Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Worldwide Academic Field of Business Ethics: Scholars’ Perceptions of the Most Important Issues

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We conducted an international survey of 211 scholars with expertise in business ethics. Each respondent was asked to identify the three most important issues that business ethics academia will face in the coming decade. Using content analytic procedures, responses were categorized and analyzed for commonalities. The results suggest that the most important issues facing business ethics academia in the future will be the following: (1) issues relating to business ethics education such as curriculum, pedagogy, faculty, and accreditation (2) the credibility of the business ethics field, (3) environmental issues, (4) issues relating to business ethics research such as research tools and quality of business ethics research (5) the decline of ethical behavior in society and organizations, (6) corporate social responsibility (CSR), (7) globalization, and (8) the institutionalization of ethics into business. We maintain that these issues have important teaching and research implications for the future sustainability of the business ethics discipline.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to note that while we asked each respondent to list the three most important issues that business ethics academia will face in the coming decade, some participants only listed one or two issues. Consequently, we received a total of 559 issues instead of the expected 633 issues from the 211 participants (i.e., 3 x 211 = 633).

References

  • Albrecht, C., Thompson, J. A., Hoopes, J. L., & Rodrigo, P. (2010). Business ethics journal rankings as perceived by business ethics scholars. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, C., Warnick, B., Stephens, N., & Rodrigo, P. (2012). Leadings scholars in business ethics research. INNOVAR (forthcoming).

  • Alexander, J. C., & Mabry, R. H. (1994). Relative significant of journals, authors, and articles cited in financial research. Journal of Finance, 49, 697–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2012). Ethics/Sustainability Resource Center. Accessed: October 27, 2011, from http://www.aacsb.edu/resources/ethics-sustainability/relatedstandards.asp.

  • Baker, S. D., & Comer, D. R. (2012). Business ethics everywhere: An experiential exercise to develop students’ ability to identify and respond to ethical issues in business. Journal of Management Education, 36, 95–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beltramini, R. F., Peterson, R. A., & Kozmetsky, G. (1984). Concerns of college students regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R. A. (2004). Suggestions for providing legitimacy to ethics research. Issues in Accounting Education, 19, 145–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. E. (2000). Business ethics, philosophy, and the next 25 years. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busentiz, L. W., West, G. P., I. I. I., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29, 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2000). Ethical challenges for business in the new millennium: Corporate social responsibility and models of management morality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (2004). Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conn, C. E. (2008). Integrating writing skills and ethics training in business communication pedagogy: A resume case study exemplar. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 138–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowton, C. J. (1998). The use of secondary data in business ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, F. G. (2004). The teaching of business ethics: An imperative at business schools. The Journal of Education for Business, 79, 149–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De George, R. T. (1987). The status of business ethics: Past and future. The Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DesJardins, J. R., & Diedrich, E. (2003). Learning what it really costs: Teaching business ethics with life-cycle case studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2006). An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research. Journal of Service Research, 8, 346–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (2003). Edidtor’s comments: ‘Taking ethics seriously—A mission now more possible’. Academy of Management Review, 28, 363–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, D., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrate social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, G. (1996a). Towards business ethics as an academic discipline. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, G. (1996b). A comparison of business Ethics IN North America and continental Europe. Business Ethics: A European Review, 5, 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, G. (1997). A worldwide survey of business ethics in the 1990s. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1475–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Stewart, L., & Moriarty, B. (2009). Teaching business ethics in the age of Madoff. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41, 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. (2010). Turning values into action. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8, 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. (2011). A faculty forum on Giving voice to values: Faculty perspectives on the uses of this pedagogy and curriculum for values-driven leadership. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 8, 305–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, R. J. (1987). Teaching business ethics: Is there a gap between rhetoric and reality? Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 513–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, A. (2000). Moral decision making in business: A phase-model. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10, 773–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L., & Balkin, D. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., Kolk, A., & Winn, M. (2010). A new future for business? Rethinking management theory and business strategy. Business and Society, 49, 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, H. (2001). Content analysis of secondary data: A study of courage in managerial decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, H. (2008). Promoting ethical reflection in the teaching of business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsapple, C. W., Johnson, L. E., Manakyan, H., & Tanner, J. (1993). A citation analysis of business computing research journals. Information and Management, 25, 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, T. P., & Nikolai, L. A. (1983). Attitude measurement and perceptions of accounting faculty publication outlets. The Accounting Review, 58, 765–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2008). Interesting problems and interesting research: A path to effective exchanges between managers and scholars. Business Horizons, 51, 65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H. (2006). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Gautschi, F. H. (1988). Will the ethics of business change? A survey of future executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 231–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Toward an agenda for business ethics research. Academy of Management Review, 15, 311–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karami, A., Rowley, J., & Analoui, F. (2006). Research and knowledge building in management studies: An analysis of methodological preferences. International Journal of Management, 23, 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehn, D. (2005). Transforming our Students: Teaching business ethics post-Enron. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C. L. L. (2010). A step forward: Ethics education matters! Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 565–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liedekerke, L. V., & Demuijnck, G. (2011). Business ethics as a field of training, teaching, and research in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liedekerke, V. L., & Dubbink, W. (2008). Twenty years of European business ethics—Past developments and future concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, J. M. (1996). Ethics and management: A controversial issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Z. (2009). the status of contemporary business ethics research: Present and future. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2009). Business leaders as citizens of the world. Advancing humanism on a global scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, I. (1989). Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 391–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marrewijk, M. V. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, G. M., & Donleavy, G. D. (1995). Objections to the teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 839–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D. M., & Gibson, A. M. (1990). Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, B. A. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossouw, G. J. (2002). Three approaches to teaching business ethics. Teaching Business Ethics, 6, 411–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salzmann, O., Lonescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23, 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47, 148–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Business ethics curriculum design: Suggestions and illustrations. Teaching Business Ethics, 7, 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. R., & Felton, E. L., Jr. (2006). Designing and delivering business ethics teaching and learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. V., Tucker, S. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. J. (2007). Institutionalization of ethics and its consequences: A survey of marketing professionals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 284–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. J., & Rutherfoord, R. (2003). Small business and empirical perspectives in business ethics: Editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Organizations and social structure. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 153–193). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation (pp. 1–159. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

  • The European Academy of Business in Society (EABIS). (2012). Education and learning. Accessed March 25, 2012, from http://www.eabis.org.

  • Theoharakis, V., & Hirst, A. (2002). Perceptual differences of marketing journals: A worldwide perspective. Marketing Letters, 13, 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C., I. I. I. (2007). Research and relevance: Implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for doctoral programs and faculty development. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 769–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokurka, R. J. (1996). The relative importance of journals used in operations management research: A citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 14, 345–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wankel, C., & Stachowicz-Stanusch, A. (2011). Handbook of research on teaching ethics in business and management education (pp. 1–750). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

  • Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of business ethics instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: Review, critical assessment, and recommendations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., & Derry, R. (1996). An evaluation of journal quality: The perspective of business ethics researchers. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. D., & Dewett, R. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wines, W. A. (2008). Seven pillars of business ethics: Toward a comprehensive framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, 3555 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Daniel Holland & Chad Albrecht

Authors
  1. Daniel Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chad Albrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chad Albrecht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holland, D., Albrecht, C. The Worldwide Academic Field of Business Ethics: Scholars’ Perceptions of the Most Important Issues. J Bus Ethics 117, 777–788 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1718-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1718-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation