business ethics for research paper

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on May 9, 2024.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, May 09). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• < Back to search results
• Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility

• Get access Buy a print copy Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register

This Book has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar
• Edited by Patricia H. Werhane , DePaul University, Chicago , R. Edward Freeman , University of Virginia , Sergiy Dmytriyev , University of Virginia
• Export citation
• Buy a print copy

Book description

While there is a large and ever-expanding body of work on the fields of business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR), there is a noted absence of a single source on the methodology and research approaches to these fields. In this book, the first of its kind, leading scholars in the fields gather to analyse a range of philosophical and empirical approaches to research in business ethics and CSR. It covers such sections as historical approaches, normative and behavioural methodologies, quantitative, qualitative and experimental perspectives, grounded theory and case methodologies, and finally a section on the role of the researcher in research projects. This book is a valuable and essential read for all researchers in business ethics and CSR, not only for those starting out in the fields, but also for seasoned scholars and academics.

'This Handbook provides a much-needed holistic overview of the various research methods available to business ethicists. The book’s focus on methods tailored to the normative character of the business ethics discipline makes it especially valuable. New and established ethics scholars alike will appreciate the Handbook’s comprehensiveness.'

Daryl Koehn - Wicklander Chair in Professional Ethics, DePaul Univeristy, Chicago

'This Handbook almost makes me wish I were back at the beginning of my career and had the advantage of this wonderful smorgasbord of research approaches to business ethics and corporate responsibility in one place. Happily, it is never too late to register the value of the range of possible methodologies represented here. Read, and be inspired.'

Laura J. Spence - Royal Holloway, University of London

'Business ethics researchers with a favored methodology and those still searching for one will find much in this broad ranging and urgently needed volume to stimulate their thinking and perhaps challenge their assumptions about the best ways to approach topics in this expanding field of scholarship.'

John R. Boatright - Raymond C. Baumhart, SJ, Professor of Business Ethics Emeritus, Loyola University, Chicago

'Contemporary business ethics scholarship is a multidisciplinary field of inquiry, one that includes normative scholarship, conceptual scholarship, and descriptive social science scholarship. Because of its multidisciplinary nature, it can be challenging for younger scholars and those new to the field to produce contributions that are both theoretically sophisticated and methodologically rigorous. Werhane, Freeman, and Dmytriyev have made a significant contribution to the field by compiling authoritative essays on many of the most significant methods used in business ethics scholarship. The Handbook should be of particular value for doctoral education and as a resource for emerging scholars.'

Denis G. Arnold - Jule and Marguerite Surtman Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina, Charlotte

'Reading this book is the closest thing I can imagine to actually taking an intensive doctoral seminar with Professors Werhane and Freeman - two of the most important founding figures in business ethics - while seated beside Mr Dmytriyev and some other current and past students, among several additional and knowledgeable guests who are also important voices in the field.'

Christopher Michaelson - David A. and Barbara Koch Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics and Social Responsibility, Associate Professor, Ethics and Business Law, University of St Thomas

'This book represents a contribution to the field of business ethics that is long overdue. The compilation of research methods that are available for business ethics scholars is both comprehensive and current. It underlines that methodology is a relevant tool for answering critical moral questions business ethics scholars should pursue. It should be a resource on every business ethics scholar’s desk.'

Dawn R. Elm - David A. and Barbara Koch Distinguished Professor of Business Ethics and Leadership, Executive Director, Society for Business Ethics, University of St. Thomas

• Aa Reduce text
• Aa Enlarge text

Refine List

Actions for selected content:.

• View selected items
• Save to my bookmarks
• Export citations
• Download PDF (zip)
• Save to Kindle
• Save to Dropbox
• Save to Google Drive

Save content to

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .

To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Page 1 of 2

• « Prev
• Next »

Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility pp i-ii

• Get access Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register

Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility - Title page pp iii-iii

Copyright page pp iv-iv, contents pp v-vii, figures pp viii-viii, tables pp ix-ix, contributors pp x-xiv, introduction pp 1-8.

• By Patricia H. Werhane , R. Edward Freeman , Sergiy Dmytriyev

Part I - Philosophical Approaches pp 9-86

Historical approaches pp 11-49, chapter 1 - the use of historical figures as a research approach pp 12-24.

• You have access Access

Chapter 2 - History as Methodology in Business Ethics pp 25-35

• Lessons from Aristotle
• By Edwin M. Hartman

Chapter 3 - The Role of Continental Philosophy in Business Ethics Research pp 36-49

• By Mollie Painter-Morland

Normative Approaches pp 50-50

Chapter 4 - research in normative business ethics pp 51-68.

• A Coherence Approach
• By Richard T. De George

Chapter 5 - The Universalist Approach and Kant in Business Ethics pp 69-86

• By Norman E. Bowie

Part II - Empirical Approaches pp 87-246

Qualitative approaches pp 89-153, chapter 6 - normative assessments in empirical business ethics research pp 90-105.

• Toward a Methodological Bridge across the Ontological Gap
• By Sarah M. Jastram , Damian Bäumlisberger

Chapter 7 - Descriptive Ethics pp 106-126

• A Neglected Methodological Domain in Business and Applied Ethics
• By Wesley Cragg

Chapter 8 - Grounded Theory in Business Ethics pp 127-137

• By David Bevan , Angelo Carlo S. Carrascoso

Chapter 9 - Discourse Analysis as a Method for Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Research pp 138-153

• By Anna Heikkinen , Johanna Kujala , Matias Laine , Hannele Mäkelä

Quantitative and Experimental Approaches pp 154-189

Chapter 10 - quantitative content analysis as a method for business ethics research pp 155-171.

• By Irina Lock , Peter Seele

Chapter 11 - Experiments in Business Ethics pp 172-189

• By Helet Botha

Contemporary Approaches pp 190-209

Chapter 12 - mixed methodologies, full-cycle research, and the shortcomings of behavioral ethics pp 191-198.

• By Scott Sonenshein , Katherine DeCelles

Chapter 13 - Applying Neuroscience to Business Ethics pp 199-209

• By Filomena Sabatella , M. Pless Nicola , Thomas Maak

Case Study Approaches pp 210-210

Chapter 14 - wide reflective equilibrium as a case-based research approach to business ethics pp 211-220.

• By Patricia H. Werhane

Full text views

Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views for chapters in this book.

Book summary page views

Book summary views reflect the number of visits to the book and chapter landing pages.

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Building an Ethical Company

• Isaac H. Smith
• Maryam Kouchaki

Just as people can develop skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more or less ethical. Yet many organizations limit ethics training to the onboarding process. If they do address it thereafter, it may be only by establishing codes of conduct or whistleblower hotlines. Such steps may curb specific infractions, but they don’t necessarily help employees develop as ethical people.

Drawing on evidence from hundreds of research studies, the authors offer a framework for helping workers build moral character. Managers can provide experiential training in ethical dilemmas. They can foster psychological safety when minor lapses occur, conduct pre- and postmortems for initiatives with ethical components, and create a culture of service by encouraging volunteer work and mentoring in ethics.

Create an organization that helps employees behave more honorably.

Idea in Brief

The opportunity.

Just as people entering the workforce can develop job-related skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more ethical as well.

Why It’s Often Missed

Many organizations relegate ethics training to the onboarding process, perhaps also issuing codes of conduct and establishing whistleblower hotlines. Such steps may curb specific unethical acts but don’t necessarily help workers grow as moral people.

How to Capitalize on It

Managers can provide experiential training in ethical dilemmas, foster psychological safety when (minor) lapses occur, conduct pre- and postmortems for initiatives with ethical components, and create a culture of service by encouraging volunteer work and mentoring in ethics.

People don’t enter the workforce with a fixed moral character. Just as employees can nurture (or neglect) their skills and abilities over time, they can learn to be more or less ethical. Yet rather than take a long-term view of employees’ moral development, many organizations treat ethics training as a onetime event, often limiting it to the onboarding process. If they do address ethics thereafter, it may be only by espousing codes of conduct or establishing whistleblower hotlines. Such steps may curb specific unethical actions, but they don’t necessarily help employees develop as moral people.

• Isaac H. Smith is an associate professor of organizational behavior and human resources at BYU Marriott School of Business. His research explores the morality and ethics of organizations and the people in them.
• Maryam Kouchaki is a professor of management and organizations at the Kellogg School of Management. Her research explores ethics, morality, and the complexity and challenges of managing ethnic and gender diversity for organizations.

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Business Versus Ethics? Thoughts on the Future of Business Ethics

M. tina dacin.

1 Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON Canada

Jeffrey S. Harrison

2 Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA USA

3 Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA

Sheila Killian

4 Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Julia Roloff

5 Department of Management and Organisation, Rennes School of Business, Rennes, France

To commemorate 40 years since the founding of the Journal of Business Ethics, the editors in chief of the journal have invited the editors to provide commentaries on the future of business ethics. This essay comprises a selection of commentaries aimed at creating dialogue around the theme Business versus Ethics? (inspired by the title of the commentary by Jeffrey Harrison). The authors of these commentaries seek to transcend the age-old separation fallacy (Freeman in Bus Ethics Q 4(4):409–421, 1994) that juxtaposes business and ethics/society, posing a forced choice or trade off. Providing a contemporary take on the classical question “if it’s legal is it ethical?”, David Hess explores the role of the law in promoting or hindering stakeholder-oriented purpose and governance structure. Jeffrey Harrison encourages scholars to move beyond the presupposition that businesses are either strategic or ethical and explore important questions at the intersection of strategy and ethics. The proposition that business models might be inherently ethical or inherently unethical in their design is developed by Sheila Killian, who examines business systems, their morality, and who they serve. However, the conundrum that entrepreneurs are either lauded for their self-belief and risk-taking, or loathed for their self-belief and risk-taking, is discussed by M. Tina Dacin and Julia Roloff using the metaphor of taboos and totems. These commentaries seek to explore positions that advocate multiplicity and tensions in which business ethics is not either/or but both.

The Intersection of Law and Business Ethics

Introduction.

The relationship between law and business ethics has been a core research area across the 40 years of the Journal of Business Ethics. Indeed, the very first issue of the journal asked the question of whether legally allowed bluffing in labor negotiations was ethical (Carson et al., 1982 ). More recent research has flipped that question of “if it’s legal, is it ethical?”, and used Uber’s rideshare expansion strategy—which involved directly violating laws regulating taxicab services—to ask if illegal actions are always unethical (Young, 2019 ). These are two simple illustrations of the numerous ways that law, public policy, and business ethics intersect.

The Journal of Business Ethics encourages researchers to consider how business ethics scholarship informs the goals of the laws that regulate business and our understanding of how to improve individual and organizational compliance with those laws. Due to the constant changes in society, the questions on the role of the law in encouraging ethical business behavior are continuously evolving. For example, technology advancements raise questions of whether and how to update laws that protect the privacy rights of employees and consumers. Likewise, the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions and the operation of autonomous vehicles raises important issues related to employment law and products liability law, respectively. Societal changes leading to an increased attention to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, raises issues of the role of the law in increasing the numbers of those that identify as women, underrepresented minorities, or LBGTQ+, in management and corporate boardrooms.

Corporate Purpose, Environmental and Social Governance, and Business and Human Rights

The purpose of the corporation, which has been an important research issue for the journal, is another key area where law, public policy, and business ethics have intersected. Recently, the debate over corporate purpose has reached a new level of public attention due to the Business Roundtable—an organization made up of CEOs of leading corporations in a wide range of industries—revising its prior statement on corporate purpose to shift from a shareholder maximization view to the adoption of a stakeholder view (Loughran et al., 2022 ). Although this is an important development, skeptics question CEOs’ commitments to the Business Roundtable’s statement. This raises issues of how the law can be structured to hold corporations legally accountable for such commitments. For example, there are questions of whether legislators should adopt a new type of corporation—such as the benefit corporation—as an alternative to the existing shareholder value focused corporation. Likewise, business ethics scholars have considered changes to corporate governance, including stakeholder representatives on boards of directors and altering directors’ fiduciary duties.

Coinciding with the Business Roundtable’s statement, environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues have become a top priority for corporate boards. One survey found ESG was the top issue that shareholders sought to discuss with the board, ahead of both executive compensation and strategy oversight issues (PwC, 2021 ). As shareholders demand more and better information on corporations’ performance on sustainability matters, there are questions of whether there should be mandatory corporate disclosures on ESG matters. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) shows a movement away from voluntary reporting and toward compliance with mandatory standards. As those standards are disclosed and implemented, business ethics scholars must help guide such legislation by examining its effectiveness in changing corporate behavior and identifying necessary reforms. As seen from the existing work on nonfinancial disclosure in the Journal of Business Ethics, this legislative evaluation effort will benefit from the wide range of disciplinary perspectives represented by business ethics scholars.

One key aspect of the “social” factor in ESG is respecting human rights. The field of business and human rights (BHR) did not exist when the Journal of Business Ethics was founded in 1982. This field developed primarily with legal scholars and focused on mandatory obligations and holding corporations accountable for the harm they caused, as opposed to a corporate social responsibility perspective focused on business making voluntary, positive contributions to human rights (Ramasastry, 2015 ). Although there may be a gap between the fields of BHR and CSR, there are opportunities for connection (Ramasastry, 2015 ), especially for research related to the journal’s section on law, public policy, and business ethics.

In the last decade, BHR has rapidly moved from soft law to hard law. The 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) solidified support for business having a responsibility to respect human rights. This support—and perceived lack of corporate commitment to human rights—led to the adoption of legislation on BHR issues in various countries and the formation of a United Nations working group to develop a binding treaty. Included within this discussion of mandatory human rights obligations are considerations of how a “smart mix” of soft law and hard law mechanisms can help “reach beyond the limits of conventional public law” (Buhmann, 2016 , p. 710). In addition to regulatory actions, courts in some jurisdictions are starting to show a willingness to hold corporations liable for the acts of their subsidiaries or supply chain partners in foreign countries, which may further impact business practice (even when the litigation is unsuccessful) (Schrempf-Stirling & Wettstein, 2017 ). As the legal environment surrounding BHR continues to evolve, business ethics scholars can provide valuable guidance on the way forward. The remainder of this commentary will provide a brief overview of recent developments in the law on BHR and provide some illustrations where scholars at the crossroads of law, public policy, and business ethics have provided valuable contributions, which also shows the way for future contributions in this area.

Business Ethics and Business and Human Rights Legislation

Governments have approached BHR legislation in a variety of ways. The scope of the laws either focus on human rights generally or are targeted toward specific issues, such as conflict minerals, modern slavery, or child labor. There are also differences in obligations and potential liabilities; a law may be limited to disclosure requirements, may mandate the undertaking of human rights due diligence (HRDD)—which is a process for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and remediating negative human rights impacts—or may provide for legal liability to victims of human rights abuse. For example, targeted, disclosure only laws include the UK Modern Slavery Act and the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (CTSCA). These laws only require corporations to disclose what actions, if any, they have undertaken to ensure that modern slavery is not present in their supply chains. The Netherlands’ Child Labor Due Diligence Act, on the other hand, requires corporations to conduct due diligence to determine whether there is a reasonable suspicion that child labor was used in the production of the company’s goods and services. If such a finding is made, then the corporation must develop a plan of action to address the issue. France’s Duty of Vigilance law mandates HRDD, disclosure of the vigilance plan, and opens the company up to potential civil liability if inadequate HRDD results in a human rights violation.

Business ethics scholars have already started to examine these laws and propose reforms. The few examples of scholarship discussed here provide inspiration for future research possibilities. For targeted disclosure laws, Birkey et al. ( 2018 ) examined corporations’ public reports under the CTSCA and found that companies comply with the law through mostly symbolic disclosures. Interestingly, although there is much discussion of investors pushing for increased disclosure of ESG information, this study raises the question of whether symbolic compliance is due, in part, to the fact that many investors “interpret increased disclosure as potentially costly in terms of firm value” (Birkey et al., 2018 , p. 837).

Beyond market participants, a disclosure regime relies on non-market actors, such as NGOs, to utilize disclosed information to influence change in corporate behavior. Thus, Islam and Van Staden ( 2022 ) analyzed the effectiveness of modern slavery disclosure laws by interviewing key stakeholders, including anti-slavery NGOs. This research provides insights into the tensions between the ability of such laws to work toward long-term change and their limitations due to regulatory capture by interest groups focused primarily on reducing business risk. In addition, this study, along with others such as Pinnington et al. ( 2022 ), use normativity theory to provide insights into the perceived legitimacy of these disclosure-based regulatory regimes, which calls for additional research into how to enhance their legitimacy. Pinnington et al. ( 2022 ) also open new possible avenues for improving disclosure regimes by examining corporations’ disclosures on their discovery efforts, including corporations’ discussion of the “known unknowns” in their supply chains and how they plan to fill that information gap. Business ethics scholars are also well-positioned to explore how government can improve the regime through “guidance, leadership, training and scrutiny” and not simply the use of coercive power (Pinnington et al., 2022 ). For example, public procurement practices, which focus on the government providing positive incentives, as opposed to using coercive power, are a potentially valuable tool in need of further research (Martin-Ortega, 2018 ).

