may be no dispute between shareholder and stakeholder theorists.

Resolving the debate between shareholder and stakeholder theorists (assuming they are competitors) will not resolve all or even most of the ethical questions in business. This is because it is a debate about the ends of corporate governance. It cannot answer questions about the moral constraints that must be observed in pursuit of those ends (Goodpaster 1991; Norman 2013), including duties of beneficence (Mejia 2020). Neither shareholder theory nor stakeholder theory is plausibly interpreted as the view that corporate managers should do whatever is possible to maximize shareholder wealth and balance all stakeholders’ interests, respectively. Rather, these views should be interpreted as views that managers should do whatever is consistent with the requirements of morality to achieve these ends. A large part of business ethics is trying to determine what these requirements are.

Answers to questions about the means of corporate governance often mirror answers to question about the ends of corporate governance. Often the best way to ensure that a firm is managed in the interests of a certain party P is to give P control. Conversely, justifications for why the firm should be managed in the interests of P sometimes appeal P’s rights to control it.

Friedman (1970), for example, thinks that shareholders’ ownership of the firm gives them a right to control the firm (which they can use to ensure that the firm is run in their interests). We might see control rights for shareholders as following analytically from the concept of ownership. To own a thing is to have a bundle of rights with respect to that thing. One of the standard “incidents” of ownership is control. (See the entry on property and ownership .)

As noted, in recent years the idea that the firm is something that can be owned has been challenged (Bainbridge 2008; Stout 2012; Strudler 2017). If this is right, then the ownership argument collapses. But similar contractarian arguments for shareholder control of firms have been constructed which do not rely on the assumption of firm ownership. All that is assumed in these arguments is that some people own capital, and others own labor. Capital can “hire” labor (and other inputs of production) or labor can “hire” capital. It just so happens that, in most cases, capital hires labor. We know this because in most cases capital-providers are the ultimate decision-makers in the firm. In a publicly-traded corporation, they elect the board. These points are emphasized especially by those who regard the firm as a “nexus of contracts” among various parties (Easterbrook & Fischel 1996; Jensen & Meckling 1976).

Many writers find this result troubling. Even if the governance structure in most firms is in some sense agreed to, they say that it is unjust in other ways. Anderson (2017) characterizes standard corporate governance regimes as oppressive and unaccountable private dictatorships. To address this injustice, these writers call for various forms of worker participation in managerial decision-making, including the ability by workers to reject arbitrary directives by managers (Hsieh 2005), worker co-determination of firms’ policies and practices (Ferreras 2017; McMahon 1994), and exclusive control of productive enterprises by workers (Dahl 1985).

Arguments for these governance structures take various forms. One appeals to the value of protecting workers’ interests (González-Ricoy 2014; Hsieh 2005). Another appeals to the value of autonomy, or a right to freely determine one’s actions, including one’s actions at work (Malleson 2014; McCall 2001). A third argument for worker control is the “parallel case” argument. According to it, if states should be governed democratically, then so should firms, because firms are like states in the relevant respects (Dahl 1985; Landemore & Ferreras 2016; cf. Mayer 2000). A fourth argument sees worker participation in firm decision-making as valuable training for citizens in a democratic society (Pateman 1970).

Space considerations prevent detailed examinations of these arguments (for critical reviews see Frega, Herzog, & Neuhäuser 2019; Hsieh 2008). But criticisms generally fall into two categories. The first insists on the normative priority of agreements, of the sort described above. There are few legal restrictions on the types of governance structures that firms can have. And some firms are in fact controlled by workers (Dow 2003; Hansmann 1996). To insist that other firms should be governed this way is to say, according to this argument, that people should not be allowed to arrange their economic lives as they see fit. Another criticism of worker participation appeals to efficiency. Allowing workers to participate in managerial decision-making may decrease the pace of decision-making, since it requires giving many workers a chance to make their voices heard (Hansmann 1996). It may also raise the cost of capital for firms, as investors may demand more favorable terms if they are not given control of the enterprise in return (McMahon 1994). Both sources of inefficiency may put the firm at a significant disadvantage in a competitive market. It may not just be a matter of competitive disadvantage. If it were, the problem could be solved by making all firms worker-controlled. The problem may be one of diminished productivity more generally.

Business ethicists seek to understand the ethical contours of business activity. One way of advancing this project is by choosing a normative framework and teasing out its implications for business issues. In principle, it is possible to do this for any normative framework. Below are four that have received significant attention.

One influential approach to business ethics draws on virtue ethics. Moore (2017) develops and applies MacIntyre’s (1984) virtue ethics to business. For MacIntyre, there are goods internal to practices, and certain virtues are necessary to achieve those goods. Building on MacIntyre, Moore develops the idea that business is a practice (or contains practices), and thus has certain goods internal to it (or them), the attainment of which requires the cultivation of business virtues. Aristotelian approaches to virtue in business are found in Alzola (2012) and de Bruin (2015). Scholars have also been inspired by the Aristotelian idea that the good life is achieved in a community (Sison & Fontrodona 2012), and have considered how business communities must be structured to help their members flourish (Hartman 2015; Solomon 1993).

Another important approach to the study of business ethics comes from deontology, especially Kant’s version (Arnold & Bowie 2003; Bowie 2017; Scharding 2015; Hughes 2020). Kant’s claim that humanity should be treated always as an end, and never as a means only, has proved especially fruitful for analyzing the human interactions at the core of commercial transactions. In competitive markets, people may be tempted to deceive, cheat, use, exploit, or manipulate others to gain an edge. Kantian moral theory singles out these actions out as violations of human dignity (Hughes 2019; Smith & Dubbink 2011).

Ethical theory, including virtue theory and deontology, is useful for thinking about how individuals should relate to each other. But business ethics also comprehends the laws and regulations that structure markets and firms. Here political theory seems more relevant. A number of business ethicists have sought to identify the implications of Rawls’s (1971) justice as fairness for business. This is not an easy task, since while Rawls makes some suggestive remarks about markets and firms, he does not articulate specific conclusions or develop detailed arguments for them. But scholars have argued that justice as fairness: (1) is incompatible with significant inequalities of power and authority within firms (S. Arnold 2012); (2) requires people to have an opportunity to perform meaningful work (Moriarty 2009; cf. Hasan 2015); and requires alternative forms of (3) corporate governance (Berkey 2021; Blanc & Al-Amoudi 2013; Norman 2015; cf. Singer 2015) and (4) corporate ownership (M. O’Neill & Williamson 2012).

A fourth approach to business ethics is called the “market failures approach” (MFA). It originates with McMahon (1981), but it has been developed in most detail by Heath (2014) (for discussion see Moriarty 2020 and Singer 2018). According to Heath, the justification of the market is that it produces efficient—in the sense of Pareto-optimal— outcomes. But this only happens when the conditions of perfect competition obtain, such as perfect information, no market power, and no barriers to entry or exit. (When they don’t, markets fail—hence the market failures approach.) On the MFA, these conditions are the source of ethical rules for market actors. The MFA says that market actors, including sellers and buyers, should not create or take advantage of market imperfections. So, for example, firms should not deceive consumers (creating information asymmetries) or lobby governments to levy tariffs on foreign competitors (erecting barriers to entry).

Selecting a normative framework and applying it to a range of issues is an important way of doing business ethics. But it is not the only way. Indeed, the more common approach is to identify a business activity and then analyze it using “mid-level” principles or ideals common to many moral and political theories. Below I consider ethical issues that arise at the nexus of firms’ engagement with three important groups: consumers, employees, and society.

5. Firms and consumers

The main way that firms interact with consumers is by selling, or attempting to sell, products and services to them. Many ethical issues attend this interaction.

Many have argued that some things should not be for sale (Anderson 1993; MacDonald & Gavura 2016; Sandel 2012; Satz 2010). Among the things commonly said to be inappropriate for sale are sexual services, surrogacy services, and human organs. Some writers object to markets in these items for consequentialist reasons. They argue that markets in commodities like sex and kidneys will lead to the exploitation of vulnerable people (Satz 2010). Others object to the attitudes or values expressed in such markets. They claim that markets in surrogacy services express the attitude that women are mere vessels for the incubation of children (Anderson 1993); markets in kidneys suggest that human life can be bought and sold (Sandel 2012); and so on. (For a discussion of what it might mean for a market to “express” a value, see Jonker [2019].)

Other writers criticize these arguments, and in general, the attempt to “wall-off” certain goods and services from markets. Brennan and Jaworksi (2016) object to expressive or “semiotic” arguments against markets in contested commodities (cf. Brown & Maguire 2019). Whether selling a particular thing for money expresses disrespect, they note, is culturally contingent. They and others (e.g., Taylor 2005) also argue that the bad effects of markets in contested commodities can be eliminated or at least ameliorated through appropriate regulation, and that anyway, the good effects of such markets (e.g., a decrease in the number of people who die because they are waiting for a kidney) outweigh the bad.

Some things that firms may wish to sell, and that people may wish to buy, pose a significant risk of harm, to the user and others. When is a product too unsafe to be sold? This question is often answered by government agencies. In the U.S., a number of government agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are responsible for assessing the safety of products for the consumer market. In some cases these standards are mandatory (e.g., medicines and medical devices); in other cases they are voluntary (e.g., trampolines and tents). The state identifies minimum standards and individual businesses can choose to adopt more stringent ones.

Questions about product safety are a matter of significant debate among economists, legal scholars, and public policy experts. Business ethicists have paid scant attention to these questions (but see Brenkert 1981). Existing treatments often combine discussions of safety with discussions of liability—the question of who should pay for harms that products cause—and tend to be found in business ethics textbooks. One of the most careful treatments is Velasquez’s (2012). He distinguishes three (compatible) views: (1) the “contract view”, according to which the manufacturer’s duty is only to accurately disclose all risks associated with the product; (2) the “due care view”, according to which the manufacturer should exercise due care to prevent buyers from being injured by the product; and (3) the “social costs view”, according to which the manufacturer should pay for any injuries the product causes, even if the manufacturer has accurately disclosed all risks associated with the product and has exercised due care to prevent injury (see also Boatright & Smith 2017). In the U.S. and elsewhere, the law has moved in the direction of the social costs view, where it is known as “strict liability”.

There is much room for philosophical exploration of these issues. One area that merits attention is the definitions of key terms, such as “safety” and “risk”. Drop side cribs pose risks to consumers; so do trampolines. On what basis should the former be prohibited but the latter not be (Hasnas 2010)? The answer must take into account the value of these products, how obvious the risks they pose are, and the availability of substitutes. With respect to liability, we may wonder whether it is fair to hold manufacturers responsible for harms their products cause, when the manufacturers are not morally at fault for those harms. On the other hand, it may be unfair to force consumers to bear the full costs of their injuries, when they too are not morally at fault. The question may be one for society as a whole: what is the most efficient or just way to distribute these costs?

Most advertising contains both an informational component and a persuasive component. Advertisements tell us something about a product, and try to persuade us to buy it. Both of these components can be subject to ethical evaluation.

Emphasizing its informational component, some writers stress the positive value of advertising. Markets function efficiently only when certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is perfect information. Minimally, consumers have to understand the features of the products for sale. While this condition will never be fully met, advertising can help to ensure that it is met to a greater degree (Heath 2014). Another value that can be promoted through advertising is autonomy. People have certain needs and desires—e.g., to eat healthy food, to drive a safe car—which their choices as consumers help them to satisfy. Their choices are more likely to satisfy their needs and desires if they have information about what is for sale, which advertising can provide (Goldman 1984).

These good effects depend, of course, on advertisements producing true beliefs, or at least not producing false beliefs, in consumers. Writers treat this as the issue of deception in advertising. The issue is not whether deceptive advertising is wrong (most would agree it is), but what counts as deceptive advertising, and what makes it wrong.

In the 1980s, Beech-Nut advertised as “100% apple juice” a drink that contained no juice of any kind. Beech-Nut was fined $2 million and two of its executives went to prison. As of this writing (in 2021), Red Bull is marketing its energy drinks with the slogan “Red Bull Gives You Wings,” but in fact Red Bull doesn’t give you wings. There is no problem with Red Bull’s marketing. What’s the difference? We might say that Red Bull’s slogan is not warranted as true (Carson 2010). It is an example of “puffery,” or over-the-top, exaggerated praise which no reasonable person takes seriously (Attas 1999). By contrast, Beech-Nut’s statement appeared to be a claim meant to be taken at face value, but in fact is false. As these examples illustrate, advertisements are deceptive not because of the truth-value of their claims, but what these claims cause reasonable consumers to believe. Questions can be raised, of course, about what it means to be reasonable (Scalet 2003); the answer may depend on who the consumers are.

Intention is usually taken to be irrelevant to deception in advertising. That is, an advertisement may be deemed deceptive even if the advertiser doesn’t intend to deceive anyone. Some philosophers would say that these advertisements are better described as misleading . (For discussion, see the entry on the definition of lying and deception .) Regulators of advertising blur this distinction, or perhaps they don’t care about it. Their goal is to protect consumers from acting on materially false beliefs, which may be caused either by deception or by blamelessly being misled.

Many reasons have been offered for why deceptive advertising is wrong. One is the Kantian claim that deceiving others is disrespectful to them, a use of them as a mere means. Deceptive advertising may also lead to harm, to consumers (who purchase suboptimal products, given their desires) and competitors (who lose out on sales). A final criticism of deceptive advertising is that it erodes trust in society (Attas 1999). When people do not trust each other, they will either not engage in economic transactions, or engage in them only with costly legal protections.

The persuasive component of advertising is also a fruitful subject of ethical inquiry. Galbraith (1958), an early critic, thinks that advertising, in general, does not inform people how to acquire what they want, but instead gives them new wants. He calls this the “dependence effect”: our desires depend on what is produced, not vice versa . Moreover, since we are inundated with advertising for consumer goods, we want too many of those goods and not enough public goods. Hayek (1961) rejects this claim, arguing that few if any of our desires are independent of our environment, and that anyway, desires produced in us through advertising are no less significant than desires produced in us in other ways.

Galbraith is concerned about the persuasive effects of advertisements. In contrast, recent writers focus on the techniques that advertisers use to persuade. Some of these are alleged to cross the line into manipulation (Aylsworth, 2020; Brenkert 2008; Sher 2011). It is difficult to define manipulation precisely, though attempts have been made (for extensive discussion, see the entry on the ethics of manipulation ). For our purposes, manipulative advertising can be understood as advertising that attempts to persuade consumers, often (but not necessarily) using non-rational means, to make irrational or suboptimal choices, given their own needs and desires.

Associative advertising is often identified as a type of manipulative advertising. In associative advertising, the advertiser tries to associate a product with a positive belief, feeling, attitude, ideal, or activity which usually has little to do with the product itself. Thus many television commercials for trucks in the U.S. associate trucks with manliness. Commercials for body fragrances associate those products with sex between beautiful people. The suggestion is that if you are a certain sort of person (e.g., a manly one), then you will have a certain sort of product (e.g., a truck). In an important article, Crisp (1987) argues that this sort of advertising attempts to create desires in people by circumventing their faculties of conscious choice, and in so doing subverts their autonomy (cf. Arrington 1982; Phillips 1994). Lippke (1989) argues that it makes people desire the wrong things, encouraging us to try to satisfy our non-market desires (e.g., to be more manly) through market means (e.g., buying a truck) (cf. Aylsworth 2020). How seriously we should take these criticisms may depend on how effective associative and other forms of persuasive advertising are. To the extent that advertisers are unsuccessful at “going around” our faculty of conscious choice, we may be less worried and more amused by their attempts to do so (Bishop 2000; Goldman 1984).

Our judgments on this issue should be context-sensitive. While most people may be able to see through advertisers’ attempts to persuade them, some may not be (at least some of the time). Paine (Paine et al. 1984) argues that advertising is justified because it helps consumers make wise decisions in the marketplace. But children, she argues, lack the capacity for making wise consumer choices (see also E.S. Moore 2004). Thus advertising directed at children constitutes a form of objectionable exploitation. Other populations who may be similarly vulnerable are the senile, the ignorant, and the bereaved. Ethics may require not a total ban on marketing to them but special care in how they are marketed to (Brenkert 2008; cf. Palmer & Hedberg 2013).

Sales are central to business. Perhaps surprisingly, business ethicists have said relatively little about sales.

An emerging set of issues concerns refusals to sell. Normally businesses want to sell their goods and services to everyone. But not always. In 2012, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop declined to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple because he opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds. In response, the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Should Phillips have sold the wedding cake to the couple? We might say that a commercial transaction is a kind of association, and people—including business owners like Phillips—should be free to associate, or not, with whomever they choose. Or we might say, as Phillips did, that his actions were protected by freedom of religion, since they were an expression of his identity, which includes his religious commitments. Alternatively, we might claim that Phillips was discriminating against the couple, and his actions were wrong for the same reasons discrimination typically is, viz., it denies people opportunities and undermines their dignity (Corvino, Anderson, & Girgis 2017).

Questions can also be raised about the techniques advertisers use to sell. These questions are similar to the ones asked about advertising. Salespeople are, in a sense, the final advertisers of products to consumers. An early contribution to the ethics of sales is found in Holley (1986), who develops a set of obligations for salespeople derived from the point of market activity, which he says is to efficiently meet people’s needs and wants (cf. Heath 2014). In what is probably the most sophisticated treatment of the subject, Carson (2010) says salespeople have at least the following four pro tanto duties: (1) provide customers with safety warnings and precautions; (2) refrain from lying and deception; (3) fully answer customers’ questions about items; and (4) refrain from steering customers toward purchases that are unsuitable for them, given their stated needs and desires. Carson justifies (1)—(4) by appealing to the golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. He identifies two other duties that salespeople might have (he is agnostic): (5) do not sell customers products that you (the salesperson) think are unsuitable for them, given their needs and desires, without telling customers why you think this; and (6) do not sell customers poor quality or defective products, without telling them why you think this. For the most part, (1)—(4) ask the salesperson not to harm the customer; (5) and (6) ask the salesperson to help the customer, in particular, help her not to make foolish mistakes. The broader issue is one of disclosure (Holley 1998). How much information we think salespeople are required to share with customers may depend on what kind of relationship we think they should have, e.g., to what extent it is adversarial.

For many products bought and sold in markets, sellers offer an item at a certain price, and buyers take or leave that price. But in some cases there is negotiation over price (and other aspects of the transaction). We see this in the sale of “big ticket” items such as cars and houses, and in salaries for jobs. While there are many ethical issues that arise in negotiation, one issue that has received special attention is “bluffing”, or deliberately misstating one’s bargaining position. The locus classicus for this discussion is Carr (1968). According to him, bluffing in negotiations is permissible because business has its own distinctive set of moral rules and bluffing is permissible according to those rules. Carson (2010) agrees that bluffing is permissible in business, though in a more limited range of cases. Carson’s argument appeals to self-defense. If you have good reason to believe that your adversary in a negotiation is misstating her bargaining position, then you are permitted to misstate yours. A requirement to tell the truth in these circumstances would put you at a significant disadvantage relative to your adversary, which you are not required to suffer. An implication of Carson’s view is that you are not permitted to misstate your bargaining position if you do not have good reason to believe that your adversary is misstating hers.

In simplified models of the market, individual buyers and sellers are “price-takers”, not “price-makers”. That is, the prices of goods and services are set by the aggregate forces of supply and demand; no individual buys or sells a good for anything other than the market price. In reality, things are different. Sellers of goods have some flexibility about how to price goods.

Most business ethicists would accept that, in most cases, the prices at which products should be sold is a matter for private individuals to decide. This view has been defended on grounds of property rights. Some claim that if I have a right to a thing, then I am free to transfer that thing to you on whatever terms that I propose and you accept (Boatright 2010). It has also been defended on grounds of welfare. Prices set by voluntary exchanges reveal valuable information about the relative demand for and supply of goods, allowing resources to flow to their most productive uses (Hayek 1945). Despite this, most business ethicists also recognize some limits on prices.

One issue that has received increasing attention is price discrimination. This is discrimination based on willingness to pay, or the practice of charging more to people who are willing to pay more. This might at first seem unfair or even exploitative, but in fact it is commonplace and usually unremarkable (Elegido 2011; Marcoux 2006a). Examples of price discrimination include senior and student discounts, bulk discounts, versioning, and the sort of bargaining one finds in car dealerships and flea markets. We might see price discrimination as an implication of freedom in pricing, and according to a familiar result in economics, price discrimination increases social welfare, provided that it enables producers to increase output (Varian 1985). But some instances of price discrimination have come in for criticism. Online retailers collect and purchase enormous amounts of information about consumers, and there is evidence that they are using this to personalize prices, or tailor prices to what they think are consumers’ reservation prices, i.e., the highest amounts they are willing to pay. Some believe that this practice is unfair (Steinberg 2020), though they problem may simply be that consumers don’t know what retailers are up to.

Another issue of pricing ethics is price gouging. Price gouging can be understood as a sharp increase in the price of a necessary good in the wake of an emergency which renders that good scarce (Hughes 2020; Zwolinski 2008). As the novel coronavirus spread around the world in early 2020, retailers began to charge extremely high prices for cleaning products and medical supplies. Many jurisdictions have laws against price gouging, and it is widely regarded as unethical (Snyder 2009). The reason is that it is a paradigm case of exploitation: A extracts an excessive benefit out of B in circumstances in which B cannot reasonably refuse A ’s offer (Valdman 2009). But some theorists defend price gouging. While granting that sales of items in circumstances like these are exploitative, they note that they are mutually beneficial. Both the seller and buyer prefer to engage in the transaction rather than not engage in it. Moreover, when items are sold at inflated prices, this both limits hoarding and attracts more sellers into the market. Permitting price gouging may thus be the fastest way of eliminating it (Zwolinski 2008). (For further discussion, see the entry on exploitation .)

Most contemporary scholars believe that sellers have wide, though not unlimited, discretion in how much they charge for goods and services. But there is an older tradition in business ethics, found in Aquinas and other medieval scholars, according to which there is one price that sellers should charge: the “just price”. There is debate about what exactly medieval scholars meant by “just price”. According to a historically common interpretation, the just price is determined by the seller’s cost of production, i.e., the price that compensates the seller for the value of her labor and expenses. More recent interpretations understand the medieval just price at something closer to the market price, which may be more or less than the cost of production (Koehn & Wilbratte 2012).

6. Firms and workers

Business ethicists have written much about the relationship between employers and employees. Below we consider four issues at the employer/employee interface: (1) hiring and firing, (2) pay, (3) meaningful work, and (4) whistleblowing. Another important topic at this interface is privacy. For space reasons it will not be discussed, but see the entries on privacy and privacy and information technology .

Ethical issues in hiring and firing tend to focus on the question: What criteria should employers use, or not use, in employment decisions? The question of what criteria employers should not use is addressed in discussions of discrimination.

While there is some debate about whether discrimination in employment should be legally prohibited (see Epstein 1992), almost everyone agrees that it is morally wrong (Hellman 2008; Lippert-Rasmussen 2014). Discussion has focused on two questions. First, when does the use of a certain criterion in an employment decision count as discriminatory? It would seem wrong if Walmart were to exclude white applicants for a job in their marketing department, but not wrong if the Hovey Players (a theater troupe) were to exclude white applicants for the role of Walter Younger in A Raisin in the Sun . We might say that whether a hiring practice is discriminatory depends on whether the criterion used is job-relevant. But the concept of job-relevance is contested, as the case of “reaction qualifications” reveals. Suppose that white diners prefer to be served by white waiters rather than black waiters. In this case race seems job-relevant, but it seems wrong for employers to take race into account (Mason 2017). Another question that has received considerable attention is: What makes discrimination wrong? Some argue that discrimination is wrong because of its effects on those who are discriminated against (Lippert-Rasmussen 2014); others think that it is wrong because of what it expresses to them (Hellman 2008). (For extensive discussion, see the entry on discrimination .)

Some writers believe that employers’ obligations are not satisfied simply by avoiding using certain criteria in hiring decisions. According to them, employers have a duty to hire the most qualified applicant. Some justify this duty by appealing to considerations of desert (D. Miller 1999; Mulligan 2018); others justify it by appealing to equal opportunity (Mason 2006). We might object to this view by appealing to property rights. A job offer typically implies a promise to pay the job-taker a sum of your money for performing certain tasks. While we might think that excluding some ways you can dispose of your property (e.g., rules against discrimination in hiring) can be justified, we might think that excluding all ways but one (viz., a requirement to hire the most qualified applicant) is unjustified. In support of this, we might think that a small business owner does nothing wrong when she hires her daughter for a part-time job as opposed to a more qualified stranger.

The question of when employees may be fired is a staple of business ethics texts and was the subject of considerable debate in the business ethics literature in the 1980’s and 1990’s. There are two main views: those who think that employment should be “at will”, so that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason (Epstein 1984; Maitland 1989), and those who think that employers should be able to terminate employees only for “just cause” (e.g., poor performance or excessive absenteeism) (McCall & Werhane 2010). In fact, few writers hold the “pure” version of the “at will” view. Most would say, and the law agrees, that it is wrong for an employer to terminate an employee for certain reasons, e.g., a discovery that he is Muslim or his refusal to commit a crime for the employer. Thus the debate is between those who think that employers should be able to terminate employees for any reason with some exceptions , and those who think that employers should be able to terminate employees only for certain reasons. In the U.S., most employees are at will, while in Europe, most employees are covered, after a probationary period, by something analogous to just cause. Arguments for just cause appeal to the effects that termination has on individual employees, especially those who have worked for an employer for many years (McCall & Werhane 2010). Arguments for at will employment appeal to freedom or macroeconomic effects. It is claimed, in the former case, that just cause is an unwarranted restriction on employers’ and employees’ freedom of contract (Epstein 1984), and in the latter case, that it raises the unemployment rate (Maitland 1989). The more difficult it is for an employer to fire an employee, the more reluctant she will be to hire one in the first place.

Businesses generate revenue, and some of this revenue is distributed to employees in the form of compensation, or pay. Since the demand for pay typically exceeds the supply, the question of how pay should be distributed is naturally analyzed as a problem of justice.

Two theories of justice in pay have attracted attention. One may be called the “agreement view”. According to it, a just wage is whatever wage the employer and the employee agree to without force or fraud (Boatright 2010). This view is sometimes justified in terms of property rights. Employees own their labor, and employers own their capital, and they are free, within broad limits, to dispose of it as they please. In addition, we might think that wages should be should determined by voluntary agreement for the same reason prices generally should be, viz., it allocates resources to their most productive uses, as determined by people’s wants (Heath 2018; Hayek 1945). A “wage”, after all, is just a special name for the price of labor.

A second view of wages may be called the “contribution view”. According to it, the just wage for a worker is the wage that reflects her contribution to the firm. This view comes in two versions. On the absolute version, workers should receive an amount of pay that equals the value of their contributions to the firm (D. Miller 1999). On the comparative version, workers should receive an amount of pay that reflects the relative value of their contributions to the firm, given what others in the firm contribute and are paid (Sternberg 2000). The contribution view strikes some as normatively basic, a view for which no further argument can be given (D. Miller 1999). An analogy may be drawn with punishment. Just as it seems intuitively right for the severity of a criminal’s punishment to reflect the seriousness of her crime, so it may seem intuitively right for the value of a persons’s pay to reflect the value of her work (Moriarty 2016). In this way, pay might be understood as a reward for work.

Some argue that compensation should be evaluated not only as a problem of justice but as an incentive. The question here is what pay encourages employees to do, and how it encourages them to do it. Poorly structured compensation packages for traders in the financial services industry are thought to have contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2009 (Kolb 2012). Traders were incentivized to take excessively risky bets, and when those bets went bad, their firms could not cover the losses, putting the firms and ultimately the whole financial system in peril. Bad incentives may also help to explain the recent account fraud scandal at Wells Fargo.

The pay of any employee can be evaluated from a moral point of view. But business ethicists have paid particular attention to the pay of certain employees, viz., CEOs and workers in factories in developing countries, often called “sweatshops.”

There has been significant debate about whether CEOs are paid too much (Boatright, 2010; Moriarty 2005), with scholars falling into two camps. Those in the “managerial power” camp believe that CEOs wield power over boards of directors, and use this power to extract above-market rents from their firms (Bebchuk & Fried 2004). Those in the “efficient contracting” camp believe that pay negotiations between CEOs and boards are usually carried out at arm’s-length, and that CEOs’ large compensation packages reflect their rare and valuable skills. (For a recent survey of relevant empirical issues, see Edmans, Gabaix, & Jenter 2017).

There has also been a robust debate about whether workers in sweatshops are paid too little. Some say ‘no’ (Powell & Zwolinski 2012; Zwolinski 2007). They say that sweatshops wages, while low by standards in developed countries, are not low by the standards of the countries in which the sweatshops are located. This explains why people choose to work in a sweatshop; it is the best offer they have. Efforts to increase artificially the wages of sweatshop workers, according to these writers, is misguided on two counts. First, it is an interference with the autonomous choices of employers and workers. Second, it is likely to make workers worse off, since employers will respond by either moving operations to a new location or employing fewer workers in that location (cf. Kates 2015). These writers sometimes appeal to a principle of “nonworseness,” according to which a consensual, mutually beneficial interaction (of the sort sweatshop owners and workers engage in) cannot be worse than its absence. Other writers challenge these claims. While granting that workers choose to work in sweatshops, they deny that their choices are truly voluntary (Arnold & Bowie 2003; Kates 2015). Given their low wages, this suggests that sweatshop workers are wrongfully exploited (Faraci 2019). Moreover, some argue, firms can and should do more for sweatshop workers, on grounds on fairness or beneficence (Snyder 2010). These writers invoke a principle of “interaction,” according to which people involved in a certain relationship (of the sort sweatshop owners and workers are engaged in) must live up to certain standards of conduct (which exploitation is alleged to fall below). In response to the claim that firms put themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they do, writers have pointed to actual cases where firms have been able to secure better treatment for sweatshop workers without suffering serious financial penalties (Hartman, Arnold, & Wokutch 2003). (For further discussion, see the entry on exploitation .)

Smith (1776 [1976]) famously observed that a detailed division of labor greatly increases the productivity of manufacturing processes. To use his example: if one worker performs all of the tasks required to make a pin himself—18, we are told—he can make just a few pins per day. However, if the worker specializes in one or two of these tasks, and combines his efforts with other workers who specialize in one or two of the other tasks, then together they can make thousands of pins per day. But according to Smith, there is human cost to the detailed division of labor. Performing one or two simple tasks all day makes a worker “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become” (Smith 1776 [1976]: V.1.178).

To avoid this result, some call for work to be made more “meaningful”. In this sense, a call for meaningful work is not a call for work to be more “important”, i.e., to contribute to the production of a good or service that is objectively valuable, or that workers believe is valuable (cf. Michaelson 2021; Veltman 2016). Instead, it is a call for labor processes to be arranged so that work is interesting, requires skill, and gives workers substantial decision-making power (Arneson 1987; Roessler 2012; Schwartz 1982).

Smith’s insight that labor processes are more efficient when they are divided into meaningless segments leads some writers to believe that, in a competitive economy, firms will not provide as much meaningful work as workers want (Werhane 1985). In response, it has been argued that there is a market for labor, and if workers want meaningful work, then employers have an incentive to provide it (Maitland 1989; Nozick 1974). According to this argument, insofar as we see “too little” meaningful work on offer, this is because workers prefer not to have it—or more precisely, because workers are willing to trade meaningfulness for other benefits, such as higher wages.

The above argument treats meaningful work as a matter of preference, as a job amenity that employers can decline to offer or that workers can trade away (cf. Yeoman 2014). Others resist this understanding. According to Schwartz (1982), employers are required to offer employees meaningful work, and employees are required to perform it, out of respect for autonomy (see also Bowie 2017). The idea is that the autonomous person makes choices for herself; she does not mindlessly follow others’ directions. A difficulty for this argument is that respect for autonomy does not seem to require that we make all choices for ourselves. A person might, it seems, autonomously choose to allow important decisions to be made for her in certain spheres of her life, e.g., by a coach, a family member, a medical professional, or a military commander.

A potential problem for this response brings us back to Smith, and to “formative” arguments for meaningful work. The problem, according to some writers, is that if most of a person’s day is given over to meaningless tasks, then her capacity for autonomous choice, and perhaps her other intellectual faculties, may deteriorate. A call for meaningful work may be understood as a call for workplaces to be arranged so that this deterioration does not occur (Arneson 2009; Arnold 2012; Yeoman 2014). In addition to Smith, Marx (1844 [2000]) was concerned about the effects of work on human flourishing.

Formative arguments face at least two difficulties, one empirical and one normative. The empirical difficulty is establishing the connection between meaningless work and autonomous choice (or another intellectual faculty). More evidence is needed. The normative difficulty is that formative arguments make certain assumptions about the nature of the good and the state’s role in promoting it. They assume that it is better for people to have fully developed faculties of autonomous choice (etc.) and that the state should help to develop them. These assumptions might be challenged, e.g., by liberal neutralists (Roessler 2012; Veltman 2016). Yeoman (2014) seeks to surmount this challenge—and make meaningful work safe for liberal political theory—by conceptualizing meaningful work as a fundamental human need, not a mere preference.

Suppose you discover, as Tyler Shultz did at Theranos in 2015, that your firm is deceiving regulators and investors about the efficacy of its products. To stop this, one thing you might do is “blow the whistle” by disclosing this information to a third party. While scholars give different definitions of whistleblowing (see, e.g., Brenkert 2010; Davis 2003; DeGeorge 2009; Delmas 2015), the following elements are usually present: (1) insider status, (2) non-public information, (3) illegal or immoral activity, (4) avoidance of the usual chain of command in the firm, (5) intention to solve the problem. In the above example, Shultz was a whistleblower because he was (1) a Theranos employee (2) who disclosed non-public information (3) about illegal activity in the firm (4) to a state regulator (5) in an effort to stop that activity.

Debate about whistleblowing tends to focus on the question of when whistleblowing is justified—in the sense of when it is permissible, or when it is required. This debate assumes that whistleblowing requires justification, or is wrong, other things equal. Many business ethicists make this assumption on the grounds that employees have a pro tanto duty of loyalty to their firms (Elegido 2013). Against this, some argue that the relationship between the firm and the employee is purely transactional—an exchange of money for labor (Duska 2000)—and so is not normatively robust enough to ground a duty of loyalty. (For a discussion of this issue, see the entry on loyalty .)

One prominent justification of whistleblowing is due to DeGeorge (2009). According to him, it is permissible for an employee to blow the whistle when his doing so will prevent harm to society. (In a similar account, Brenkert [2010] says that the duty to blow the whistle derives from a duty to prevent wrongdoing.) The duty to prevent harm can have more weight, if the harm is great enough, than the duty of loyalty. To determine whether whistleblowing is not simply permissible but required, DeGeorge says, we must take into account the likely success of the whistleblowing and its effects on the whistleblower himself. Humans are tribal creatures, and whistleblowers are often treated badly by their colleagues. (Shultz and his family were hounded by Theranos’s powerful and well-connected lawyers, at a cost to them of hundreds of thousands of dollars.) So if whistleblowing is unlikely to succeed, then it need not be attempted. The lack of a moral requirement to blow the whistle in these cases can be seen as a specific instance of the rule that individuals need not make huge personal sacrifices to promote others’ interests, even when those interests are important.

Another account of whistleblowing is given by Davis (2003). Like Brenkert (and unlike DeGeorge), Davis focuses on the wrongdoing that the firm engages in (not the harm it causes). According to Davis, however, the point of whistleblowing is not so much to prevent the wrongdoing but to avoid one’s own complicity in it. He says that an employee is required to blow the whistle on her firm when she believes that it is engaged in seriously wrongful behavior, and her work for the firm “will contribute … to the wrong if … [she] [does] not publicly reveal what [she knows]” (2003: 550). Davis’s account limits whistleblowers to people who are currently firm insiders. Many find this counterintuitive, since it implies that people often described as whistleblowers, like Jeffrey Wigand (Brown & Williamson) and Edward Snowden (NSA), are not actually whistleblowers.

7. The firm in society

Business activity and business entities have an enormous impact on society. One way that businesses impact society, of course, is by producing goods and services and by providing jobs. But businesses can also impact society by trying to solve social problems and by using their resources to influence governments’ laws and regulations.

“Corporate social responsibility”, or CSR, is typically understood as actions by businesses that are (i) not legally required, and (ii) intended to benefit parties other than the corporation (where benefits to the corporation are understood in terms of return on equity, return on assets, or some other measure of financial performance). The parties who benefit may be more or less closely associated with the firm itself; they may be the firm’s own employees or people in distant lands.

A famous example of CSR involves the pharmaceutical company Merck. In the late 1970s, Merck was developing a drug to treat parasites in livestock, and it was discovered that a version of the drug might be used treat Onchocerciasis, or river blindness, a disease that causes debilitating itching, pain, and eventually blindness in people. The problem was that the drug would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, and would generate little or no revenue for Merck, since the people usually afflicted with river blindness were too poor to afford it. Ultimately Merck decided to develop the drug. As expected, it was effective in treating river blindness, but Merck made no money from it. As of this writing in 2021, Merck, now in concert with several nongovernmental organizations, continues to manufacture and distribute the drug throughout the developing world for free.

The scholarly literature on CSR is dominated by social scientists. Their question is typically whether, when, and how socially responsible actions benefit firms financially. The conventional wisdom is that there is a slight positive correlation between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance, but it is unclear which way the causality goes (Vogel 2005; Zhao & Murrell 2021). That is, it is not clear whether prosocial behavior by firms causes them to be rewarded financially (e.g., by consumers who value their behavior), or whether financial success allows firms to engage in more prosocial behaviors (e.g., by freeing up resources that would otherwise be spent on core business functions).

Many writers connect the debate about CSR with the debate about the ends of corporate governance. Thus Friedman (1970) objects to CSR, saying that managers should be maximizing shareholder wealth instead. (Friedman also thinks that CSR is a usurpation of the democratic process and often wasteful, since managers aren’t experts in solving social problems.) Stakeholder theory (Freeman et al. 2010) is thought to be more accommodating of prosocial activity by firms, since it permits firms to do things other than increase shareholder wealth.

We do not need, however, to see the debate about CSR a debate about the proper ends of corporate governance. We can see it as a debate about the nature and scope of firms’ moral duties, i.e., what obligations (e.g., of rescue or beneficence) they must discharge, whatever their goals are (Hsieh 2004; Mejia 2020).

Many writers give broadly consequentialist reasons for CSR. The arguments tend to go as follows: (1) there are serious problems in the world, such as poverty, conflict, environmental degradation, and so on; (2) any agent with the resources and knowledge necessary to ameliorate these problems has a moral responsibility to do so, assuming the costs they incur on themselves are not excessively high; (3) firms have the resources and knowledge necessary to ameliorate these problems without incurring excessively high costs; therefore, (4) firms should ameliorate these problems (Dunfee 2006a).

The view that someone should do something about the world’s problems seems true to many people. Not only is there an opportunity to increase social welfare by alleviating suffering, suffering people may also have a right to assistance. The controversial issue is who should do something to help, and how much they should do. Thus defenders of the above argument focus most of their attention on establishing that firms have these duties, against those who say that these duties are properly assigned to states or individuals. O. O’Neill (2001) and Wettstein (2009) argue that firms are “agents of justice”, much like states and individuals, and have duties to aid the needy (see also Young 2011). Strudler (2017) legitimates altruistic behavior by firms by undermining the claim that shareholders own them, and so are owed their surplus wealth. Hsieh (2004) says that, even if we concede that firms do not have social obligations, individuals have them, and the best way for many individuals to discharge them is through the activities of firms (see also McMahon 2013; Mejia 2020).

Debates about CSR are not just debates about whether specific social ills should be addressed by specific corporations. They are also debates about what sort of society we want to live in. While acknowledging that firms benefit society through CSR, Brenkert (1992) thinks it is a mistake for people to encourage firms to engage in CSR as a practice. When we do so, he says, we cede a portion of the public sphere to private actors. Instead of deciding together how we want to ameliorate social ills affecting our fellow community members, we leave it up to private organizations to decide what to do. Instead of sharpening our skills of democracy through deliberation and collective decision-making, and reaffirming social bonds through mutual aid, we allow our skills and bonds to atrophy through disuse.

Many businesses are active participants in the political arena. They support candidates for election, defend positions in public debate, lobby government officials, and more. What should be said about these activities?

Social scientists have produced a substantial literature on corporate political activity (CPA) (for a review, see Lawton, McGuire, & Rajwani 2013). This research focuses on such questions as: What forms does CPA take? What are the antecedents of CPA? What are its consequences? CPA raises many normative questions as well.

We might begin by asking why corporations should be allowed to engage in political activity at all. In a democratic society, freedom of expression is both a right and a value (Stark 2010). People have a right to participate in the political process by supporting candidates for public office, defending positions in public debate, and so on. It is generally a good thing when they exercise this right, since they can introduce new facts and arguments into public discourse. People can engage in political activity individually, but in a large society, they may find it useful to do so in groups. The firm might be seen as one of these groups. Indeed, we might think it is especially important that firms engage in (at least some forms of) political activity. Society has an interest in knowing how proposed economic policies will affect firms; firms themselves are a good source of information.

But political activity by corporations has come in for criticism. One concern focuses on what corporations’ goals are. Some worry that firms engage in CPA in order to advance their own interests at the expense of their competitors’ or the public’s. This activity is sometimes described, and condemned, as “rent-seeking” (Jaworski 2014; Tullock 1989). Questions have been raised about the nature and value of rent-seeking. According to a common definition, rent-seeking is socially wasteful economic activity intended to secure benefits from the state rather than the market. But there is disagreement about what counts as waste. Lobbying for subsidies, or tariffs on foreign competitors, are classic cases of rent-seeking. But subsidies for (e.g.) corn might help to secure a nation’s food supply, and tariffs on (e.g.) foreign steel manufacturers might help a nation to protect itself in a time of war (Boatright 2009; Hindmoor 1999). One person’s private rent-seeking is another’s public benefit.

A second concern about CPA is that it can undermine the ideal of equality at the heart of democracy (Christiano 2010). Some corporations have a lot of money, and this can be translated into a lot of power. In 2010, the state of Indiana passed a law—the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—that appeared to give employers the freedom to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds. In response, Salesforce and Angie’s List cancelled plans to expand in the state, and threatened to leave it altogether. Indiana quickly convened a special session of its legislature and announced that the new law did not in fact give employers this freedom. By contrast, if the average Indianan told the legislature that they might leave the state because of the RFRA, the legislature would not have cared. This objection to CPA is also an objection to political activity by powerful groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and individuals like Charles Koch or Tom Steyer.

A third objection to CPA is more narrowly targeted. According to it, corporations are not the right type of entities to engage in political activity (Hussain & Moriarty 2018). The key issue is representation. Organizations like the NRA and ACLU are legitimate participants in the political arena because they represent their members in political debate, and people join or leave them based on political considerations. By contrast, business organizations have no recognized role to play in the political system, and people join or leave them for economic reasons, not political ones. On this criticism, corporate political activity should be conceptualized not as a collective effort by all of the corporation’s members to speak their minds about a shared concern, but as an effort by a small group of powerful owners or executives to use the corporation’s resources to advance their own personal ends.

Traditionally CPA goes “through” the formal political process, e.g., contributing to political campaigns or lobbying government officials. But increasingly firms are engaging in what appears to be political activity that goes “around” or “outside” of this process, especially in circumstances in which the state is weak, corrupt, or incompetent. They do this through the provision of public goods and infrastructure (Ruggie 2004) and the creation of systems of private regulation or “soft law” (Vogel 2010). For example, when the Rana Plaza collapsed in Bangladesh in 2013, killing more than 1100 garment industry workers, new building codes and systems of enforcement were put into place. But they were put into place by the multinational corporations that are supplied by factories in Bangladesh, not by the government of Bangladesh. This kind of activity is sometimes called “political CSR,” since it is a kind of CSR that produces a political outcome (Scherer & Palazzo 2011). We might call it CPA “on steroids”. Instead of influencing political outcomes, corporations bring them about almost single-handedly. This is a threat to democratic self-rule. Some writers have explored whether it can be ameliorated through multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), or governance systems that bring together firms, non-governmental organizations, and members of local communities to deliberate and decide on policy matters. Prominent examples include the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Scherer & Palazzo 2011). Critics have charged that MSIs, while effective in producing dialog among stakeholders, are ineffective at holding firms to account (Hussain & Moriarty 2018; Moog, Spicer, & Böhm 2015).

There is another kind of corporate political activity. This is political activity whose target is corporations, known as “ethical consumerism” (for a review see Schwartz 2017). Consumers typically make choices based on quality and price. Ethical consumers (also) appeal to moral considerations. They may purchase, or choose not to purchase, goods from retailers who make their products in certain countries or who support certain political causes. These can be described as political activities because consumers are using their economic power to achieve political ends. It is difficult for consumer actions against, or in support of, firms to succeed, since they require coordinating the actions of many individuals. But consuming ethically may be important for personal integrity. You might say that you cannot in good conscience shop at a retailer who is working, in another arena, against your deeply-held values. One concern about ethical consumerism is that it may be a form of vigilantism (Hussain 2012; cf. Barry & MacDonald 2018), or mob justice. Another is that it is yet another way that people can self-segregate by moral and political orientation as opposed to finding common ground.

Many businesses operate across national boundaries. These are typically called “multinational” or “transnational” firms (MNCs or TNCs). Operating internationally heightens the salience of a number of the ethical issues discussed above, such as CSR, but it also raises new issues, such as relativism and divestment. Two issues often discussed in connection with international business are not treated in this section. One is wages and working conditions in sweatshops. This literature is briefly discussed in section 6.2 . The second issue is corruption, which is not discussed in this entry, for space reasons. But see the entry on corruption .

A number of business ethicists have developed ethical codes for MNCs, including DeGeorge (1993) and Donaldson (1989). International agencies have also created codes of ethics for business. Perhaps the most famous of these is the United Nations Global Compact, membership in which requires organizations to adhere to a variety of rules in the areas of human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption. In his important work for that body, Ruggie (2004, 2013) developed a “protect, respect, and remedy” framework for MNCs and human rights, which assigns the state the primary duty to protect human rights and remedy abuses of them, and firms the duty to respect human rights (cf. Wettstein 2009). A striking fact about much of this research is that, while it is focused on international business, and sometimes promulgated by international agencies, the conclusions reached do not apply specifically to firms doing business across national boundaries. The duty to, e.g., respect human rights applies to firms doing business within national boundaries too. It is simply that the international context is the one in which this duty seems most important to discharge, and in which firms are some of the few agents who can do so.

There are issues, however, that arise specifically for firms doing business internationally. Every introductory ethics student learns that different cultures have different moral codes. This is typically an invitation to think about whether or not morality is relative to culture. For the businessperson, it presents a more immediate challenge: How should cultural differences in moral codes be managed? In particular, when operating in a “host” country, should the businessperson adopt host country standards, or should she apply her “home” country standards?

Donaldson is a leading voice on this question, in work done independently (1989, 1996) and with Dunfee (1999). Donaldson and Dunfee argue that there are certain “moral minima” that must be met in all contexts. These are given to us by “hypernorms”, or universal moral values and rules, which are themselves justified by a “convergence of religious, philosophical, and cultural” belief systems (1999: 57). Within the boundaries set by hypernorms, Donaldson and Dunfee say, firms have “free space” to select moral standards. They do not have the liberty to select any standards they want; rather, their choices must be guided by the host country’s traditions and its current level of economic development. Donaldson and Dunfee call their approach “integrative social contracts theory” (ISCT), since they seek to merge norms derived from hypothetical contracts with norms that people have actually agreed to in particular societies.

ISCT has attracted a great deal of attention and many critics. Much of this criticism has focused on hypernorms, the criteria for which are alleged to be ad hoc (Scherer 2015), ambiguous (Brenkert 2009), and incomplete (Mayer & Cava 1995). Dunfee (2006b) collects and analyzes a decade worth of critical commentary on ISCT. For a more recent elaboration and defense of the approach, see Scholz, de los Reyes, and Smith (2019).

A complication for the debate about whether to apply home country standards in host countries is that multinational corporations engage in business across national boundaries in different ways. Some MNCs directly employ workers in multiple countries, while others contract with suppliers. Nike, for example, does not directly employ workers to make shoes. Rather, Nike designs shoes, and hires firms in other countries to make them. Our views about whether an MNC should apply home country standards in a host country may depend on whether the MNC is applying them to its own workers or to those of other firms.

The same goes for responsibility. MNCs, especially in consumer-facing industries, are often held responsible for poor working conditions in their suppliers’ factories. Nike was subject to sharp criticism for the labor practices of its suppliers in the 1990s (Hartman et al. 2003). Initially Nike pushed back, saying that those weren’t their factories, and so wasn’t their problem. Under mounting pressure, it changed course and promulgated a set of labor standards that it required all of its suppliers to meet, and now spends significant resources ensuring that they meet them (Hsieh, Toffel, & Hull 2019; Wokutch 2001). This is increasingly the approach Western multinationals take. Here again the response to the Rana Plaza tragedy is illustrative. What lengths companies should go to ensure the safety of workers in their supply chains is a question meriting further study (see Young 2011).

A businessperson may find that a host country’s standards are not just different than her home country’s standards, but morally intolerable. She may decide that the right course of action is not to do business in the country at all, and if she is invested in the country, to divest from it. The issue of divestment received substantial attention in the 1980s as MNCs were deciding whether or not to divest from South Africa under its Apartheid regime. It may attract renewed attention in the coming years as firms and other organizations contemplate divesting from the fossil fuel industry. Common reasons to divest from a morally problematic society or industry are to avoid complicity in immoral practices, and to put pressure on the society or industry to change its practices. Critics of divestment worry about the effects of divestment on innocent third parties (Donaldson 1989) and about the efficacy of divestment in forcing social change (Hudson 2005). Some believe that it is better for firms to stay engaged with the society or industry and try to bring about change from within—a policy of “constructive engagement”.

It is not hard to see why philosophers might be interested in business. Business activity raises a host of interesting philosophical issues: of agency, responsibility, truth, manipulation, exploitation, justice, beneficence, and more. After a surge of activity 40 years ago, however, philosophers seem to be gradually retreating from the field.

One explanation appeals to demand. Many of the philosophers who developed the field were hired into business schools, but after they retired, they were not replaced with other philosophers. Business schools have hired psychologists to understand why people engage in unethical behavior and strategists to explore whether ethics pays. These scholars fit better into the business school environment, which is dominated by social scientists. What social scientists do to advance our understanding of descriptive ethics is important, to be sure, but it is no substitute for normative reflection on what is ethical or unethical in business.

Another explanation for the retreat of philosophers from business ethics appeals to supply. There are hardly any philosophy Ph.D. programs that have faculty specializing in business ethics and, as a result, few new Ph.D.’s are produced in this area. Those who work in the area are typically “converts” from mainstream ethical theory and political philosophy. Some good news on this front is the recent increase in the number of normative theorists working on issues at the intersection of philosophy, politics, and economics (PPE). Many of the topics these scholars address—the value and limits of markets, the nature of the employment relationship, and the role of government in regulating commerce—are issues business ethicists care about. But PPE-style philosophers hardly cover the whole field of business ethics. There remain many urgent issues to address.

I hope this entry helps to inform philosophers and others about the richness and value of business ethics, and in doing so, generate greater interest in the field.

Alzola, M., 2012, “The Possibility of Virtue”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 22(2): 377–404.
Anderson, E., 1993, Value in Ethics and Economics , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2017, Private Government: How Employers Rule our Lives (and Why We Don ’ t Talk about It) , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Arneson, R.J., 1987, “Meaningful Work and Market Socialism”, Ethics , 97(3): 517–545.
–––, 2009, “Meaningful Work and Market Socialism Revisited”, Analyse & Kritik , 31(1): 139–151.
Arnold, D.G. & N.E. Bowie, 2003, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 13(2): 221–242.
Arnold, S., 2012, “The Difference Principle at Work”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 20(1): 94–118.
Arrington, R.L., 1982, “Advertising and Behavior Control”, Journal of Business Ethics , 1(1): 3–12.
Attas, D., 1999, “What’s Wrong with ‘Deceptive’ Advertising?”, Journal of Business Ethics , 21(1): 49–59.
Aylsworth, T. 2020. “Autonomy and Manipulation: Refining the Argument Against Persuasive Advertising”, Journal of Business Ethics , first online 28 July 2020. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04590-6
Bainbridge, S.M., 2008, The New Corporate Governance in Theory and Practice , New York: Oxford University Press.
Barry, C., & K. MacDonald, 2018, “Ethical Consumerism: A Defense of Market Vigilantism”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 46(3): 293–322.
Bazerman, M.H. & A.E. Tenbrunsel, 2011, Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bebchuk, L.A. & J.M. Fried, 2004, Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berkey, B., 2021. “Rawlsian Institutionalism and Business Ethics: Does it Matter Whether Corporations are Part of the Basic Structure of Society?”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 31(2): 179–209.
Blanc, S. & I. Al-Amoudi, 2003, “Corporate Institutions in a Weakened Welfare State: A Rawlsian Perspective”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 23(4): 497–525.
Bishop, J.D., 2000, “Is Self-Identity Image Advertising Ethical?”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 10(2): 371–398.
Björnsson, G., & K. Hess, 2017, “Corporate Crocodile Tears? On the Reactive Attitudes of Corporate Agents”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 94(2): 273–298.
Blair, M.M., & L.A. Stout, 1999, “A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law”, Virginia Law Review , 85(2): 248–320
Boatright, J.R., 1994, “Fiduciary Duties and the Shareholder-Management Relation: Or, What’s So Special about Shareholders?”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 4(4): 393–407.
–––, 2009b, “Rent Seeking in a Market with Morality: Solving a Puzzle about Corporate Social Responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics , 88(4): 541–552.
–––, 2010, “Executive Compensation: Unjust or Just Right?”, in G.G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–201.
Boatright, J.R., & J.D. Smith, 2017, Ethics and the Conduct of Business , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 8th edition.
Bowie, N.E., 2017, Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective , New York: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
Bratman, M.E., 1993, “Shared Intention”, Ethics , 104(1): 97–113.
Brenkert, G.G., 1984. “Strict Products Liability and Compensatory Justice”, in W. Michael Hoffman and Jennifer Mills Moore (eds.), Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality , New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition, pp. 460–470.
–––, 1992, “Private Corporations and Public Welfare”, Public Affairs Quarterly , 6(2): 155–168.
–––, 2008, Marketing Ethics , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
–––, 2009, “ISCT, Hypernorms, and Business: A Reinterpretation”, Journal of Business Ethics , 88(S4): 645–658.
–––, 2010, “Whistle-blowing, Moral Integrity, and Organizational Ethics”, in G.G. Brenkert & T.L. Beauchamp (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 563–601.
Brennan, J. & P.M. Jaworski, 2016, Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests , New York: Routledge.
Brown, B., & B. Maguire, 2019, “Markets, Interpersonal Practices, and Signal Distortion”, Philosophers ’ Imprint , 19(4): 1–15
Carr, A.Z., 1968, “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?”, Harvard Business Review , 46(1): 143–153.
Carson, T.L., 2010, Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice , New York: Oxford University Press.
Child, J.W. & A.M. Marcoux, 1999, “Freeman and Evan: Stakeholder Theory in the Original Position”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 9(2): 207–223.
Christiano, T., 2010, “The Uneasy Relationship Between Democracy and Capital”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 27(1): 195–217.
Copp, D., 2006, “On the Agency of Certain Collective Entities: An Argument for ‘Normative Autonomy’”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 30(1): 194–221.
Corvino, J., R.T. Anderson, & S. Girgis, 2017, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination , New York: Oxford University Press.
Crisp, R., 1987, “Persuasive Advertising, Autonomy, and the Creation of Desire”, Journal of Business Ethics , 6(5): 413–418.
Dahl, R.A., 1985, A Preface to Economic Democracy , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Davis, M., 2003, “Whistleblowing”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 539–563.
de Bruin, B., 2015, Ethics and the Global Financial Crisis , New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeGeorge, R.T., 1993, Competing with Integrity in International Business , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2009, Business Ethics , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 7th edition.
Delmas, C., 2015, “The Ethics of Government Whistleblowing”, Social Theory and Practice , 41(1): 77–105.
Dempsey, J., 2013, “Corporations and Non-Agential Moral Responsibility”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 30(4): 334–350.
Donaldson, T., 1982, Corporations and Morality , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
–––, 1989, The Ethics of International Business , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1996, “Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home”, Harvard Business Review , 74(5): 48–62.
Donaldson, T. & T.W. Dunfee, 1999, Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics , Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Donaldson, T. & J.P. Walsh, 2015, “Toward a Theory of Business”, Research in Organizational Behavior , 35: 181–207.
Dow, G.K., 2003, Governing the Firm: Workers’ Control in Theory and Practice , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duska, R., 2000, “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty”, in J.R. Desjardins & J. J. McCall (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 4th edition, pp. 167–172
Dunfee, T.W., 2006a, “Do Firms with Unique Competencies for Rescuing Victims of Human Catastrophes Have Special Obligations? Corporate Responsibility and the Aids Catastrophe in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 16(2): 185–210.
–––, 2006b, “A Critical Perspective of Integrative Social Contracts Theory: Recurring Criticisms and Next Generation Research Topics”, Journal of Business Ethics , 68(3): 303–328.
Easterbrook, F.H. & D.R. Fischel, 1996, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Edmans, A., X. Gabaix, and D. Jenter., 2017, “Executive Compensation: A Survey of Theory and Evidence”, in B.E. Hermalin & M.S. Weisbach (eds)., The Handbook of the Economics of Corporate Governance (Volume 1), North-Holland: Elsevier, pp. 383–539.
Elegido, J.M., 2011, “The Ethics of Price Discrimination”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 21(4): 633–660.
–––, 2013, “Does it Make Sense to be a Loyal Employee?”, Journal of Business Ethics , 68(3): 495–511.
Epstein, R.A., 1984, “In Defense of the Contract at Will”, University of Chicago Law Review , 51(4): 947–982.
–––, 1992, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Evan, W.M. & R.E. Freeman, 1988, “A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism”, in T.L. Beauchamp & N.E. Bowie (eds.), Ethical Theory and Business , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 3rd edition, pp. 97–106
Faraci, D., 2019, “Wage Exploitation and the Nonworseness Claim”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 29(2): 169–188.
Ferreras, I., 2017, Firms as Political Entities: Saving Democracy through Economic Bicameralism , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R.E., 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , Boston, MA: Pitman.
–––, 1994, “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 4(4): 409–421.
Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, B.L. Parmar, & S. De Colle, 2010, Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison, & S. Zyglidopoulos, 2018, Stakeholder Theory: Concepts and Strategies , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R.E. & D.L. Reed, 1983, “Stockholder and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance”, California Management Review , 25(3): 88–106.
Frega, R., L. Herzog, & C. Neuhäuser, 2019, “Workplace Democracy—The Recent Debate”, Philosophy Compass , 14(4): e12574.
French, P.A., 1979, “The Corporation as a Moral Person”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 16(3): 297–317.
–––, 1984, Collective and Corporate Responsibility , New York: Columbia University Press.
–––, 1995, Corporate Ethics , Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Friedman, M., 1970, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, New York Times Magazine (September 13): 32–33, 122–124.
Galbraith, J.K., 1958, The Affluent Society , Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gilbert, M., 2000, Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Goldman, A., 1984, “Ethical Issues in Advertising”, in T. Regan (ed.), Just Business , New York: Random House, pp. 235–270.
González-Ricoy, I., 2014, “The Republican Case for Workplace Democracy”, Social Theory and Practice , 40(2): 232–254.
Goodpaster, K.E., 1991., “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 1(1): 53–73.
Hansmann, H., 1996, The Ownership of Enterprise , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hansmann, H. & R. Kraakman, 2001, “The End of History for Corporate Law”, Georgetown Law Journal , 89(2): 439–468.
Hartman, E.M., 2015, Virtue in Business: Conversations with Aristotle , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hartman, L.P., D.G. Arnold, & R.E. Wokutch, 2003, Rising Above Sweatshops: Innovative Approaches to Global Labor Challenges , Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hasan, R., 2015, “Rawls on Meaningful Work and Freedom”, Social Theory and Practice , 41(3): 477–504. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract201541325
Hasnas, J., 1998, “The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 8(1): 19–42.
–––, 2010, “The Mirage of Product Safety”, in G.G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 677–697.
–––, 2012, “Reflections on Corporate Moral Responsibility and the Problem Solving Technique of Alexander the Great”, Journal of Business Ethics , 107(2): 183–195.
Hayek, F.A., 1945, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, American Economic Review , 35(4): 519–530.
–––, 1961, “The Non Sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect’”, Southern Economic Journal , 27(4): 346–348.
Heath, J., 2014, Morality, Competition, and the Firm: The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018, “On the Very idea of a Just Wage”, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics , 11(2): 1–33.
Hellman, D., 2008, When is Discrimination Wrong? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hess, K.M., 2014, “The Free Will of Corporations (and Other Collectives)”, Philosophical Studies , 168(1): 241–260.
Hindmoor, A., 1999, “Rent Seeking Evaluated”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 7(4): 434–452.
Holley, D.M., 1986, “A Moral Evaluation of Sales Practices”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal , 5(1): 3–21.
–––, 1998, “Information Disclosure in Sales”, Journal of Business Ethics , 17(6): 631–641.
Hsieh, N.-h, 2004, “The Obligations of Transnational Corporations: Rawlsian Justice and the Duty of Assistance”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 14(4): 643–661.
–––, 2005, “Rawlsian Justice and Workplace Republicanism”, Social Theory & Practice , 31(1): 115–142.
–––, 2008, “Justice in Production”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 16(1): 72–100.
Hsieh, N.-h., M.W. Toffel, & O. Hull, 2019, “Global Sourcing at Nike”, revised June 2019, Harvard Business School Case Collection , Case 619-008.
Hudson, R., 2005. “Ethical Investing: Ethical Investors and Managers”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 15(4): 641–657.
Hughes, R.C., 2019, “Paying People to Risk Life or Limb”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 29(3): 295–316
–––, 2020, “Pricing Medicine Fairly”, Philosophy of Management , 19(4): 369-385.
Hussain, W., 2012, “Corporations, Profit Maximization, and the Personal Sphere”, Economics and Philosophy , 28(3): 311–331.
–––, 2018, “Is Ethical Consumerism an Impermissible Form of Vigilantism?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 40(2): 111–143.
Hussain, W. & J. Moriarty, 2018, “Accountable to Whom? Rethinking the Role of Corporations in Political CSR”, Journal of Business Ethics , 149(3): 519–534.
Jaworski, P.M., 2014, “An Absurd Tax on our Fellow Citizens: The Ethics of Rent Seeking in the Market Failures (or Self-Regulation) Approach”, Journal of Business Ethics , 121(3): 467–476.
Jensen, M.C., 2002, “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 12(2): 235–256.
Jensen, M.C. & W.H. Meckling, 1976, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics , 3(4): 305–360.
Jones, T. M., A.C. Wicks, & R.E. Freeman, 2002, “Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art”, in N.E. Bowie (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics , Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 19–37
Jonker, J., 2019, “The Meaning of a Market and the Meaning of ‘Meaning’”, Journal of Ethics and Social Responsibility , 15(2): 186–195.
Kates, M., 2015, “The Ethics of Sweatshops and the Limits of Choice”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 25(2): 191–212.
Koehn, D. & B. Wilbratte, 2012, “A Defense of the Thomistic Concept of the Just Price”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 22(3): 501–526.
Kolb, R.W., 2012, Too Much is Not Enough: Incentives in Executive Compensation , New York: Oxford University Press.
Landemore, H., & I. Ferreras, 2016, “In Defense of Workplace Democracy: Towards a Justification of the Firm-State Analogy”, Political Theory , 44(1): 53–81.
Lawton, T., S. McGuire, & T. Rajwani, 2013, “Corporate Political Activity: A Literature Review and Research Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews , 15(1): 86–105
Lippert-Rasmussen, K., 2014, Born Free and Equal? A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Discrimination , New York: Oxford University Press.
Lippke, R.L., 1989, “Advertising and the Social Conditions of Autonomy”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal , 8(4): 35–58.
List, C. & P. Pettit, 2011, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents , New York: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, C. & S. Gavura, 2016, “Alternative Medicine and the Ethics of Commerce”, Bioethics , 30(2): 77–84.
MacIntyre, A.C., 1984, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2nd edition.
Maitland, I., 1989, “Rights in the Workplace: A Nozickian Argument”, Journal of Business Ethics , 8(12): 951–954.
Malleson, T., 2014, After Occupy: Economic Democracy for the 21st Century , New York: Oxford University Press.
Marcoux, A.M., 2006a, “Much Ado about Price Discrimination”, Journal of Markets & Morality , 9(1): 57–69.
–––, 2006b. “The Concept of Business in Business Ethics”, Journal of Private Enterprise , 21(2): 50–67.
Marx, K., 1844 [2000], “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts”, in D. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings , New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
Mason, A., 2006, Levelling the Playing Field: The Idea of Equal Opportunity and its Place in Egalitarian Thought , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2017, “Appearance, Discrimination, and Reaction Qualifications”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 25(1): 48–71.
Mayer, D. & A. Cava, 1995, “Social Contract Theory and Gender Discrimination: Some Reflections on the Donaldson/Dunfee model”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 5(2): 257–270.
Mayer, R., 2000. “Is There a Moral Right to Workplace Democracy?”, Social Theory and Practice , 26(2): 301–325.
McCall, J.J., 2001, “Employee Voice in Corporate Governance: A Defense of Strong Participation Rights”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 11(1): 195–213.
McCall, J.J. & P.H. Werhane, 2010, “Employment at Will and Employee Rights”, in G.G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 602–627.
McMahon, C., 1981, “Morality and the Invisible Hand”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 10(3): 247–277.
–––, 1994, Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2013, Public Capitalism: The Political Authority of Corporate Executives , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mejia, S., 2020, “Which Duties of Beneficence Should Agents Discharge on Behalf of Principals? A Reflection through Shareholder Primacy”, Business Ethics Quarterly , First View: 1–29.
Michaelson, C., 2021, “A Normative Meaning of Meaningful Work”, Journal of Business Ethics , 170: 413–428.
Miller, D., 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miller, S., 2006, “Collective Moral Responsibility: An Individualist Account”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 30(1): 176–193.
Moog, S., A. Spicer, & S. Böhm, 2015, “The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council”, Journal of Business Ethics , 128(3): 469–493.
Moore, E.S., 2004, “Children and the Changing World of Advertising”, Journal of Business Ethics , 52(2): 161–167.
Moore, G., 2017, Virtue at Work: Ethics for Individuals, Managers, and Organizations , New York: Oxford University Press.
Moriarty, J., 2005a, “Do CEOs Get Paid Too Much?”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 15(2): 257–281.
–––, 2009, “Rawls, Self-Respect, and the Opportunity for Meaningful Work”, Social Theory & Practice , 35(3): 441–459.
–––, 2016, “Is ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ Merely a Principle of Nondiscrimination?”, Economics and Philosophy , 32(3): 435–461.
–––, 2020, “On the Origin, Content, and Relevance of the Market Failures Approach”, Journal of Business Ethics , 165(1): 113–124.
Mulligan, T., 2018, Justice and the Meritocratic State , New York: Routledge.
Norman, W., 2013, “Stakeholder Theory”, in H. LaFollette (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics , Wiley-Blackwell [ Norman 2013 available online ].
–––, 2015, “Rawls on Markets and Corporate Governance”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 25(1): 29–64.
Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
O’Neill, M. & T. Williamson, 2012, Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
O’Neill, O., 2001, “Agents of Justice”, Metaphilosophy , 32(1–2): 180–195.
Orts, E.W. & A. Strudler, 2002, “The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder Theory”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 12(2): 215–233.
–––, 2009, “Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory”, Journal of Business Ethics , 88(4): 605–615.
Orts, E.W., & N.C. Smith, 2017, The Moral Responsibility of Firms , New York: Oxford University Press.
Paine, L.S., G.G. Brenkert, R. Weisskoff, & L.D. Kimmel, 1984, “Children as Consumers: An Ethical Evaluation of Children’s Television Advertising [with Commentaries]”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal , 3(3/4): 119–169.
Palmer, D., & T. Hedberg, 2013, “The Ethics of Marketing to Vulnerable Populations”, Journal of Business Ethics , 116(2): 403–413.
Pateman, C., 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, M.J., 1994, “The Inconclusive Ethical Case Against Manipulative Advertising”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal , 13(4): 31–64.
–––, 1995, “Corporate Moral Responsibility: When it Might Matter”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 5(3): 555–576.
Phillips, R., R.E. Freeman, & A.C. Wicks, 2003, “What Stakeholder Theory is Not”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 13(4): 479–502.
Powell, B. & M. Zwolinski, 2012, “The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment”, Journal of Business Ethics , 107(4): 449–472.
Rawls, J., 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
Robson, G., 2019, “To Profit Maximize, or Not to Profit Maximize: For Firms, This is a Valid Question”, Economics and Philosophy , 35(2): 307–320.
Roessler, B., 2012, “Meaningful Work: Arguments from Autonomy”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 20(1): 71–93.
Rönnegard, D., 2015, The Fallacy of Corporate Moral Agency , New York: Springer.
Ruggie, J.G., 2004, “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors, and Practices”, European Journal of International Relations , 10(4): 499–531.
–––, 2013, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Sandel, M.J., 2012, What Money Can’ t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Satz, D., 2010, Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets , New York: Oxford University Press.
Scalet, S.P., 2003, “Fitting the People They Are Meant to Serve: Reasonable Persons in the American Legal System”, Law and Philosophy , 22(1): 75–110.
Scharding, T.K., 2015, “Imprudence and Immorality: A Kantian Approach to the Ethics of Financial Risk”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 25(2): 243–265
Scherer, A.G., 2015, “Can Hypernorms be Justified? Insights from a Discourse-Ethical Perspective”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 25(4): 489–516.
Scherer, A.G. & G. Palazzo, 2011, “The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy”, Journal of Management Studies , 48(4): 899–931.
Scholz, M., G. de los Reyes, & N.C. Smith, 2019, “The Enduring Potential of Justified Hypernorms”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 29(3): 317–342.
Schwartz, A., 1982, “Meaningful Work”, Ethics , 92(4): 634–646.
Schwartz, D.T., 2017, Consuming Choices , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition.
Sepinwall, A., 2016, “Corporate Moral Responsibility”, Philosophy Compass , 11(1): 3–13.
–––, 2017, “Blame, Emotion, and the Corporation”, in E.W. Orts & N.C. Smith (eds.), The Moral Responsibility of Firms , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 143–166.
Sher, S., 2011, “A Framework for Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics”, Journal of Business Ethics , 102(1): 97–118.
Silver, K., forthcoming, “Group Action Without Group Minds”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , first online 27 February 2021. doi:10.1111/phpr.12766
Singer, A., 2015, “There is No Rawlsian Theory of Corporate Governance”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 25(1): 65–92.
–––, 2019, The Form of the Firm: A Normative Political Theory of the Corporation , New York: Oxford University Press.
Sison, A.J.G. & J. Fontrodona, 2012, “The Common Good of the Firm in the Aristotelian-Thomistic Tradition”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 22(2): 211–246.
Smith, A. 1776 [1976], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , E. Cannon (ed.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, J. & W. Dubbink, 2011, “Understanding the Role of Moral Principles in Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 21(2): 205–231.
Snyder, J., 2009, “What’s the Matter with Price Gouging?”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 19(2): 275–293.
–––, 2010, “Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 20(2): 187–213.
Solomon, R. C., 1993, Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business , New York: Oxford University Press.
Stark, A., 2010. “Business in Politics: Lobbying and Corporate Campaign Contributions”, in G.G. Brenkert and T.L. Beauchamp (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 501–532.
Steinberg, E., 2020. “Big Data and Personalized Pricing”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 30(1): 97–117.
Sternberg, E., 2000, Just Business: Business Ethics in Action , New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
Stout, L.A., 2012, The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Strudler, A., 2017, “What to Do with Corporate Wealth?”, Journal of Political Philosophy , (25)1: 108–126.
Taylor, J.S., 2005, Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts are Morally Imperative , Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Tullock, G., 1989, The Economics of Special Privilege and Rent Seeking , Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Valdman, M., 2009, “A Theory of Wrongful Exploitation”, The Philosophers’ Imprint , 9(6) (July) [ Valdman 2009 available online ].
Varian, H.R., 1985, “Price Discrimination and Social Welfare”, American Economic Review , 75(4): 870–875.
Velasquez, M., 1983, “Why Corporations are Not Morally Responsible for Anything They Do”, Business & Professional Ethics Journal , 2(3): 1–18.
–––, 2003, “Debunking Corporate Moral Responsibility”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 13(04): 531–562.
–––, 2012, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases , New York: Pearson, 7th edition.
Veltman, A., 2016, Meaningful Work . New York: Oxford University Press.
Vogel, D., 2005, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility , Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
–––, 2010, “The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct: Achievements and Limitations”, Business & Society , 49(1): 68–87.
Warren, D.E., J.P. Gaspar, & W.S. Laufer, 2014, “Is Formal Ethics Training Merely Cosmetic? A Study of Ethics Training and Ethical Organizational Culture”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 24(1): 85–117.
Werhane, P.H., 1985, Persons, Rights, and Corporations , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Werhane, P.H., L.P. Hartman, C. Archer, E.E. Englehardt, & M.S. Pritchard, 2013, Obstacles to Ethical Decision-Making: Mental Models, Milgram and the Problem of Obedience , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wettstein, F., 2009, Multinational Corporations and Global Justice: Human Rights Obligations of a Quasi-Governmental Institution , Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Wokutch, R.E., 2001, “Nike and its Critics: Beginning a Dialogue”, Organization & Environment , 14(2): 207–237.
Yeoman, R., 2014, “Conceptualising Meaningful Work as a Fundamental Human Need”, Journal of Business Ethics 125(2): 235–251.
Young, I.M. 2011, Responsibility for Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.
Zhao, X., & A. Murrell, 2021, “Does a Virtuous Circle Really Exist? Revisiting the Causal Linkage between CSP and CFP”, Journal of Business Ethics , 23 February 2021. doi:10.1007/s10551-021-04769-5
Zingales, L., & O. Hart, 2017, “Companies Should Maximize Shareholder Welfare not Market Value,” Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting , 2(2): 247–275.
Zwolinski, M., 2007, “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 17(4): 689–727.
–––, 2008, “The Ethics of Price Gouging”, Business Ethics Quarterly , 18(3): 347–378.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Marcoux, Alexei, “Business Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/ethics-business/ >. [This was the previous entry on business ethics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
A History of Business Ethics , by Richard T. De George (University of Kansas), an important early contributor to the field.
Society for Business Ethics , the main professional society for business ethicists, especially of the normative variety.

Acknowledgments

For helpful suggestions on this entry (and the previous version), I thank Dorothea Baur, George Brenkert, Jason Brennan, Matt Caulfield, David Dick, Anca Gheaus, Keith Hankins, Edwin Hartman, Laura Hartman, Lisa Herzog, David Jacobs, Woon Hyuk Jay Jang, Peter Jaworski, Xavier Landes, Chris MacDonald, Emilio Marti, Dominic Martin, Pierre-Yves Néron, Eric Orts, Katinka Quintelier, Sareh Pouryousefi, Amy Sepinwall, Kenneth Silver, Abraham Singer, Alejo José G. Sison, Cindy Stark, Chris Surprenant, Kevin Vallier, and Hasko von Kriegstein.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Center for Continuing & Professional Education

Business Writing

How to Use Ethical Principles in Business Writing

Posted by Allison Lakacha
Categories Business Writing
Date January 3, 2022
Comments 0 comment

The honesty and integrity of big business are increasingly under the microscope. Can a business be profitable and still be ethical? Ethics and business do not have to be mutually exclusive. On the contrary, successful businesses can thrive and still be honest and virtuous, and contribute to the greater good.

Staying accountable for decisions, showing mutual respect to others, and communicating honestly with colleagues and clients are ways to apply an ethical lens to doing business. Those who aspire to uphold high moral standards in business settings can benefit from learning practical techniques for applying ethical principles to business communication.

What Are Ethical Principles?

Adopting ethical principles is considered foundational for living a productive life in a healthy society. Understanding what ethical principles are and how to apply them to business contexts can encourage business practices rooted in ethics.

Some of the ethical principles that apply to business practices include:

Accountability : Leaders and workers with a strong sense of ethics take responsibility for their own work, actions, and conduct, even when the consequences are high.
Compassion : Displaying an authentic concern for other individuals and groups both inside and outside of the organization should be a personal and organizational standard.
Fairness : Offering equal support, training, opportunities, and compensation for everyone provides a level playing field on which all stakeholders feel appreciated and welcome.
Honesty : Telling half-truths or omitting information is not tolerated. Overstating or overpromising is unacceptable, as is reporting inaccurately, even if the news is not good.
Integrity : Integrity is a combination of trustworthiness and reliability. When people display integrity, they can be taken at their word and always reach for higher standards.
Loyalty : Each party must show consistent support for and commitment to the other, even when betraying the other would be an easier choice.
Respect : Respecting others means treating everyone equally and with dignity.
Transparency : Transparency is an important component of accountability. However, business relationships extend beyond workers, leaders, and customers.

How Do Ethical Principles Apply to Business Writing?

Business professionals can adopt ethical principles when writing any piece of business communication, whether it’s a company policy manual, a memo to colleagues, an advertisement, or an organizational report. Every member of an organization should approach business writing and all other forms of communication with the same ethical principles of business framework that they apply to business meetings, sales pitches, and client phone calls.

Accountability in Business Writing

Business writers display the principle of accountability when they take responsibility for mistakes and misunderstandings even when the consequences are difficult or costly.

Example: The vice president of manufacturing sends progress reports to internal stakeholders. The reports include explanations of problems and suggested solutions but also make statements of accountability and take responsibility for mistakes or miscalculations.

Compassion in Business Writing

Many businesses understand the importance of compassion in the workplace, and authentic concern is evident in their policies about work-life balance, flexible leave for emergencies, and healthy working conditions. In business writing, compassion is often evident in the message’s tone.

Example: A manager is under pressure to get a collaborative project completed by a Friday deadline. Unfortunately, one of the remote team members just learned of a death in their family. Rather than pressing the team member on deadlines, the manager asks about the employee’s family and if there is anything they can do to support their colleague.

Fairness in Business Writing

The ethical principle of fairness focuses on creating a level playing field for all team members. Fair and ethical business writing provides the reader with equal access to the message.

Example: A business selects a new location for a manufacturing facility in an area where the primary languages of many residents are Portuguese and Mandarin. Once construction is underway, the employment notices are printed in each of those languages, as well as in English, indicating that interpreters will be available during the entire interview process.

Honesty in Business Writing

Honesty in business writing means more than making true statements. Any truly honest writing includes complete accounts of business dealings as well as details that may be embarrassing to the company or even distressing to readers.

Example: A manufacturer publishes a recall announcement for a faulty car seat as soon as the problem is discovered. It clearly states everything that is wrong with the product and what could happen if it is not replaced at the manufacturer’s expense.

Integrity in Business Writing

As an ethical principle in business writing, integrity is shown when the writer is both trustworthy and reliable. The truth is always told and follow-up is routine.

Example: After a change in payroll services, many employees have experienced errors in compensation and benefit deductions. The HR manager distributes a questionnaire requesting specific information about problems, ensures corrections, and offers short-term and confidential financial support to those in need.

Loyalty in Business Writing

Two hallmarks of loyalty to a person, group, or business are support and commitment. In business writing, loyalty can be displayed by including everyone involved in the conversation, or conversely, limiting the number of people involved when the information is confidential or sensitive.

Example: The final draft of an important ad campaign is distributed to the entire department for review. A team leader finds an inaccurate statement made by one of the committee chairs. Instead of hitting “Reply All,” they send a respectful direct message to the chair detailing the error and leaving the decision in the chair’s hands.

Respect in Business Writing

Respectful business writing addresses readers with dignity. A written message can reflect respect in many different ways, like considering the reader’s background, culture, age, or experience.

Example: A large and established bakery has three locations in three different metropolitan locations. Their holiday advertisements honor the various religious and cultural celebrations in every neighborhood. They offer special-order services with attention to detail and a wide selection of ideas for themed cakes and desserts.

Transparency in Business Writing

To be transparent, however, a business must be willing to provide a complete picture of the state of the company, including financial information, to those most invested in the company.

Example: A shareholder report on company finances and investments makes clear statements about the company’s financial standing. It explains any production delays or extenuating circumstances, as well as any future projections.

Consequences of Unethical Writing and Communication

When ethical principles in business writing are not employed, the results can seriously impact the livelihoods and investments of company managers, employees, and stockholders, as well as the public’s view of the company. What may be considered written missteps, mistakes, or misunderstandings in some settings could have more serious consequences if they appear in professional writing. Here are some examples of unethical writing practices:

Unethical Sourcing

Failing to give credit for ideas or information when credit is due may lead to a failing grade in college, but the consequences for plagiarism or copyright infringement can be much higher when writing for business.

Plagiarism . Failing to properly document sources can lead to termination as well as difficulty finding future employment.
Copyright infringement . Infringing on the right of ownership results in more severe penalties than plagiarism. An unethical writer may be subject to legal consequences, may have to pay damages, and, in some cases, may be liable to criminal charges.

Ethical Violations/Infractions

Whether the news or announcements are good or bad, business writing must avoid the temptation to put a more positive spin on a situation and, instead, stick to the ethical principles of writing. These are some of the ways business writing can turn unethical:

Defamation : Communicating in writing (libel) or speech (slander) with malicious statements that are false and can damage a person’s reputation
Fraud : Not being truthful in a way that results in professional gain for the writer or business Invasion of privacy: Making statements or revealing private facts or records about an employee or other stakeholder
Sin of commission : Manipulating information to misrepresent the truth
Sin of omission : Failing to include information that would harm the company or an individual

Become a Leader in Ethical Principles

If you are interested in honing your writing skills while upholding ethical principles in business, learn more about earning an online Certificate in Ethical Principles, Critical Thinking, and Writing for Today’s Business from the Center for Continuing & Professional Education at Suffolk University. Learn to think critically and write effectively, and prepare to become a leader in your industry.

How Legal Tech Is Reshaping the Industry

Communication Etiquette in Business: Dos and Don’ts

Lawyers at a firm have a conversation around a laptop.

Why Business Ethics Matter: Theory in Context

Team members use business communication skills during a meeting.

Business Communication: Skills and Strategies

Ethical Research in Business Ethics

Editorial Essay
Published: 29 November 2022
Volume 182 , pages 1–5, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Gazi Islam 1 &
Michelle Greenwood 2

7807 Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this editorial essay, we argue that business ethics research should be aware of the ethical implications of its own methodological choices, and that these implications include, but go beyond, mere compliance with standardized ethical norms. Methodological choices should be made specifically with reference to their effects on the world, both within and outside the academy. Awareness of these effects takes researchers beyond assuring ethics in their methods to more fully consider the ethics of their methods as knowledge practices that have broader institutional consequences. Drawing from examples in published research, we examine five ways in which authors can formulate their methodological approaches with purpose, care and reflexivity.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Business ethicists are accustomed to confronting the “hard cases” of ethical choices in organizational life. We believe that business ethics scholarship must be equally sensitive to ethical nuances in the design and implementation of research methods in our own activities. In the complexities of research practice, ethical considerations around method and design exceed the standardized templates of methods textbooks. Where research designs begin and end and whom they implicate as protagonists, who receives voice, protection and authority, and what is rendered visible and invisible within the field of study. These are thorny questions that are not amenable to check-list style compliance guidelines, even where such guidelines also have an important role (cf., Greenwood, 2016 ).

In our exchanges with authors and within the editorial team, we have confronted a plethora of hard cases that highlight the challenges of research ethics beyond rule compliance. To what extent should the mode of data collection (such as crowdsourced data or social media platforms) answer to ethical quandaries around digital labour and online surveillance? When should organizations or individuals engaging in ethically problematic practices be named, and when must they be anonymized? To what extent should the relationships between researchers and participants be problematized within methods sections, including financial and power relationships between funders, researchers and participants? What are the respective roles of institutional ethics boards and journal editorial teams (along with other actors in the research ecosystem) in validating the ethical permissibility of a design? When should hard ethical questions lead a study to be rejected at the review stage, rather than passed along to the research community to make its own judgment? Such questions (and many, many more) have filled our days with deep reflection, and the current editorial aims to share some of these reflections with the Journal of Business Ethics community, albeit in necessarily schematic form. Specifically, we aim to both expand thinking about research ethics to include elements that are often considered outside of methods, and situate conventional methodological ethics in relation to this broader vision. The result will be a plea for a research ethics based on purpose, care and reflexivity.

Between Prescriptive and Evaluative Research Ethics

In a previous editorial essay (Islam & Greenwood, 2021 ), we borrowed a distinction by Williams ( 1985 ) between prescriptive and evaluative ethics; the former refers to what one should do, while the latter to what the world should look like. Mapped onto methods, this analytical distinction differentiates between specific methodological practices (e.g., one should design measures that fit the core constructs, one should gather informed consent) and the broader social and practical implications of research (e.g., the goals of science to innovate, educate or emancipate). We emphasize that this is an “analytical” distinction because, in practice, these aspects of ethics are deeply intertwined, and we distinguish them primarily to show how they spill into each other. Actions should be prescribed, at least in part, for the worlds they contribute to making, although in the fog of situated practice, we are often unaware of, or unable to, clearly link our actions to those future worlds.

From this distinction, it is easy to differentiate heuristically between ethics in research methods, that is, the ethical norms and practices internal to research design and execution, and the ethics of research methods, that is, whether those methods should be used in the broader evaluative sense. In many cases, these ethical levels align, with ethical practices working toward an evaluatively desirable world. Gathering informed consent is important because it is desirable to promote a world of autonomous choice (e.g., Hansson, 2006 ). Hypothesizing after the results are known is problematic because promoting false positive statistical results reduces replicability and thus scientific certainty about the world (Kerr, 1998 ). To take the previous example, however, some have argued that “HARK”ing is less ethically problematic when research is transparently exploratory (Hollenbeck & Wright, 2017 ); in this case, what is ethically problematic is not the practice per se, but the lack of transparency between a given practice and its exploratory (rather than confirmatory) intent. As for informed consent, in cases where a signed form substitutes for, rather than expresses, true participant autonomy (cf., Dubois et al, 2012 ), it can obscure rather than clarify the ethics of a research project. To begin with, the presentation of a priori formulated protocols for consent presumes that the identified participant is the only stakeholder in the research who is affected by the research in a manner that would require their consent. Moreover, this protocol may preclude collaborative models in which participants actively construct research protocols with researchers (Hansson, 2006 ). In both of these examples, a practice is justified on the basis of a deeper evaluative motive, but the mapping between the two is imperfect and situation-dependent.

Tensions may appear between prescriptive and evaluative dimensions of research methods, giving rise to ethical polemics or dilemmas. To give one example, we have had recent debates around the ethics of online data crowdsourcing from platforms such as Amazon MTurk (e.g., Newman et al., 2021 ). Much discussion has been given to best practice in terms of construct validity and similar “internal” considerations of research design as well as issues such as “bots” or fraudulent respondent activity that affect validity. However, broader considerations in terms of labour exploitation on online platforms (e.g., Shank, 2016 ) bridge internal and external research ethics, given internal norms for participant autonomy and external considerations of the public good. Less discussed are the systematic effects of widespread use of online data collection for disembodying researchers from participant communities, entrenching economies of digital labour and surveillance, and reifying a context-free individual as the object of social scientific study. These, we would argue, are methodological outcomes that may contribute to undesirable worlds, and thus are materially relevant for ethical consideration.

Other examples illustrate the opposite tension between prescriptive and evaluative research ethics. In a provocative article, Roulet et al. ( 2017 ) describe the potentials of “covert” research, where normally unacceptable practices of researcher concealment are weighed against laudable goals such as revealing workplace abuse or unethical organizational practices. In such cases, practices that are prescriptively problematic (e.g., collecting data without consent, concealing researcher identity) are defended on the grounds that the ethical goods, in terms of creating a better world, legitimate such practices. While the example of online platforms seems more defensible at the level of practice but questionable at the level of broad systemic implications, that of covert research seems more problematic at the level of practices while (possibly) defensible in terms of its ethical purposes.

More than simply a conflict between means and ends, however, such tensions reveal discrepancies between ends that are “localized” as specific practices (e.g., the goal of conducting a valid study according to current norms) and the more broad-based ends of research (e.g., creating a better world through socially reflexive knowledge production). Our challenge at the Journal of Business Ethics as editors, and our counsel to authors, reviewers and editors is to reflexively seek equilibrium between the practical ethics of research design and execution and the broader promotion of the public good that is the ultimate end of science.

Guiding Ethical Research in Business Ethics

Situating research ethics within the relationship between concrete ethical practices and evaluative goals of social improvement adds complexity to ethical decisions, forcing researchers, reviewers and editors to confront real ethical dilemmas that cannot be dissolved in mere compliance practices. We think the recognition of this complexity is salutary. It emphasizes that the review process is one moment in the broader network of evaluative practices that includes—but is not limited to—institutional ethics approval processes prior to submission, ethical and legal considerations of publishing houses and scholarly societies that administer academic production, and reception of research after publication. Each of these moments bring into light different ethical stakes, and we see our editorial role as an important but not exhaustive evaluative moment. From our perspective, our role is not to present a hurdle over which only the most flawless research can pass, but to curate a conversation with the greatest potential for scholarly generativity and progress. This makes our goal a collective one, and we judge research for its ability to promote the field, by being rigorous, by being interesting, by being reflexive, or by some combination of these epistemic virtues. From the research ethics we have outlined we derive certain guiding principles for evaluation.

Showing Links Between Methodological Design and the Broader Purpose of the Study

Business ethics scholarship should clarify its purpose through clearly articulated research questions and hypotheses, while explaining in its methods why specific research practices are important for a broader purpose, and why that purpose is itself ethically relevant. Specifically, the methods discussion should reflect how the ethics-related purpose of the study is consistent with the methodological approach adopted, both in terms of the broad design and specific practices. In short, integration of methods with the wider purpose of the study, and alignment between the two, is a mark of ethically sensitive research.

In their recent study of child labour in Indian cottonseed oil farms, D’Cruz et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate an exemplary integration of methods and purpose to explore a topic that is notoriously difficult to study methodologically. Drawing on analyses of children’s drawings, together with detailed conversational extracts, the authors paint a powerful picture of the experience of violence in a population of working children. Rather than staying only at the level of lived experiences, however, the authors use those experiences to understand how processes of embedding and disembedding labour within society are manifested at the micro level. Thus, their visual and discursive methods become powerful tools to link everyday suffering with macro processes of economy and society.

Acknowledging the Web of Relationships Within Which Research Methods are Embedded

Each aspect of the research process, from protocol design to data collection to peer review, involves multiple actors who collectively construct the meaning of scholarship (Greenwood, 2016 ). While it may not be possible to make this network entirely visible, the ability to do so increases the transparency and value of a scholarly inquiry.

In his study of external funding on research freedom, Goduscheit ( 2022 ) uses qualitative interviews, program materials and observations to understand how funding bodies shape research outcomes. He shows how expectations from funding bodies can shape the types of topics studied, the ways in which research questions are answered and the forms of research output that are produced. Rather than simply deeming such influences to be unethical, he analyses the positive and negative features of the evolving relationships between researchers and funding bodies and their implications for developing scholarship.

Similarly acknowledging relationships but on a very different topic, Allen et al. ( 2019 ) describe the role of reflexivity in sustainability research, where ecological responsibility can result from acknowledging the multiple relationships between humans and the environment. Promoting an “ecocentric radical-reflexivity”, they point to how methods such as participatory action research and arts-based methods can help identify organizational actors as embedded in ecological relationships. In this example, as in the previous one, research is recognized as more than simply the execution of accepted standards. Rather, ethical research depends on developing sensibilities towards the complex economic and ecological relationships in which scholarship is situated.

Complementing Compliance with Purpose

Ethics should be explicitly discussed as an aspect of methodology, but this is best done when a focus on compliance with standards is complemented by a consideration of core ethical issues and a transparent discussion of how decisions were made in response to those issues. Doing so reveals those decisions as tailor-made for the case at hand and not imposed upon the case without regard for its specificities (Greenwood, 2016 ). In other words, compliance is not a sufficient criterion for ethical research methods, and a methodological approach focused exclusively on ethical compliance criteria may miss the “bigger picture” of the role of the methods in the broader scientific and social goals of the study.

Nielsen’s ( 2016 ) paper on ethical praxis and action research elaborates on how research involves ethical decision making and situated, pragmatic choices that go beyond simply ticking the correct ethical boxes. Describing these from an Aristotelian perspective, he elaborates how researcher-participant interactions give rise to emergent research concerns that are both knowledge-related problems and problems for practice. The ethics of action research in this context is about facing unique problems that cut across the researcher-practitioner divide and can draw upon but are not limited to pre-existing ethics templates.

Adopting an Explanatory Versus a Justificatory Orientation

Methodological descriptions of ethics often have the tone of justification claims legitimizing authorial choices in terms of sample, data collection or analysis. Such justifications are warranted, and are good practice, but we believe that value is added when authors are more forthright about their ethical difficulties and dilemmas. Specifically, we value their attempts to work out those dilemmas transparently for a scholarly audience, that is thereby given access into the workings of scientific decision-making process and not simply presented with a black box labeled “method”. There is more value in showing the path taken to an ethical judgement than simply defending that the end decision was a good one. This also implies that wrong turns, changes of track, and similar ethical revisions should be described and contribute to the value of a paper.

Litz’s and Turner’s ( 2013 ) study of unethical practices in inherited family firms provides an interesting case of how researchers can productively describe the dilemmas they face methodologically. Given the difficulty of gathering data about the unethical practices of family members, they candidly ask “how does one approach a question so laced with shame and stigma?”(p.303). Rather than presenting their method in terms of templates used to justify their choices, they recruit the readers directly into their dilemma and walk them through their choices, which involved confronting participants with dramatic scenarios that allowed them to disclose intimately held views more safely. Ultimately building this technique into a validation exercise and a quantitative analysis, the latter are given credibility by their grounding in the initial researcher dilemma that led to the methodological approach.

Transparency and Reflexivity in Writing and Link Between Methods and Results Sections

Because transparent and reflexive description of methods integrates theoretical considerations within the methods itself, such description allows the method to operate more organically within the broader argument of the paper. Doing so allows authors to establish links between the methods and discussion sections, to describe what went right or wrong, what the limitations and possibilities of the method were, and how future research could remedy possible shortcomings or harms of the given method.

For example, Bontempi et al. ( 2021 ) study of CSR reporting inspired by the case of the Ethiopian Gibe III dam is exemplary of how methods can be used to reflexively and transparently link methods and results. Engaging in a “counter reporting”, the study draws upon conceptual literature, archival and theoretical research, and activist on-the-ground engagement to build an alternative view of reported social engagement around hydroelectric dams. Alternating between inductive and deductive approaches, these authors were particularly reflexive and deeply transparent in their methodological description, including detailed and publicly available information from their codebook in the article’s supplementary materials. The result went beyond the standard critique of CSR discourses to actively create a counter-discourse that was both scholarly and activist in orientation. The resulting discursive struggle continued onto the blogosphere, with methodological debate between the authors and the company itself over methods. Footnote 1 We see such interaction and engagement as key to the social relevance of research.

Purpose, Care and Reflexivity

Research ethics have conventionally been concerned with the procedural aspects of scholarship, in particular the methods. Gold standard in this regard has been to not merely treat ethical standards as hurdles but as aspirations. In this sense an ethical researcher is one who does not only comply but who also cares. We suggest that care requires researcher to actively reflect on and take responsibility for their ethical practices and their research goals, and to situate their practices reflexively within a broader collective process of scholarly inquiry. Thus, we extend the notion of care to embrace the reflexivity of the researcher with regard to their own positionality (and privilege) and with regard to the purpose of research, treating ethics as central to the entire research endeavor. Complementing ethical theorizing that draws data from orthodox empirical methods, we encourage scholars to take up new forms of ethical empirical research in which connections between the conduct of the research and the motivation of the research are deeply and actively formed. The guiding principles we outline in this editorial are aimed at integrating organic, particularized and reflective narratives about the ethical conduct and goals of research in the methods section and throughout the manuscript. Editors, reviewers and authors can all contribute to treating research ethics more centrally in business ethics research.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/es/%C3%BAltimas-noticias/rejoinder-to-webuilds-response/

Allen, S., Cunliffe, A. L., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2019). Understanding sustainability through the lens of ecocentric radical-reflexivity: Implications for management education. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (3), 781–795.

Article Google Scholar

Bontempi, A., Del Bene, D., & Di Felice, L. J. (2021). Counter-reporting sustainability from the bottom up: The case of the construction company WeBuild and dam-related conflicts. Journal of Business Ethics, 2021 , 1–26.

Google Scholar

D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Banday, M. U. L., & Chakraborty, S. (2022). Place matters:(Dis) embeddedness and child labourers’ experiences of depersonalized bullying in Indian Bt cottonseed global production networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 176 (2), 241–263.

DuBois, J. M., Beskow, L., Campbell, J., Dugosh, K., Festinger, D., Hartz, S., & Lidz, C. (2012). Restoring balance: A consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants. American Journal of Public Health, 102 (12), 2220–2225.

Goduscheit, R. C. (2022). No strings attached? Potential effects of external funding on freedom of research. Journal of Business Ethics, 176 (1), 1–15.

Greenwood, M. (2016). Approving or improving research ethics in management journals. Journal of Business Ethics, 137 (3), 507–520.

Islam, G., & Greenwood, M. (2021). Reconnecting to the social in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170 (1), 1–4.

Hansson, S. O. (2006). Informed consent out of context. Journal of Business Ethics, 63 (2), 149–154.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43 (1), 5–18.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2 , 196.

Litz, R. A., & Turner, N. (2013). Sins of the father’s firm: Exploring responses to inherited ethical dilemmas in family business. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (2), 297–315.

Newman, A., Bavik, Y. L., Mount, M., & Shao, B. (2021). Data collection via online platforms: Challenges and recommendations for future research. Applied Psychology, 70 (3), 1380–1402.

Nielsen, R. P. (2016). Action research as an ethics praxis method. Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (3), 419–428.

Roulet, T. J., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S., & Gill, D. J. (2017). Reconsidering the value of covert research: The role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. Organizational Research Methods, 20 (3), 487–517.

Shank, D. B. (2016). Using crowdsourcing websites for sociological research: The case of Amazon Mechanical Turk. American Sociologist, 47 (1), 47–55.

Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy . Harvard University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Grenoble Ecole de Management and IREGE, Grenoble, France

Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Michelle Greenwood

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gazi Islam .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Islam, G., Greenwood, M. Ethical Research in Business Ethics. J Bus Ethics 182 , 1–5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05301-z

Download citation

Published : 29 November 2022

Issue Date : January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05301-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Research ethics
Reflexivity
Research purpose
Methodology
Research integrity
Social impact
Beyond compliance

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

KU The University of Kansas School of Business

Course Descriptions
Class Profile
eBook: Create Effective Marketing Campaigns
Admissions Requirements
Financial Aid
Online Students
MBA Careers
Video Gallery

Business ethics and corporate social responsibility

graphic representing ethics and social responsibility

In today’s dynamic business landscape, values count with consumers.

A recent LinkedIn survey found an impressive 87% of Gen Z workers would quit their jobs if the company’s values didn’t align with theirs. 1

As a leader, that means your organization’s success involves more than making a profit.

The triple-bottom-line theory—with its focus on profit, people, and the planet—has redefined business success by incorporating social impact and environmental responsibility alongside financial performance. 2

Business leaders who prioritize these three principles not only foster trust among stakeholders but, also enhance their company’s reputation and support community development. 2 Embracing this approach positions you as a driver of positive change within your organization and beyond.

For example, as CEO and co-founder of The Muse, Kathryn Minshew faced a value-based dilemma while growing the career platform to more than 70 million annual users. 3

When a client mistreated her team and continued the behavior, she had a decision to make. 4 She could ignore the problem because the company needed the revenue, or she could back her team. 4 However, Minshew chose to prioritize her team’s well-being and severed ties with the client, refunding their money.

If she had not supported her team in those early days, it could have not only negatively impacted the employees, but also the company culture and reputation. 4

Understanding business ethics gives those aspiring to lead organizations, whether startups or Fortune 500 companies, the knowledge and skills to navigate complex and challenging decisions.

This post examines the frameworks for ethical decision-making and the role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social impact initiatives in driving positive outcomes for businesses and communities.

Introduction to business ethics and CSR

When it comes to business ethics, honesty, fairness, and accountability are all important. Business ethics encompasses the moral principles and values that guide organizational behavior and decision-making.

On the other hand, CSR refers to a company’s commitment to operating ethically and responsibly. So, if you’re leading a business, you must balance multiple concerns, including the well-being of stakeholders and communities, the environment, and your financial goals.