Turning to HRDD practices, research has examined how firms respond to external pressures, such as regulatory pressures. For example, in the area of conflict minerals, Hoffman et al. ( 2018 , p. 132) find that firms may respond to legislative requirements with a simple risk management approach that avoids addressing the root causes of the problem and does “not tackle major problems related to their business model.” This raises issues of how legislation can encourage and incentivize meaningful corporate responses to mandates. For instance, if corporate liability is based on a corporation failing to adopt adequate HRDD, then regulators or the court system must be able to distinguish adequate from inadequate HRDD. Otherwise, we face the problem of corporations being “focused primarily on documenting a due diligence process to protect itself from blame, while not being primarily concerned that the corporation’s decisions effectively curb business-related human rights abuse...” (Fasterling & Demuijnck, 2013 , p. 807).

In the context of their study, Hoffman et al. ( 2018 , p. 116) stated that “the topic of conflict minerals becomes one of supply chain management rather than of individual companies’ legal or compliance divisions alone.” This comment applies to all research on the problem of human rights violations in supply chains. Future research in business ethics can help bring together legal mandates and management practice to improve the impact of our regulatory regimes. We need an understanding of how organizational members understand human rights responsibilities and are encouraged to comply with relevant company policies.

Many corporations struggle with understanding what it means to respect human rights in their situation. The UNGPs, and some mandatory HRDD laws, cover all internationally recognized human rights. Due to the significant number of recognized human rights that could be impacted by business, businesses struggle with determining their responsibilities. McVey et al. ( 2022 ) examined how managers within the corporation understood human rights and sought to persuade their colleagues to adopt a rights-based perspective. In some cases, this involved discussing human rights in terms of the financial impact to the company or otherwise reframing the topic in a manner that tones down the communication of the human rights abuse. As the authors argue, “the process of making human rights understandable and manageable can change their form and content.”

HRDD laws must specify the scope of a corporation’s responsibility for human rights violations. Researchers have considered the concepts of “spheres of influence” (Macdonald, 2011 ) and the different forms of complicity (Wettstein, 2010 ) in their examination of soft law guidance on this issue. The UNGPs developed new terms—“cause,” “contribute,” and “directly linked”—to determine a corporation’s connection to a negative human rights impact, which then determines the required response. These terms may find their way into mandatory HRDD legislation and they appear in the current draft of the UN BHR treaty. Unfortunately, the UNGPs do not provide clear definitions of those terms. Business ethics scholars can help contribute a real world understanding of the meaning of those terms or suggest alternative approaches.

Finally, as states mandate HRDD through legislation, lawyers will become involved in the compliance process. Business ethics research can help provide an understanding of how that impacts corporate responses. For example, in line with Fasterling and Demuijnck’s ( 2013 ) concerns above, some believe that lawyers will push HRDD in the direction of risk management and a tick-box exercise. Thus, the internal governance of HRDD is important. Past research on compliance and ethics programs, and the governance of corporate sustainability efforts generally, provide a useful starting point (Hess, 2021 ). For example, Radu and Smaili ( 2021 ) have examined the impact of corporate governance measures, such as having a board committee focused on CSR and linking CEO compensation to CSR metrics, on improving the company’s social performance.

The primary goal of this commentary was to use recent developments in the law on business and human rights to show the importance of the integration of law, public policy, and business ethics. Rather than provide an exhaustive look at the issues, it simply used several examples to illustrate how business ethics scholars can provide valuable contributions to understanding the effectiveness of the recent developments in BHR law and propose reforms. Moreover, the hope is to encourage business ethics scholars from any disciplinary background to use their perspectives to help inform law and public policy in their area of interest, including privacy; diversity, equity, and inclusion; artificial intelligence; or any other ethical issue of importance to business.

Strategy Vs. Ethics?

Ethics in strategy.