Ethical frameworks and principles

Business leaders leverage ethical frameworks like virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics to assess their actions and enhance decision-making. For instance, Aristotle taught his students about virtue ethics, which emphasizes personal growth and encourages the development of traits such as integrity and compassion. 5

Utilitarianism, championed by thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, prioritizes outcomes, aiming for choices that maximize happiness and minimize harm. 5 German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics advocates duty-bound adherence to moral laws, focusing on individual autonomy and reason. 5 By embracing these frameworks, leaders gain effective tools to navigate ethical challenges and cultivate ethical corporate cultures.

Corporate social responsibility defined

Corporate responsibility is more than a charitable endeavor. It involves understanding and mitigating a company’s impact across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Based on this business model, companies voluntarily uphold accountability to themselves, stakeholders, and the wider community. 6 They can achieve this through sustainable practices, philanthropy, community engagement, and ethical supply chain management, to name a few. 6

Types of CSR include:

Environmental: Reduce pollution, recycle materials, replenish natural resources, and align product lines with sustainable practices 6
Ethical: Treat customers fairly, compensate employees equitably, and transparently deal with vendors and investors 6
Philanthropic: Commit to charitable donations, support employee philanthropy, and align with suppliers that share your values 6
Financial: Back CSR initiatives with financial investments, including research and development for sustainable products, diversity initiatives, and social/environmental programs 6

The impact of practicing corporate social responsibility: Benefits of business ethics and CSR

Corporate governance ethics encompasses principles, values, and standards guiding decision-making and behavior, ensuring transparency, accountability, fairness, and responsibility to stakeholders. 7 Ethical leadership includes honest financial reporting, compliance with laws and regulations, respecting shareholder rights, and addressing social and environmental impacts. 7

Ethics in corporate governance refers to the set of principles, values, and standards that guide a company’s decision-making and behavior. It’s important for ensuring transparency, accountability, fairness, and responsibility towards stakeholders. Ethical leadership involves honest financial reporting, adherence to laws and regulations, respect for shareholder rights, and consideration of social and environmental impacts.

If you faithfully implement ethical business practices and CSR, chances are good your organization will reap multiple benefits, ranging from increased productivity to a positive public image.

Key benefits include:

Positive Public Image: Enhance public image by prioritizing people, integrity, and positive contributions to society 7
Employee Growth and Meaning: Support employee development by addressing work environment aspects, roles, and personal growth, providing tools for navigating challenges 7
Legal Compliance: Ensure policies are legal, reducing risks of lawsuits and penalties related to ethical violations 7
Teamwork and Productivity: Foster strong teamwork and productivity by aligning employee behaviors with ethical values, promoting openness, integrity, and community
Values Management: Manage values related to quality, strategic planning, and diversity, aligning behaviors with preferred values 7

Ethical leadership and decision-making

Ethical leadership is paramount in cultivating a culture of integrity and responsible decision-making within organizations. Leaders who prioritize ethics set the tone for ethical behavior throughout the company, leading by example, fostering transparency, and encouraging open dialogue about ethical dilemmas.

Ethical decision-making frameworks, such as the ethical decision-making process and the use of ethical guidelines and codes, help organizations navigate complex moral dilemmas. Real-world case studies offer insights into ethical challenges faced by businesses and the strategies employed to address them while upholding ethical standards.

KU online MBA course connection: MGMT 753: Leadership Philosophy and Practice

Through study, analysis, and discourse, students in the Leadership Philosophy and Practice elective will explore the skills and attributes required to be a successful leader, the ethical and interpersonal challenges of leading in a complex world, and the tools for leading and influencing people, ideas, and change within an organization. The ability to communicate ideas clearly—central to effective leadership and change—will be evaluated throughout the course as students confront real-world situations and circumstances through case-based learning, discussion, and essay writing.

The course takes both a reflective and practical approach to cultivating values-based, character-centric leadership in the workplace. Students are inspired to define their own personal philosophies of leadership by examining their own experiences and expectations for motivation, focus, mentoring, and discipline.

By confronting challenging questions and circumstances through healthy debate and the practical application of coaching tools and techniques, students will be prepared to overcome resistance, influence and adapt to workplace change, and refine their distinct leadership styles and presence for organizations.

Environmental sustainability

From toymakers to car manufacturers, companies are setting ambitious goals to achieve environmental sustainability, a key facet of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). For smaller firms, this might include recycling programs and the use of rechargeable batteries, whereas global businesses focus on coordinating transitions to renewable energy and water conservation across multiple sites. 8

Companies recognized for sustainability include:

Lego: The European toy company has set aside $400 million for green initiatives and a team of 100 people is developing green toys. 9 In 2018, it partnered with the World Wildlife Fund to develop eco-friendly blocks made from sustainable materials like sugarcane 10
Nike: The Oregon-based corporation has actively encouraged its global network of 650 suppliers 650 across 52 countries to adopt and enforce written environmental policies, demonstrating the company’s commitment to sustainable practices throughout its supply chain 11
Tesla: Founded in 2003, the car manufacturer’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy by producing electric vehicles. The brand attracts customers who are concerned about climate change and want to do their part 12

Going green doesn’t happen overnight. But these companies represent a variety of industries that have embraced sustainable practices, a shift towards responsible business practices that is important to different groups, especially millennials.

Social impact and community involvement

In today’s corporate landscape, companies are increasingly recognizing the importance of social impact and community development as integral components of CSR.

These initiatives are pivotal in addressing areas of need, such as:

Education: Supporting STEM programs, scholarships, teacher training, and school infrastructure for better education access 13
Healthcare: Investing in medical research, disease prevention, essential medicines access, and promoting wellness in communities 13
Poverty Alleviation: Implementing job creation, microfinance, and livelihood development for economic empowerment 13
Diversity and Inclusion: Promoting equity, supporting marginalized groups, advocating equal rights, and fostering inclusive workplaces 13

Microsoft and Salesforce have been successful in leveraging resources, expertise, and influence to launch successful social impact initiatives. They have shown how businesses can be catalysts for community development.

Measuring the impact of CSR and ethical behavior

There are some key steps you take to ensure your organization has an effective CSR strategy. Scott Hoots, CEO of regenerative medicine provider QC Kinetix, recommends integrating CSR into your mission, vision, and values. 14 Regularly review and adjust goals with input from stakeholders. Then, customize your impact measures and stay transparent about your organization’s contributions, even if they are modest. 14

Best practices for measuring impact include:

Set SMART goals: Define specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound CSR objectives
Choose Relevant KPIs: Identify key metrics aligned with your goals, such as carbon footprint reduction, community engagement, employee satisfaction, and customer feedback
Utilize Data: Use both qualitative (surveys, interviews) and quantitative (metrics, analytics) data to evaluate CSR impact
Compare Benchmarks: Benchmark your CSR performance against industry standards and best practices for insights and improvement areas

By following these guidelines, your company can not only measure its impact but also drive positive change and enhance its reputation as a socially responsible entity.

Distinguish yourself as an ethical leader in business

Learn the core skills and strategic perspectives to thrive in leadership with the online MBA at the KU School of Business .

The thoughtfully designed, flexible two-year MBA curriculum design reflects a decade of experience using online educational technology to create well-rounded, successful business leaders.

Schedule a call with an admissions outreach advisor today to learn more.

Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from cnbc.com/2023/04/20/majority-of-gen-z-would-quit-their-jobs-over-company-values-linkedin.html
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from investopedia.com/terms/t/triple-bottom-line.asp
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from trilanticnorthamerica.com/team/kathryn-minshew
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from fastcompany.com/3046630/7-business-leaders-share-how-they-solved-the-biggest-moral-dilemmas-of-their
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/c-suite/ethical-leadership-aligning-actions-with-values-in-the-light-of-ethical-theories/articleshow/105878172.cms?from=mdr
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from management.org/blogs/business-ethics/2010/10/23/10-benefits-of-managing-ethics-in-the-workplace/
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from http://forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/11/21/17-sustainability-initiatives-of-businesses-that-are-going-green/?sh=7586ff706f0e
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from supplychainbrain.com/articles/32769-sugar-cane-lego-blocks-no-more-plastic-fantastic-as-toymaker-goes-green
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from ripplematch.com/career-advice/companies-with-powerful-social-impact-initiatives-65f368a5/
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/9-companies-great-environmental-initiatives/1193165/
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from blog.gwi.com/marketing/sustainable-brands/
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from goodera.com/blog/types-of-corporate-social-responsibility
Retrieved on April 23, 2024, from forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/01/18/why-corporate-social-responsibility-should-drive-your-organization/?sh=32a939f443ec

Return to Experience KU

The University of Kansas has engaged Everspring , a leading provider of education and technology services, to support select aspects of program delivery.

The University of Kansas prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin, age, ancestry, disability, status as a veteran, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, retaliation, gender identity, gender expression and genetic information in the University's programs and activities. The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the non-discrimination policies and is the University's Title IX Coordinator: the Executive Director of the Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access, [email protected] , 1246 W. Campus Road, Room 153A, Lawrence, KS, 66045, (785) 864-6414 , 711 TTY.

Essay Guides
Other Essays
How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples
Speech Topics
Basics of Essay Writing
Essay Topics
Main Academic Essays
Research Paper Topics
Basics of Research Paper Writing
Miscellaneous
Chicago/ Turabian
Data & Statistics
Methodology
Admission Writing Tips
Admission Advice
Other Guides
Student Life
Studying Tips
Understanding Plagiarism
Academic Writing Tips
Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

Research Paper Guides
Formatting Guides
Basics of Research Process
Admission Guides
Dissertation & Thesis Guides

How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An ethics essay is a type of academic writing that explores ethical issues and dilemmas. Students should evaluates them in terms of moral principles and values. The purpose of an ethics essay is to examine the moral implications of a particular issue, and provide a reasoned argument in support of an ethical perspective.

Writing an essay about ethics is a tough task for most students. The process involves creating an outline to guide your arguments about a topic and planning your ideas to convince the reader of your feelings about a difficult issue. If you still need assistance putting together your thoughts in composing a good paper, you have come to the right place. We have provided a series of steps and tips to show how you can achieve success in writing. This guide will tell you how to write an ethics paper using ethical essay examples to understand every step it takes to be proficient. In case you don’t have time for writing, get in touch with our professional essay writers for hire . Our experts work hard to supply students with excellent essays.

What Is an Ethics Essay?

An ethics essay uses moral theories to build arguments on an issue. You describe a controversial problem and examine it to determine how it affects individuals or society. Ethics papers analyze arguments on both sides of a possible dilemma, focusing on right and wrong. The analysis gained can be used to solve real-life cases. Before embarking on writing an ethical essay, keep in mind that most individuals follow moral principles. From a social context perspective, these rules define how a human behaves or acts towards another. Therefore, your theme essay on ethics needs to demonstrate how a person feels about these moral principles. More specifically, your task is to show how significant that issue is and discuss if you value or discredit it.

Purpose of an Essay on Ethics

The primary purpose of an ethics essay is to initiate an argument on a moral issue using reasoning and critical evidence. Instead of providing general information about a problem, you present solid arguments about how you view the moral concern and how it affects you or society. When writing an ethical paper, you demonstrate philosophical competence, using appropriate moral perspectives and principles.

Things to Write an Essay About Ethics On

Before you start to write ethics essays, consider a topic you can easily address. In most cases, an ethical issues essay analyzes right and wrong. This includes discussing ethics and morals and how they contribute to the right behaviors. You can also talk about work ethic, code of conduct, and how employees promote or disregard the need for change. However, you can explore other areas by asking yourself what ethics mean to you. Think about how a recent game you watched with friends started a controversial argument. Or maybe a newspaper that highlighted a story you felt was misunderstood or blown out of proportion. This way, you can come up with an excellent topic that resonates with your personal ethics and beliefs.

Ethics Paper Outline

Sometimes, you will be asked to submit an outline before writing an ethics paper. Creating an outline for an ethics paper is an essential step in creating a good essay. You can use it to arrange your points and supporting evidence before writing. It also helps organize your thoughts, enabling you to fill any gaps in your ideas. The outline for an essay should contain short and numbered sentences to cover the format and outline. Each section is structured to enable you to plan your work and include all sources in writing an ethics paper. An ethics essay outline is as follows:

Background information
Thesis statement
Restate thesis statement
Summarize key points
Final thoughts on the topic

Using this outline will improve clarity and focus throughout your writing process.

Ethical Essay Structure

Ethics essays are similar to other essays based on their format, outline, and structure. An ethical essay should have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion section as its structure. When planning your ideas, make sure that the introduction and conclusion are around 20 percent of the paper, leaving the rest to the body. We will take a detailed look at what each part entails and give examples that are going to help you understand them better. Refer to our essay structure examples to find a fitting way of organizing your writing.

Ethics Paper Introduction

An ethics essay introduction gives a synopsis of your main argument. One step on how to write an introduction for an ethics paper is telling about the topic and describing its background information. This paragraph should be brief and straight to the point. It informs readers what your position is on that issue. Start with an essay hook to generate interest from your audience. It can be a question you will address or a misunderstanding that leads up to your main argument. You can also add more perspectives to be discussed; this will inform readers on what to expect in the paper.

Ethics Essay Introduction Example

You can find many ethics essay introduction examples on the internet. In this guide, we have written an excellent extract to demonstrate how it should be structured. As you read, examine how it begins with a hook and then provides background information on an issue.

In this example, the first sentence of the introduction makes a claim or uses a question to hook the reader.

Ethics Essay Thesis Statement

An ethics paper must contain a thesis statement in the first paragraph. Learning how to write a thesis statement for an ethics paper is necessary as readers often look at it to gauge whether the essay is worth their time.

When you deviate away from the thesis, your whole paper loses meaning. In ethics essays, your thesis statement is a roadmap in writing, stressing your position on the problem and giving reasons for taking that stance. It should focus on a specific element of the issue being discussed. When writing a thesis statement, ensure that you can easily make arguments for or against its stance.

Ethical Paper Thesis Example

Look at this example of an ethics paper thesis statement and examine how well it has been written to state a position and provide reasons for doing so:

The above thesis statement example is clear and concise, indicating that this paper will highlight the effects of dishonesty in society. Moreover, it focuses on aspects of personal and professional relationships.

Ethics Essay Body

The body section is the heart of an ethics paper as it presents the author's main points. In an ethical essay, each body paragraph has several elements that should explain your main idea. These include:

A topic sentence that is precise and reiterates your stance on the issue.
Evidence supporting it.
Examples that illustrate your argument.
A thorough analysis showing how the evidence and examples relate to that issue.
A transition sentence that connects one paragraph to another with the help of essay transitions .

When you write an ethics essay, adding relevant examples strengthens your main point and makes it easy for others to understand and comprehend your argument.

Body Paragraph for Ethics Paper Example

A good body paragraph must have a well-defined topic sentence that makes a claim and includes evidence and examples to support it. Look at part of an example of ethics essay body paragraph below and see how its idea has been developed:

Ethics Essay Conclusion

A concluding paragraph shares the summary and overview of the author's main arguments. Many students need clarification on what should be included in the essay conclusion and how best to get a reader's attention. When writing an ethics paper conclusion, consider the following:

Restate the thesis statement to emphasize your position.
Summarize its main points and evidence.
Final thoughts on the issue and any other considerations.

You can also reflect on the topic or acknowledge any possible challenges or questions that have not been answered. A closing statement should present a call to action on the problem based on your position.

Sample Ethics Paper Conclusion

The conclusion paragraph restates the thesis statement and summarizes the arguments presented in that paper. The sample conclusion for an ethical essay example below demonstrates how you should write a concluding statement.

In the above extract, the writer gives final thoughts on the topic, urging readers to adopt honest behavior.

How to Write an Ethics Paper?

As you learn how to write an ethics essay, it is not advised to immediately choose a topic and begin writing. When you follow this method, you will get stuck or fail to present concrete ideas. A good writer understands the importance of planning. As a fact, you should organize your work and ensure it captures key elements that shed more light on your arguments. Hence, following the essay structure and creating an outline to guide your writing process is the best approach. In the following segment, we have highlighted step-by-step techniques on how to write a good ethics paper.

1. Pick a Topic

Before writing ethical papers, brainstorm to find ideal topics that can be easily debated. For starters, make a list, then select a title that presents a moral issue that may be explained and addressed from opposing sides. Make sure you choose one that interests you. Here are a few ideas to help you search for topics:

Review current trends affecting people.
Think about your personal experiences.
Study different moral theories and principles.
Examine classical moral dilemmas.

Once you find a suitable topic and are ready, start to write your ethics essay, conduct preliminary research, and ascertain that there are enough sources to support it.

2. Conduct In-Depth Research

Once you choose a topic for your essay, the next step is gathering sufficient information about it. Conducting in-depth research entails looking through scholarly journals to find credible material. Ensure you note down all sources you found helpful to assist you on how to write your ethics paper. Use the following steps to help you conduct your research:

Clearly state and define a problem you want to discuss.
This will guide your research process.
Develop keywords that match the topic.
Begin searching from a wide perspective. This will allow you to collect more information, then narrow it down by using the identified words above.

3. Develop an Ethics Essay Outline

An outline will ease up your writing process when developing an ethic essay. As you develop a paper on ethics, jot down factual ideas that will build your paragraphs for each section. Include the following steps in your process:

Review the topic and information gathered to write a thesis statement.
Identify the main arguments you want to discuss and include their evidence.
Group them into sections, each presenting a new idea that supports the thesis.
Write an outline.
Review and refine it.

Examples can also be included to support your main arguments. The structure should be sequential, coherent, and with a good flow from beginning to end. When you follow all steps, you can create an engaging and organized outline that will help you write a good essay.

4. Write an Ethics Essay

Once you have selected a topic, conducted research, and outlined your main points, you can begin writing an essay . Ensure you adhere to the ethics paper format you have chosen. Start an ethics paper with an overview of your topic to capture the readers' attention. Build upon your paper by avoiding ambiguous arguments and using the outline to help you write your essay on ethics. Finish the introduction paragraph with a thesis statement that explains your main position. Expand on your thesis statement in all essay paragraphs. Each paragraph should start with a topic sentence and provide evidence plus an example to solidify your argument, strengthen the main point, and let readers see the reasoning behind your stance. Finally, conclude the essay by restating your thesis statement and summarizing all key ideas. Your conclusion should engage the reader, posing questions or urging them to reflect on the issue and how it will impact them.

5. Proofread Your Ethics Essay

Proofreading your essay is the last step as you countercheck any grammatical or structural errors in your essay. When writing your ethic paper, typical mistakes you could encounter include the following:

Spelling errors: e.g., there, they’re, their.
Homophone words: such as new vs. knew.
Inconsistencies: like mixing British and American words, e.g., color vs. color.
Formatting issues: e.g., double spacing, different font types.

While proofreading your ethical issue essay, read it aloud to detect lexical errors or ambiguous phrases that distort its meaning. Verify your information and ensure it is relevant and up-to-date. You can ask your fellow student to read the essay and give feedback on its structure and quality.

Ethics Essay Examples

Writing an essay is challenging without the right steps. There are so many ethics paper examples on the internet, however, we have provided a list of free ethics essay examples below that are well-structured and have a solid argument to help you write your paper. Click on them and see how each writing step has been integrated. Ethics essay example 1

Ethics essay example 2

Ethics essay example 3

Ethics essay example 4

College ethics essay example 5

Ethics Essay Writing Tips

When writing papers on ethics, here are several tips to help you complete an excellent essay:

Choose a narrow topic and avoid broad subjects, as it is easy to cover the topic in detail.
Ensure you have background information. A good understanding of a topic can make it easy to apply all necessary moral theories and principles in writing your paper.
State your position clearly. It is important to be sure about your stance as it will allow you to draft your arguments accordingly.
When writing ethics essays, be mindful of your audience. Provide arguments that they can understand.
Integrate solid examples into your essay. Morality can be hard to understand; therefore, using them will help a reader grasp these concepts.

Bottom Line on Writing an Ethics Paper

Creating this essay is a common exercise in academics that allows students to build critical skills. When you begin writing, state your stance on an issue and provide arguments to support your position. This guide gives information on how to write an ethics essay as well as examples of ethics papers. Remember to follow these points in your writing:

Create an outline highlighting your main points.
Write an effective introduction and provide background information on an issue.
Include a thesis statement.
Develop concrete arguments and their counterarguments, and use examples.
Sum up all your key points in your conclusion and restate your thesis statement.

Contact our academic writing platform and have your challenge solved. Here, you can order essays and papers on any topic and enjoy top quality.

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

Business Ethics Essay

Author Kimberly Ball
Category General Essays

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Introduction

Business ethics or corporate ethics is a form of moral ethics that examines the conduct of people and individuals in a business set up (Weiss, 2014). These norms are the key guidelines to the way things are done in individual and communal businesses, and it helps in improving the relationship of the business with its stakeholders. The core purpose of any company is to maximize shareholder returns, and this is only made possible by having the business impress its customers effectively and treat them fairly such that the net sales remain at a high level (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). It is common to find various ethical issues arising in a business, situations where the management has to decide on the suitability or morality of actions that will be taken in the business. During such ethical dilemmas, the officials are expected to make the best decision that is aimed at winning the affection of the customers (Weiss, 2014). Taking the example of ford, the car producing company that was faced with an ethical dilemma due to the production of defective products, the decision made in such a scenario, if proper business ethics are adhered to, could make the company maintain its high clientele, of which the opposite also applies.

Case Analysis

One of the known business ethics cases of the international companies is the ford pinto case, in which ford’s design of the Pinto’s fuel tank is defective, in a way that it makes the Pinto to be highly susceptible to fire accident. Rear-end collisions for the Pinto, whether minor or major leads to ultimate accidents, making it very unsafe for the Pinto users. The moral action for Ford in this case is to repair the design to make it suitable for every vehicle, but apparently this would be very expensive as it would cause the company over $137 million. If the company chose to turn a blind eye on the case, the cost of paying for the resulting damages including insurance due to deaths caused would not exceed $47.5 million.

The Who-How Framework for Business Ethics in Dealing with the Case

Under the Who-How framework of business ethics, the person in which the ethical action is performed for or against is first evaluated and the protocols are then evaluated (Hoffman et al., 2014). That is the Who and the How respectively. In this case, it is evident that Ford chose an unethical decision, taking down lives and health of people for the sake of their profit maximization. The ‘who’ in this case is the customers affected by the defect and the ‘how’ is the means in which the business reasons out either compensating or doing away with these customers (Weiss, 2014). The principle of utilitarianism, where the decision is made basing on the idea that brings about the common good for the larger percentage of the individuals is also used in this approach. If ford decides to take the more expensive option and make the necessary changes, they would save the health and the lives of millions of their users. If they would decide to take the second option, which is paying for upcoming damages and save the cost of the manufacture changes, they benefit is felt by only a small fraction of the stakeholders, the owners of the company. In the long-run, however, these beneficiaries would be losers since all the affected customers would be lost and the reputation of the company lost for a long time. The best ethical decision for ford is therefore to accept the mistake very fast, spend a lot of cash in correcting it and it would do them good in future.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas , concepts , tutorials, essay papers – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Call to +1 844 889-9952

Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business

📄 Words:	863
📝 Subject:
📑 Pages:	3
✍️ Type:	Essay

Introduction

Ethics and csr in organizations, excellent csr example, role played by organization members, integration into decision-making, video voice-over.

The contemporary business environment is characterized by globalization, unprecedented technological advancements, and fierce competition. These factors have necessitated the adoption of adoption and incorporation of ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) into business operations for enhanced success. Ethics can be defined as the moral principles that govern the way an organization operates, and issues range from corporate governance to bribery. CSR refers to the involvement of a business in social issues that promote the welfare of the society, above and beyond the need for increased profits. In that regard, it is important for organizational members to ensure that these concepts permeate the operations of the organization at all levels. In addition, they should ensure that organizational decision-making is founded on the principles of business ethics and CSR.

As mentioned earlier, CSR and ethics are two key ingredients that are necessary for the attainment of organizational success in the contemporary business environment. The idea that business establishments have greater responsibilities above paying employees and earning profits has existed for many decades. A common belief that is prevalent in the business world is that business enterprises have a social and ethical responsibility of taking care of their employees and customers, the environment, and society at large (Malecki, 2018).

In an organization, internal values are based on business ethics and comprise the application of honesty and fairness in the treatment of employees and customers (Ferrell et al., 2017). Business ethics are beneficial to organizations because they create customer loyalty, enhance employee retention, create a positive work environment, and minimize legal problems (Malecki, 2018). CSR encompasses all activities and processes that address the prevailing social and environmental issues that are important to an organization. Its benefits include an improved public image, increased brand awareness and recognition, cost savings, better employee and customer engagement, and the creation of competitive advantage (Malecki, 2018). Successful corporations have strong codes of ethics and CSR programs.

Wells Fargo is an example of an organization that has an excellent CSR program. The company donates a percentage of its earnings to charity annually. In 2018, the firm made donations to more than 11,000 nonprofit organizations across the globe (Pacek & Llewellyn, 2019). The $444 million donated was used to fund programs that promote affordable housing, education, sustainability, and the growth of small businesses (Pacek & Llewellyn, 2019). Regarding its employees, the organization allows its workers to take two paid days off annually.

These days are spent volunteering services to charity organizations of their choosing. The company’s members also spent 2 million hours volunteering for various charity programs (Pacek & Llewellyn, 2019). Their CSR practices also include providing financial education and economic opportunities for poor communities, environmental sustainability, diversity and inclusion, and supporting the growth of small businesses.

Organizational members, including leaders, managers, and employees play a key role in ensuring that ethics and CSR are practiced at every level. Employees should apply the principles and values that form their organization’s corporate culture in making decisions (Malecki, 2018). This could involve putting organizational values before self-interest and avoiding actions that violate business ethics. Managers should uphold ethical standards in their actions and act as role models for other employees (Ferrell et al., 2017).

This could include abiding by their organization’s ethical code and punishing employees who act unethically. Organizations’ leaders should promote fairness, transparency, and integrity, and they should show concern for sustainability. In addition, they should offer ethics training to employees in the form of workshops, discussions, and lectures (Ferrell et al., 2017). These are effective in clarifying and communicating to employees the values and principles that they are required to follow.

Ethics and CSR should be a component of decision-making in organizations. Prior to making a decision, employees should thoroughly evaluate their options and choose the one that is consistent with ethical principles (Ferrell et al., 2017). Commitment, competency, and consciousness are ingredients that allow individuals to make ethical decisions. It is important to identify the ethical issues inherent in every decision and address them through the application of business ethics and organization principles and values (Malecki, 2018). Moreover, leaders and employees should consider the ethical implications of every choice that they make. Following a code of ethics and standards, promoting confidential reporting, and offering counsel on ethical matters are also effective ways of ensuring that all business decisions are ethical and promote CSR.

Ethics and CSR are key components of success in the contemporary business environment. Ethics comprise moral principles that govern how businesses operate while CSR refers to a set of policies, programs, and practices that go beyond profit maximization to improving the welfare of society. These concepts are beneficial to organizations because they create customer loyalty, enhance employee retention, create a positive work environment, and minimize legal problems.

On the other hand, CSR improves the public image, increases brand awareness and recognition, enhances employee and customer engagement, and creates a competitive advantage. Organizational members should ensure that their actions and decisions are based on ethical principles that cater to the needs of all stakeholders, including coworkers, customers, shareholders, and society in general.

Ferrell, Q. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2017). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Malecki, C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility: perspectives for sustainable corporate governance . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pacek, J., & Llewellyn, K. (2019). A year of giving: Wells Fargo donates $444m to nearly 11,000 nonprofits in 2018 . Wells Fargo. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

BusinessEssay. (2023, September 12). Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility-in-business/

"Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business." BusinessEssay , 12 Sept. 2023, business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility-in-business/.

BusinessEssay . (2023) 'Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business'. 12 September.

BusinessEssay . 2023. "Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business." September 12, 2023. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility-in-business/.

1. BusinessEssay . "Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business." September 12, 2023. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility-in-business/.

Bibliography

BusinessEssay . "Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business." September 12, 2023. https://business-essay.com/ethics-and-corporate-social-responsibility-in-business/.

Business Ethics According to Aristotle and Confucius
Social Responsibility and Ethical Behavior by a Corporation
Volkswagen Manufacturing and Business Ethical Issues
Business Ethics: Corporate Social Responsibility
Blood Bananas: Chiquita in Colombia
Wirecard: The Ethical Scandal Analysis
The Significance of Carbon Disclosure Project on Supply Chain and Life Cycle
Sweatshop Issues and Nike: Business Ethics
Racism in Business: Composition of the Employees
Business Ethics and Emotional Intelligence

Ethical Practice in Business Environment Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The spa issue, works cited.

The business environment is faced with multiple ethical issues that need to be resolved. This paper reviews the ethical issues that arise from a spa in Singapore, Wellness Village spa, closing down without notice. The spar disappears while owing customers’ money in the form of pre purchased packages and credit card bills. This paper applies various ethical theories so as to solve the ethical issues.

By use of the consequentialist, social contract and stakeholder theories, it is proposed that the bank has an obligation to cover some of the costs covered by the customers. Application of the deontological ethics reveals that the bank is under no obligation since it has performed all the duties expected of it. While the directors of the spa are pinpointed as the major culprits, this paper shows that they should not be punished alone since they were working for the interests of shareholders.

Collective punishment is seen as the best manner to obtain justice. From the ethical theories applied in this scenario, it has been seen that the interest of the society at large should ideally take precedence over individual or business interests. The paper concludes by restating that knowledge of ethical theories is essential in solving ethical issues that arise in the business environment.

Ethical behavior has throughout human civilization been supposed to be a major building block for a productive and well functional society. For this reason, ethical behavior has been applauded and taught to be superior to unethical dealings. However, ethics have not been given much relevance in businesses and so long as businesses stay within the law, businesses been given much consideration and businesses have been subjected to little criticism for their ethical behavior so long as they did not break the law.

Ethics can loosely be defined as a system of moral principles by which social conduct is judged as either “right” or “wrong”. As relates to business, ethics are moral principles which prescribe what is legitimate behavior in varied business dealings (Chryssides and Kaler 3). This paper shall analyze the ethical issues that surround the closing of the Wellness Village spa. The paper shall make use of various ethical theories so as to demonstrate the most effective way to deal with the ethical issues.

The ethical issues surrounding the Wellness Village Spa closure is who should pay for the credit card bills charged to cardholders by the bank for services that the cardholders did not receive. In the scenario, the spa closed down without informing the clients some of whom had purchased expensive packages from the spa.

Notably, the Wellness Village spa used misinformation to deceive the customers. This was by claiming that they were overbooked while in reality the company was preparing to close operations abruptly. Another underlying concept in the case are secrecy whereby the company directors failed to divulge vital information about the company being closed in the near future since the information would had affect the company’s profitability.

Ethical theories are the criteria that we use to make judgment as to the fairness or unfairness of actions undertaken regarding problems (Crisp, Potter & Perry, 2005). The theories provide support to decision making and shed some light the thought process behind a conclusion.

The first theory that can be applied on this case is the consequentialist ethics theory holds that actions can be judged as right and/or good only on the basis of the consequences they produce with no consideration for their intentions or motives. Based on this theory, the actions of Wellness Village Spa were hugely unethical.

The management of the Wellness Village Spa is no doubt the major culprit since they are the one’s who closed down the spa without giving their clients any notice. In addition to this, they proceeded to take money from clients for services that they had no intention of offering.

The Social Contract theory holds that actions carried out by someone are morally permissible if they increase the benefits of an individual or indeed, the society at large. The actions of Wellness Village were evidently did not benefit the majority of the people. As a matter of fact, there are 7000 customers who are affected by the credit card liability issue as a result of the spa closing down. The spa should therefore be sued and held accountable so as to benefit the majority of the individuals.

One of the theories that guide manager’s behavior in an organization is the stakeholder theory which states that “managers should make decisions so as to take account of the interests of all the stakeholders in the firm” (Jensen 299).

According to the stakeholder theory, the stockholders are not the only legitimate claimholders and as such, the needs of other stakeholder entities such as customers, employees, supplies and community should be taken into consideration. By following this theory, the banks should cover some of the bills of the customers since they are stakeholders to the banking institutes.

Deontological ethics place emphasis on the assumed duty. This implies that duty is the basis of all moral actions regardless of the consequences. By applying this theory, it can be seen that the banks in question do not require to foot the bill for the cardholders. This is because the banks have fulfilled their duties to all parties as the theory stipulates.

The banks have paid for the customer’s purchases and therefore, the card holders should fulfill their obligation to settle the charges incurred by the bank. As such, the offer by the bank to support the investigative efforts of the customers to dispute the charges is more than enough.

Another theory that can be used is Utilitarianism which is considered to be the most influential ethical theory. This principle dictates that the collective welfare of the people overrides the individual’s right and as such, the theory advocates the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people (Johnston 76).

In this approach, the net benefit is calculated and the net consequences evaluated. By use of the Utilitarianism the bank should take some liability and incur some cost on behalf of the cardholders. This is because the principle dictates that that the collective welfare of the people overrides the individual’s right and as such, the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people is advocated for (Crisp, Potter and Perry, 20).

For this damage to be undone, the guilty parties must be held accountable. In an attempt to redress the clients of the misdeeds of the spa, it has been proposed that the directors be held personal accountable. This is because the directors of the company are no doubt the major culprits since they made the actual decisions to close the company but keep it “live” therefore causing lose to the customers.

However, it should be taken into consideration that the management was only acting in the interest of the shareholders who were the major benefactors of the profits obtained from the business dealings. It would therefore be unjust to personally hold the management responsible since they were only protecting the interests of the company (Fredrick 405). A better means of seeking justice would be to collectively punish all the stakeholders.

Being unethical inevitably leads to loss and damage for some of the people involved in the issue. This is the case in the spa scenario where the customers to the spa have lost money as well as been denied services they had a right to. For this damage to be undone, the guilty parties must be held accountable. From the above discussions, it can be seen that most of the ethical theories support the notion that the bank should at least foot part of the bill incurred by the customers.

In addition to this, the theories support the taking of legal action against the directors of the Wellness Village Spa for their wrongdoings. However, a more collective punishment is proposed since the directors only acted with the interests the company at heart. From this paper, it can be authoritatively stated that knowledge of ethical theories can greatly assist in solving ethical issues that arise in the business environment.

Chryssides, D.G and Kaler, H. J. An Introduction to Business Ethics , Cengage Learning EMEA. 1993. Print.

Crisp, J. Potter, P. A. and Perry, G. A. Potter & Perry’s Fundamentals of Nursing. (2nd ed). Australia: Elsevier Australia. 2005. Print.

Frederick, R. A Companion to Business Ethics, Wiley-Blackwell. 2002. Print.

Jensen, M. “Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function”. European Financial Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2001, 297-371.

Johnston, George. An Introduction to Ethics, for Training Colleges. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. Print.

International Resort and Spa Management
Introduction to the Global Spa Industry
PMU Salon & Spa (Business Plan)
Ethical and Social Responsibility Issues in IHRM
Utilitarianism and Deontology: The Case of Coca-Cola
Social responsibility and ethical analysis of Darden
Ethical considerations of Executive compensation
Dealing With Ethical Issues in the Workplace
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 20). Ethical Practice in Business Environment. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-practice/

"Ethical Practice in Business Environment." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-practice/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Ethical Practice in Business Environment'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Ethical Practice in Business Environment." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-practice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ethical Practice in Business Environment." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-practice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ethical Practice in Business Environment." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-practice/.

More From Forbes

Thriving amid uncertain circumstances: factors influencing b2b buying decisions.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Barry Reicherter is managing partner of global intelligence at FINN Partners, a marketing and communications agency.

As a market researcher with a focus on business growth, I am continuously delving into the factors that impact business-to-business (B2B) purchasing decisions. In a time marked by advancements and global unpredictability, grasping these drivers holds greater significance. To delve deeper, I conducted a survey involving over 2,000 purchase decision-makers across industries in the U.S. and U.K.

The findings of this survey unveiled trends that are shaping the landscape of B2B transactions. For those engaged in selling to businesses, understanding these trends can offer an advantage. Here are some key findings and their implications for your business growth strategy.

Navigating Challenges In Global Supply Chains

A key insight from the survey is the impact of supply chain disruptions. Sectors like manufacturing and logistics have felt this impact intensely, leading companies to reassess their procurement approaches. Stability and dependability have taken stage. As highlighted by a purchase decision maker in the manufacturing field, "Ensuring a supply of materials has become our priority; we cannot afford any further interruptions."

As a vendor, showing that you can consistently supply products and effectively manage risks can help you become a business partner. Highlight your plans for mitigations. Share how you've successfully handled past challenges to build trust with potential buyers.

‘Squad’ Rep. Jamaal Bowman Unseated By Latimer In Pricey New York Primary

The life-size walking gundam is getting a new home at expo 2025, sha’carri richardson, cole hocker, and anna hall dominate u.s. track & field olympic trials, the shift toward data-driven decision making.

Purchase decision-makers are increasingly turning to data analysis to inform their buying decisions. This is particularly noticeable in industries like finance and healthcare. More than 75% of survey participants in these sectors stressed the importance of suppliers offering data analysis. A respondent from the healthcare field commented, "Our suppliers' ability to provide analytics has made an impact on our operations. It enables us to maintain compliance and quality."

To differentiate yourself, make sure you provide data regarding your product performance, customer satisfaction levels and predictive analytics that assist buyers in predicting their needs and streamlining their processes.

Embracing Technological Advancements

Cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT) and blockchain are transforming procurement practices. In sectors like technology and manufacturing, purchase decision-makers indicated a shift toward adopting solutions to improve supply chain visibility and effectiveness.

An executive from the tech industry mentioned, "By implementing technology, we now have immediate insight into our supply chain, which has helped us reduce delays and improve overall efficiency."

Furthermore, AI is being leveraged to enhance inventory management and predict demand accurately. For businesses selling products, it's crucial to talk about how they’ve incorporated these advancements into their offerings and demonstrate how they can bring value to their customers' operations.

The Ongoing Digital Transformation

The ongoing digital transformation is revolutionizing purchasing. Many individuals highlighted the integration of payment systems and e-procurement platforms as tools that streamlined their procurement processes.

For sellers, providing transaction capabilities is no longer just an option but a requirement. Communicating the investment in e-commerce platforms and digital solutions that simplify the purchasing journey is key. One purchaser in the logistics industry noted, "Digital procurement platforms have made our purchasing process faster and more reliable."

Risk Management And Resilience

The significance of risk management has been underscored by events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical challenges. Companies are now strengthening their risk evaluation frameworks by incorporating sustainability and resilience principles into their procurement strategies. This shift is particularly noticeable in sectors like construction and building management, where there is a growing emphasis on materials and methods.

One participant mentioned, "Sustainability is more than a term to us; it plays a crucial role in our risk management strategy." For sellers, aligning your products with these values and showcasing your dedication to sustainability can set you apart.

The Importance Of Cybersecurity

With the rise in cyber threats, cybersecurity has become an evaluating factor. This holds true, especially in industries handling data like financial services and health and pharmaceuticals. Companies are looking for suppliers who can exhibit cybersecurity measures and compliance with data protection laws. A respondent from the financial services sector stressed, "Our suppliers must demonstrate robust cybersecurity measures and compliance with data protection regulations."

Make sure your cybersecurity practices are current, and highlight your commitment to safeguarding your clients' information.

Dedication To Ethical Principles

The survey also underscores a shift towards prioritizing supplier principles in procurement processes. Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), sustainability and social responsibility are aspects of purchasing choices. Companies are establishing targets for sustainability and engaging with suppliers that uphold environmental regulations. They are also promoting inclusivity by partnering with minority-owned and women-owned businesses.

As a seller, showing your dedication to these principles can make you more appealing to customers who value that behavior. A decision-maker from the services industry mentioned, "Our purchasing strategy now focuses on collaborating with a variety of suppliers that promote diversity and inclusivity."

Summing Up: Adjusting To The Changing Landscape

The results of this survey highlight the importance of sellers adapting to an evolving environment. Recognizing the factors that impact buying decisions and adjusting your tactics accordingly can help you establish connections with your customers and drive business expansion.

Those who can demonstrate trustworthiness, utilize data and technology, effectively prioritize cybersecurity and uphold ethical standards will have an edge.

By keeping up with these trends and continuously refining your approach, you can navigate the complexities of B2B transactions. Emerge as an ally in the eyes of your clients.

Forbes Business Development Council is an invitation-only community for sales and biz dev executives. Do I qualify?

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Ethical marketing in the digital age: Strategies, challenges, tools and trends

by Divashree | Jun 24, 2024 | Marketing , Public Relations

Law Compliance, Company Policy And Rules Document, Legal Regulatory Guide By Tiny People

In the contemporary digital age, ethical marketing is an imperative aspect of brand identity and consumer engagement. Ethical marketing refers to conducting business operations and promotional activities while upholding morality, transparency, and social responsibility principles. As the digital landscape evolves, so do the ethical considerations in marketing strategies , necessitating a deep understanding of the intersection between commerce and ethical behavior.