Businesses create a lot of value for stakeholders and society. They provide goods and services, wages for workers, income for investors, and taxes that help to support community infrastructures and a wide variety of government programs and services. Many firms give generously to charities and provide employees time to engage in community programs. This is a short and incomplete list of sources of value provided by businesses. However, in spite of the value they provide, many people have a negative view of businesses and their leaders, believing that they are inherently corrupt and destructive. This perspective is fuelled by widely disseminated information about corporate misdeeds associated with pollution, greed, discrimination, exploitation of workers, bribery, and so forth. In the age of high-speed internet, an abundance of news sources, and social media, businesses are scrutinized more than they have ever been.

These conflicting perspectives about business create a ready forum for ethical debate regarding business strategies. A business strategy is a discernible pattern of actions through which a firm attempts to achieve its business objectives or, as strategy pioneer Henry Mintzberg ( 1978 ) put it, “a pattern in a stream of decisions” (p. 934). All business strategies have ethical implications because they influence the well-being of stakeholders and society. From a strategy perspective, then, business ethics takes on a practical dimension, exploring the principles and rules through which strategies are formulated and implemented, as well as the outcomes from those strategies on the welfare of a firm’s stakeholders and society at large (Freeman et al., 2010 ).

Hopefully, a business strategy results in the creation of value for most of a firm’s stakeholders. In the optimal situation, some or all stakeholders receive incremental value from the implementation of a new strategy without reducing value for any stakeholder, a situation known as pareto optimality (Jones et al., 2016 ). This should be the primary objective of strategic decision makers. However, strategies can also lead to negative outcomes for some stakeholders or for society, a consequence that should not be ignored. Also, the means through which strategies are implemented may violate widely held ethical rules or moral codes associated with values such as honesty, fairness, equality, responsibility, justice, or freedom. Firms and their managers should “do what is right.” The fact that there may be disagreement about what this means makes studying strategy from an ethical perspective a fascinating subject. Ethical dilemmas, when managers must choose among options with conflicting benefits and costs, or when the values or moral codes of various parties collide, provide fertile ground for studying business strategy formulation and implementation.

Papers that are submitted to the Strategy and Ethics section, whether conceptual or empirical, should be deliberate in how they fit into the business ethics literature. They should not assume that readers will make the connection. One way to link strategic dimensions to ethical dimensions is to use an ethical theory or framework to build the arguments. Applying utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, social justice, social contracts theory, or a religious philosophy can provide an obvious ethical dimension to a paper. Also, conflicting theories like agency theory vs. stewardship theory or shareholder primacy vs. stakeholder theory can enhance arguments about business strategies, although the latter debate has already received so much attention that it might be difficult to make a meaningful incremental contribution to the business ethics literature. Another way to make the connection between strategy and ethics is to draw heavily from the existing business ethics literature, as found in journals such as this one. Simply using a variable that measures corporate social responsibility (CSR) or stakeholder management is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in this section of the journal. An ethics foundation is necessary.

Stakeholder theory has a well-developed connection with strategy formulation and implementation (Bosse & Sutton, 2019 ; Freeman et al., 2010 ), and many submissions attempt to use it to give their papers an ethics flavor. However, simply citing Freeman ( 1984 ), Jones ( 1995 ), or Mitchell et al. ( 1997 ) in support of a particular point is not the same as diving into the intricacies of the theory to create well-constructed arguments (Freeman et al., 2010 ; Harrison et al., 2019 ). A paper that is built on a stakeholder theory foundation should, at a minimum, describe the actual, potential, or intended consequences for stakeholders and/or society beyond simply demonstrating that a firm is able to make more money. Alternatively, a paper that adopts a stakeholder perspective combined with another ethical perspective is even stronger than a paper that relies solely on stakeholder theory. Remember that stakeholder theory qualifies as an ethics-based theory because it is built on normative concepts associated with relationships between firms and stakeholders such as trust, fairness, integrity, and respect. Purely instrumental arguments that the primary purpose of treating stakeholders well is to make more money are not particularly valuable to business ethics scholarship.