Ethical marketing establishes a harmonious relationship between businesses and consumers by prioritizing honesty, fairness, and respect in advertising, data usage, and customer interactions. This approach resonates with the growing societal expectations for brands to deliver quality products or services and demonstrate ethical accountability throughout their marketing endeavors.

Amidst the proliferation of data-driven marketing and influencer culture , ethical marketing has gained prominence, demanding that brands reassess their practices in alignment with ethical principles. This introduction sets the stage for a critical exploration of the evolving landscape where marketing ethics in the digital realm serve as a guiding force for sustainable, trustworthy, and consumer-centric business practices.

Image Source

Ethical issues in digital marketing

In the contemporary digital landscape, several ethical concerns have surfaced, shaping the discourse around marketing practices:

Consumer data privacy concerns : Data collection, usage, and protection present a prominent ethical dilemma. Marketers, especially in white label digital marketing , often access vast amounts of personal information, raising concerns about consent, transparency, and the responsible handling of data. Issues surrounding data breaches and unauthorized data sharing further amplify these concerns.
Transparency in advertising and sponsored content : The blurring lines between genuine content and paid promotions challenge the authenticity of digital marketing. Consumers can feel misled when advertisements are disguised as organic content. This lack of transparency erodes trust and raises ethical questions about disclosing sponsored content and influencers’ endorsements.
Impact of influencer marketing on authenticity and trust : Influencer marketing’s rapid growth introduces authenticity challenges. Fake followers, undisclosed sponsorships, and misrepresented endorsements compromise the credibility of influencer-driven promotions. Ethical concerns arise regarding the authenticity and honesty of the recommendations and the influencer’s responsibility towards their audience.

Addressing these ethical issues necessitates transparent communication, ethical data practices, and a commitment to fostering trust and authenticity in digital marketing efforts.

Importance of ethical marketing practices

The significance of ethical marketing practices in the contemporary digital landscape is pivotal for multiple reasons:

Building trust and credibility : Ethical marketing establishes trust between brands and consumers. When companies uphold ethical standards, it fosters credibility, encouraging consumers to believe in the brand’s values and promises.
Long-term brand reputation : Ethical marketing initiatives significantly shape a positive brand reputation. Brands that consistently demonstrate ethical behavior tend to create lasting customer relationships , increasing loyalty and positive word-of-mouth marketing .

By leveraging white label marketing services , brands can enhance these efforts, ensuring that their ethical practices are consistently and expertly communicated, reinforcing trust and transparency in every customer interaction.

Meeting societal expectations : In an era where consumers are more socially conscious, ethical marketing aligns with societal expectations. Consumers prefer supporting businesses that exhibit responsible practices, contributing to social causes, and maintaining transparency.
Adherence to regulatory demands : Ethical marketing ensures compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, mitigating risks associated with legal issues or fines due to unethical practices.

Divashree from SAASY LINKS states, “Overall, ethical marketing practices not only serve the immediate needs of a brand but also contribute to its sustained growth, fostering enduring relationships with consumers and positioning the brand as a responsible and trustworthy entity in the digital marketplace.”

For instance, partnering with a reputable SEO agency can ensure that your online marketing strategies are effective and ethical. Such partnerships help maintain transparency, enhance customer trust, and ensure compliance with search engine guidelines, ultimately contributing to your brand’s long-term success and credibility.

In the same vein, collaborating with a digital marketing coach who specializes in ethical marketing can provide valuable guidance and support in crafting marketing campaigns that are not only high-performing but also adhere to the highest ethical standards.

Principles of ethical marketing in the digital age

In the digital age, ethical marketing revolves around several key principles essential for maintaining trust and credibility with consumers:

Transparency is a foundational element , emphasizing open and honest communication. Brands must disclose information about data usage, sponsored content, and product claims to ensure clarity in all interactions.
Respect for consumer privacy and data protection is paramount . It involves responsibly handling user data, obtaining explicit consent, and safeguarding information from unauthorized access or misuse.

Authenticity and truthfulness in content creation are vital . Brands should learn how to find keywords but need to focus on genuine storytelling and avoid deceptive tactics or false representations. Authenticity fosters genuine connections with audiences, nurturing trust and long-term relationships.
Balancing profit motives with ethical responsibilities is crucial . Companies must prioritize ethical practices while pursuing profitability, ensuring that marketing efforts uphold moral standards and societal values.

These principles serve as guiding pillars, enabling businesses to navigate the complexities of the digital landscape while demonstrating a commitment to ethical conduct, ultimately building stronger connections and credibility with consumers.

Strategies for implementing ethical marketing

Implementing ethical marketing practices involves several key strategies aimed at fostering transparency, trust, and authenticity in brand-consumer relationships:

Clear communication : Brands should prioritize transparent communication about data usage, privacy policies, and the ethical principles guiding their marketing strategies . This involves ensuring consumers understand how their data is collected, used, and protected.
Authentic storytelling : Focusing on genuine and authentic storytelling helps create consumer connections. Brands should communicate their values, mission, and practices honestly, avoiding false narratives.
Partnering with ethical influencers and platforms : Collaborating with influencers and advertising platforms that uphold ethical standards aligned with the brand’s values is crucial. Choosing influencers known for authenticity and credibility enhances trust among their audience and promotes ethical brand representation.

Incorporating these strategies into a comprehensive marketing plan can be a complex endeavor. Therefore, businesses may find it beneficial to hire a digital marketing agency with expertise in ethical marketing to guide and implement these practices effectively.

By adopting these strategies, brands can establish themselves as ethical entities in the digital realm, nurturing lasting relationships with consumers built on trust and integrity.

Challenges in ethical digital marketing

Ethical digital marketing faces a multitude of challenges in the contemporary landscape, presenting hurdles that marketers must navigate adeptly:

Navigating complex data privacy regulations : The evolving nature of data privacy laws, such as GDPR and CCPA, demands meticulous compliance. Marketers encounter challenges interpreting and implementing these regulations across various regions, ensuring transparent data practices while delivering personalized experiences .
Balancing profit motives with ethical responsibilities : Pursuing profitability sometimes contradicts ethical considerations. Companies encounter dilemmas when reconciling the pressure to meet financial targets with the responsibility to uphold ethical standards, risking potential compromises in practices and messaging.
Combatting deceptive practices and misinformation online : The digital sphere is rife with misinformation, fake reviews, and deceptive advertising practices. Marketers confront the challenge of combating these unethical tactics, striving to maintain credibility and trust while competing in a landscape where misleading content can proliferate swiftly.

Addressing these challenges necessitates a proactive approach to integrating ethical principles into marketing strategies, fostering transparency, accountability, and consumer trust in an increasingly digital ecosystem.

Tools and technologies for ethical marketing

In the contemporary digital landscape, several tools and technologies aid in fostering ethical marketing practices:

Ethical data collection platforms : Innovations in data collection emphasize privacy and consent. Tools like privacy-focused analytics platforms enable businesses to gather insights while respecting user privacy. These tools ensure compliance with regulations like GDPR and CCPA.
Blockchain technology : Its decentralized nature ensures transparency and security in transactions. In marketing, blockchain verifies the authenticity of data and ads, preventing fraud and enhancing trust between consumers and brands.
AI-driven monitoring systems : AI-powered tools assist in identifying and mitigating unethical practices online. They analyze patterns to detect potential misinformation, deceptive practices, or unethical behaviors, enabling proactive measures to maintain ethical standards.

These tools empower marketers to handle consumer data ethically and facilitate transparent and authentic communication, aligning businesses with ethical principles in their digital marketing endeavors. Incorporating these technologies fosters trust, accountability, and credibility, which are pivotal in today’s ethical marketing landscape.

Case studies and examples

Ethical marketing in the digital age, real-life instances, and success stories of brands championing ethical marketing practices will be presented to illustrate the impact and effectiveness of such strategies. This could include:

Patagonia’s ethical approach : Detailing Patagonia’s commitment to sustainability, transparent supply chains, and advocacy for environmental causes. This showcases how their ethical stance has positively influenced consumer perception and loyalty.
Dove’s real beauty campaign : This case study examines Dove’s inclusive marketing campaigns, which promote body positivity and challenge beauty stereotypes. It highlights the resonance of ethical messaging in boosting brand engagement.
Airbnb’s inclusive community initiatives : Exploring its efforts to promote diversity and combat discrimination within its community, emphasizing how ethical actions foster trust and inclusivity.
Buffer’s transparent company culture : This section delves into Buffer’s transparent salary formula and open company policies, showcasing how a commitment to transparency can build a loyal customer base and attract top talent.

These examples illustrate how ethical marketing practices translate into tangible benefits, fostering consumer trust, loyalty, and positive brand perception in the digital landscape.

Future trends in ethical marketing

In the coming years, ethical marketing is poised to undergo significant shifts influenced by societal, technological, and regulatory changes:

Regulatory evolution : Anticipate more stringent data protection laws and increased scrutiny on data handling. Businesses will need to adapt to evolving regulations concerning consumer privacy, pushing for greater transparency and stringent compliance.
Ethical AI practices : Integrating AI in business , specifically in marketing, will emphasize the need for ethical AI practices. Organizations will focus on developing AI systems that prioritize fairness, transparency, and accountability, ensuring ethical decision-making processes.
Rise of purpose-driven marketing : Consumers increasingly prefer brands aligned with social causes and ethical values. Future trends will surge in purpose-driven marketing, emphasizing sustainability, social responsibility, and ethical business practices.
Ethics in emerging technologies : As newer technologies like augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and metaverse platforms gain prominence, ethical considerations surrounding these technologies will grow. Expect discussions and guidelines on ethical marketing practices within these realms.
Consumer activism and demand for transparency : With heightened awareness, consumers will demand greater transparency in supply chains, environmental impact, and fair labor practices. Brands that proactively address these concerns will gain favor among conscientious consumers.

The future of ethical marketing lies in a landscape shaped by heightened regulations, technological advancements, consumer-driven demands for transparency, and an emphasis on purpose-driven values, steering the marketing landscape toward more responsible and ethical practices.

Ethical marketing is the cornerstone of sustainable business success in today’s digitally-driven landscape. Its importance lies not only in fostering consumer trust but also in establishing long-term brand credibility. By embracing transparency, respecting consumer privacy, and championing authenticity, businesses can forge lasting connections with their audience.

The call to action is clear: prioritize ethical marketing practices. Beyond compliance with regulations, ethical marketing aligns brands with societal values, nurturing relationships built on honesty and integrity. As technology advances, the role of ethics in marketing becomes even more critical. Businesses must strive to integrate ethical considerations into every digital strategy and innovation, utilizing tools and technologies that prioritize consumer welfare and data privacy.

Ultimately, the future of marketing hinges on ethical conduct. Brands championing ethical principles in the digital realm earn consumer loyalty and contribute positively to a more responsible and trustworthy digital ecosystem. Prioritizing ethical marketing practices now paves the way for enduring success and a more ethical digital landscape.

THIS MONTH'S WEBINAR

Your privacy & cookies.

COMMENTS

What Are Business Ethics & Their Importance?
Business ethics are principles that guide decision-making. As a leader, you'll face many challenges in the workplace because of different interpretations of what's ethical. Situations often require navigating the "gray area," where it's unclear what's right and wrong. When making decisions, your experiences, opinions, and perspectives ...
What Is Business Ethics? Definition, Principles, and Importance
Business ethics is the study of proper business policies and practices regarding potentially controversial issues, such as corporate governance , insider trading , bribery, discrimination ...
15 Ethical Principles in Business (With Definitions)
Here is a list of 15 basic ethical principles in business you can apply in the workplace: 1. Honesty. Honesty requires a commitment to telling the truth, regardless of the consequences. It encourages trust among colleagues and between a business and the public. Everyone in an organization benefits from honesty.
Business Ethics and Its Importance Today Essay (Critical Writing)
Business ethics is the branch of ethics that deals with the application of ethical principles to make the right business decisions (Smith, Palazzo, & Bhattacharya, 2010). It involves differentiating between right and wrong to make the right business decisions. Business ethics enables organizations to maximize profits while minimizing the ...
Why Are Business Ethics Important? A Guide
Key Takeaways. Business ethics involve a guiding standard for values, behaviors, and decision-making. Ethics for business have changed over time but they're important for every company. Running a ...
What Are Business Ethics and Their Importance
Business ethics refers to the set of principles and standards that guide the conduct of individuals and organizations in the business world. It involves making decisions based on moral values and principles rather than solely on legal obligations. While legal requirements establish the minimum standards of behavior, business ethics extends ...
Student's Guide to Writing Critical Essays in Business Ethics (and
Knowing how to write critical essays in Business Ethics is an important element of success. I enjoyed reading through these helpful tips. This is useful information that will help in college and beyond. Supporting evidence is an important part of writing a sound paper. Like you mentioned in the blog, it can't be based on bias or ignorance.
Ethical Theories in Business Ethics: A Critical Review
Abstract. Numerous ethical theories have been proposed as a foundation of business ethics, and this often brings about appreciable perplexity. This article seeks to identify specific problems for a sound foundation of this discipline. A first problem is this multiplicity of ethical theories, each with its own metaethics, often accepted without ...
Business Ethics
Exchange is fundamental to business. 'Business' can mean an activity of exchange. One entity (e.g., a person, a firm) "does business" with another when it exchanges a good or service for valuable consideration, i.e., a benefit such as money. 'Business' can also mean an entity that offers goods and services for exchange, i.e., that ...
5: Ethical Considerations in Business Writing
An ethical infraction is a decision that results in an ethical and moral breach. In business, the following breaches pertain to business writing and communication. Infraction. Definition. Defamation. Causing harm to one's reputation or character by communication false and malicious information.
How to Use Ethical Principles in Business Writing
Integrity in Business Writing. As an ethical principle in business writing, integrity is shown when the writer is both trustworthy and reliable. The truth is always told and follow-up is routine. Example: After a change in payroll services, many employees have experienced errors in compensation and benefit deductions.
Ethical Research in Business Ethics
In this editorial essay, we argue that business ethics research should be aware of the ethical implications of its own methodological choices, and that these implications include, but go beyond, mere compliance with standardized ethical norms. Methodological choices should be made specifically with reference to their effects on the world, both within and outside the academy. Awareness of these ...
Business ethics and corporate social responsibility
Introduction to business ethics and CSR. When it comes to business ethics, honesty, fairness, and accountability are all important. Business ethics encompasses the moral principles and values that guide organizational behavior and decision-making. On the other hand, CSR refers to a company's commitment to operating ethically and responsibly.
Importance of Ethics in Business
Importance of Ethics in Business Essay. Ethics is important in business because it regulates the behavior of people. Ethics provide guidelines for people to avoid mistakes, while they are thinking that they are doing the right thing. In this case study, the manager of a renowned chemical manufacturing company in North America has been ...
Ethical Principles in Business
Moral Sensitivity. One of the components of moral behaviour is moral sensitivity: the ability to detect an ethical problem, including how one's actions will influence other people. This principle takes its roots from Kantian's ethics and deontology and presupposes, giving priority to moral duties rather than results (Thomas, 2015). In Brook ...
How to Write an Ethics Essay: Guide & Paper Examples
An ethics essay is a type of academic writing that explores ethical issues and dilemmas. Students should evaluates them in terms of moral principles and values. The purpose of an ethics essay is to examine the moral implications of a particular issue, and provide a reasoned argument in support of an ethical perspective.
Business Ethics Essay (A+ Business Essay Example)
Introduction. Business ethics or corporate ethics is a form of moral ethics that examines the conduct of people and individuals in a business set up (Weiss, 2014). These norms are the key guidelines to the way things are done in individual and communal businesses, and it helps in improving the relationship of the business with its stakeholders.
An Introduction To Business Ethics
Introduction to Business Ethics. Business ethics set the standard for how your business is conducted. Ethical principles provide the foundations for various modern concepts for work, business and organisations, which broaden individual and corporate priorities far beyond traditional business aims of profit and shareholder enrichment.
Applying Ethical Principles: [Essay Example], 457 words
Ethical principles serve as fundamental guidelines that help individuals and organizations navigate moral decision-making. Rooted in moral philosophy, these principles are designed to promote fairness, justice, and human welfare. Common ethical principles include utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing overall happiness or utility ...
PDF CHAPTER 1 PRINCIPLES OF BUSINESS ETHICS
Ethics form the foundation for international economic activities. Ethical guidelines are essential in making business decisions. Business professionals have responsibilities to make decisions based upon ethical principles. In the 21st century, the role of ethics in international business transactions and interactions will receive more attention.
Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility in Business
Ethics and CSR are key components of success in the contemporary business environment. Ethics comprise moral principles that govern how businesses operate while CSR refers to a set of policies, programs, and practices that go beyond profit maximization to improving the welfare of society. These concepts are beneficial to organizations because ...
Ethical Practice in Business Environment
Get a custom Essay on Ethical Practice in Business Environment. 808 writers online . Learn More . ... As relates to business, ethics are moral principles which prescribe what is legitimate behavior in varied business dealings (Chryssides and Kaler 3). This paper shall analyze the ethical issues that surround the closing of the Wellness Village spa.
Ethical Principles In Business Essay
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN BUSINESS. Human rights are fundamental privileges and freedoms that everyone is entitled to irrespective of their sex, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, and race. In the case of China workers and the American workers, the rights given to them differ in many ways. According to John Sweeny, American workers ...
Module 13: Ethics in Business
Describe the influences on an employee's ethical choices; Describe practical steps that managers should take to model ethical behavior and encourage ethical choices; Explain corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its relationship to economic performance; Understand the application of ethics to business decisions
Thriving Amid Uncertain Circumstances: Factors Influencing B2B ...
A key insight from the survey is the impact of supply chain disruptions. Sectors like manufacturing and logistics have felt this impact intensely, leading companies to reassess their procurement ...
Ethical marketing in the digital age: Strategies, challenges, tools and
Ethical marketing refers to conducting business operations and promotional activities while upholding morality, transparency, and social responsibility principles. As the digital landscape evolves, so do the ethical considerations in marketing strategies , necessitating a deep understanding of the intersection between commerce and ethical behavior.

Business Insights

What Are Business Ethics & Why Are They Important?

What Are Business Ethics?

Ethical Responsibilities to Society

Ethical Responsibilities to Customers

Ethical Responsibilities to Employees

Why Are Business Ethics Important?

How to Implement Business Ethics

Become a More Ethical Leader

About the Author

Ethics in Leadership

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways

Impact of Bad Behavior

Ethics Concerning Clients

Ethics Concerning the Environment

Ethics Concerning Privacy

What Is Meant by Business Ethics?

How Do Business Ethics Benefit Companies?

Why Do Some Companies Have Bad Business Ethics?

What Are Business Ethics and Their Importance

Manaferra Content

The Definition Business Ethics

Why Are Business Ethics Important?

Ethical Principles

Responsibility

Benefits of Practicing Business Ethics

Ethical practices enhance employee morale

Ethical practices improve innovation and creativity

Challenges in Upholding Business Ethics

Pressure for short-term financial results

Interested in pursuing a degree?

Message Received!

Complexities of the global business environment

Balancing stakeholder interests

Fostering an Ethical Business Environment

The bottom line

Frequently Asked Questions

What are examples of ethical practices in business?

How do business ethics vary across countries?

Share it with your friends!

Accounting vs. Finance Degree: Which Major to Choose?

12 Important Bookkeeping Skills You Need for a Successful Career

What Are the Best Study Techniques You Should Try?

Top 10 Types of Assessment of Learning

How Long Is a College Semester?

Characteristics of Visual Learners

Chat with an Admissions Officer Now!

QUICK LINKS

Request More Information

Business Ethics Journal Review

Student’s Guide to Writing Critical Essays in Business Ethics (and beyond)

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Peer-Reviewed Business Ethics Journals (not an exhaustive list!)

BEJR is published by

Bibliography

Business Ethics

1. Varieties of business ethics

3. The ends and means of corporate governance

5. Firms and consumers

6. Firms and workers

7. The firm in society

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

How to Use Ethical Principles in Business Writing

What Are Ethical Principles?

How Do Ethical Principles Apply to Business Writing?

Accountability in Business Writing

Compassion in Business Writing

Fairness in Business Writing

Honesty in Business Writing

Integrity in Business Writing

Loyalty in Business Writing

Respect in Business Writing

Transparency in Business Writing

Consequences of Unethical Writing and Communication

Unethical Sourcing

Ethical Violations/Infractions

Become a Leader in Ethical Principles