The same ideas apply to corporate social responsibility (CSR). A paper that demonstrates how much money a firm can make if it is a responsible corporate citizen (perhaps with a few moderators thrown into the models) is only going to be attractive if it also explores the ethical ramifications of whatever definition of CSR the author is using. This also means that it is vitally important to clearly define the CSR construct and then, if it is an empirical paper, make sure that whatever measures of CSR are used are consistent with that definition. There are far too many papers in the literature already that make use of a comprehensive measure of CSR that is based on a measure created from data provided by a firm that gathers the data for investors and not for business ethics researchers. In many cases, the construct validity of one of these CSR measures has not been established in the academic research literature. Also, many of these measures are based on hundreds of variables that are processed by the data providers in what amounts to a “black box,” and researchers have to assume that the methods used by the data collection firm are valid.

In papers submitted to the section, examples of moral as well as potentially immoral strategies and actions are welcome. Consequently, also of interest is research on the way corruption, greed, deceit, coercion, and the desire for power influence firm strategies, outcomes, and stakeholder responses. In the next section I will highlight some of the papers that have been published in the journal that fit nicely within the strategy and ethics domain.

Examples of Published Articles at the Intersection of Strategy and Ethics

Authors who are submitting a paper to the Journal of Business Ethics decide which section seems to be the best fit for their submission. In most cases, their preference is granted. Selecting a section may sometimes be difficult because a lot of topics can fit into multiple sections. For example, strategy has potential conceptual overlaps with corporate governance, corporate responsibility, corporate sustainability, global issues, leadership, technology and marketing. This being said, I went through Volume 175 of the journal and found six articles that fit within the intersection of strategy and ethics. Three are highlighted here.

One of the most interesting of the six articles is “Stakeholder Engagement, Knowledge Problems, and Ethical Challenges,” by Mitchell et al. ( 2022 ). Stakeholder engagement strategies are of great interest to strategic management scholars and these authors already have well-established reputations in the strategy area. However, the paper is also very strong on the ethics dimension. The authors address several ethical challenges head on in the context of the development and application of genetic modification technologies. Specifically, they examine factors that influence the level to which managers and stakeholders are likely to share a common understanding of either the premises or likely consequences of an action taken by the firm. They not only describe these factors, but they explain how stakeholder engagement can help to overcome problems associated with a lack of common understanding.

Another excellent example is “Losing More than Money: Organizations’ Prosocial Actions Appear Less Authentic When Their Resources are Declining,” by Jago et al. ( 2022 ). This article deals with organizational authenticity in the context of prosocial actions. Prosocial behaviors fit nicely into the definition of strategy as a pattern of decisions made by the firm. Furthermore, authenticity is an important ethical dimension related to honesty and trust.

Finally, a third example of a paper that is interesting to both strategy and business ethics scholars is “Competing Logics in the Islamic Funds Industry: A Market Logic Versus a Religious Logic” by Alotaibi et al. ( 2022 ). Obviously, this paper fits well within the Finance and Business Ethics section, but because it is about the strategies of investment fund managers, it is appealing also to Strategy and Ethics. Strategic Management scholars are very interested in investment funds and the links between those funds and the investors that support them. The paper qualifies in the ethics area because the strategies are screened against religious philosophy found in Islamic scripture and teachings. Also, the paper explores the influence of Islamic teachings on diversification in these funds. Diversification is an important concept in both finance and strategy.

For the benefit of those interested in the other three articles I identified at the intersection of strategy and ethics, they are: “Building Projects on the Local Communities’ Planet, Studying Organizations’ Care-Giving Approaches,” by Derakhshan ( 2022 ); “When Does Corporate Social Responsibility Backfire in Acquisitions? Signal Incongruence and Acquirer Returns,” by Zhang et al. ( 2022 ); and “Effect of CSR and Ethical Practices on Sustainable Competitive Performance: A Case of Emerging Markets from Stakeholder Theory Perspective,” by Waheed and Zhang ( 2022 ). The range of topics found in these articles, and their unique approaches, reflect the breadth of ideas that can contribute to the intersection of strategy and ethics, and to the broader business ethics literature. Examples of some of the topics and research questions that have a lot of potential to move the strategy and ethics topic forward will now be discussed.

Future Research on Strategy and Ethics

This is an exciting time to study the intersection of strategy and ethics. So much is happening in the world that has implications for this intersection. Firms need to develop strategies for dealing with changes in the world stemming from new technologies, social movements and upheavals, global health challenges, supply chain issues, and a wealth of other problems that have gained prominence since the start of the new century. As managers deal with these changes, they will need to be sensitive to the ethical ramifications—that is, how their strategies influence stakeholders and society, as well as how they are likely to influence public opinion and, ultimately, their firms’ reputations. In this light, here are a few research questions that seem important to strategy and ethics:

• How have firm strategies changed in light of social movements associated with diversity and inclusion, and which of these strategies have been the most successful in creating value for firms, their stakeholders, and society? In other words, who are the innovators in this space, and how are their strategies working?
• How have firms dealt with supply chain shortages, and how have these coping strategies influenced the welfare of employees, customers, suppliers, and communities in which they operate? Have their strategies led to unfair advantages or disadvantages to any particular group? Have supply chain challenges led to unethical behavior?
• As firms develop or adopt new technologies associated with artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, big data, alternative energy sources, or global value chains, what are the ethical issues that need to be addressed? How are firms dealing with these issues, and which strategies are more or less successful in terms of protecting stakeholder rights and welfare while also enhancing firm performance?
• What are the strategies that firms use to deal with shocks such as a pandemic or a supply chain disruption caused by a natural disaster (e.g., earthquake, tsunami)? To what extent do these strategies lead to more or less harm to stakeholders and society? Do such shocks lead firms to engage in unethical behaviors or practices? Covid-19 has provided a ready workshop for studying these types of issues.
• How do institutional, political, and/or societal forces influence the strategies that firms use to deal with shocks such as a pandemic or supply chain disruptions? How do these forces vary globally, and how have different international contexts led to different strategies? To what extent do these forces lead to more or less harm to stakeholders and society, or promote unethical behaviors?

In addition to these types of challenges, the way firms are organizing has changed dramatically in recent years. Global value chains are common in many industries, as are platform organizations (businesses that facilitate transactions across a large number of participants, such as eBay), business groups (i.e., Tata Group), and megacorporations (i.e., Apple, Toyota, and Shell). The increasing popularity of these types of organization have come with a whole range of ethical issues associated with responsibility, fairness, trust, privacy and transparency.

From a strategic perspective, there is already a well-developed literature on the extent to which a firm is responsible for the actions of other actors in its global supply chain (i.e., sweatshops and child labor), and also on how firms cope with cultural differences that promote behaviors such as bribery or lying in their international operations. More research is needed on how a firm’s global value chain strategies influence the welfare of its stakeholders, and whether particular strategies are more prone to ethical dilemmas than others (and how to overcome them without stifling performance). How can firms devise strategies to deal effectively with resistance to globalization (i.e., tariffs, social movements) and how can firms use their strategies to help reduce economic inequality in the nations in which they operate?

Platform organizations and business groups, because their control structures are at least somewhat distributed, offer excellent potential for studying business ethics. The ethical issues associated with these types of structures need to be clearly identified, along with how firms deal with these issues effectively in their policies and strategies. It would be helpful to find out what has worked and what has not, in terms of improving the welfare of and/or harming particular stakeholders. Of course, megacorporations continue to be the subject of ethical debate, and there is still much to do on this topic.

In addition to these research questions that pertain to some of the most important global trends, there are some nagging problems in the strategy and ethics area that have not been adequately addressed:

• Measurement is a big problem, at least in the CSR and stakeholder areas. For example, Choi and Wang ( 2009 ) measured stakeholder relations by drawing data from what is called the KLD database, using variables for employee relations, diversity, community relations, the environment, and product dimensions. Then Wang and Choi ( 2013 ) used these exact same variables from the same database to measure corporate social performance . This is not a criticism of the authors, but rather an example of a huge problem in the field—both of these papers passed through a rigorous review process at a top management journal. Moving forward, we need to make sure that, once we have clearly defined our constructs, we also make sure that there is consistency between the construct and the way it is measured. This principle applies not only to the CSR subject area, but to other topics in business ethics.
• Beyond the big commercial databases whose primary source of income is investors, there is very little publicly available data that researchers can use to examine the value firms create or destroy for stakeholders (e.g., stakeholder welfare). Given that so many of the interesting topics in strategy and ethics pertain to this type of welfare, creation of new databases or even a consistent set of data collection tools would be very beneficial in advancing knowledge in the field.
• The most common dependent variable in empirical studies in strategic management is financial return in the form of profit, shareholder returns or something similar. While profits are important to the ability of a firm to achieve its objectives, including the creation of value for stakeholders, there are infinite possibilities for new studies in this section if researchers spend more of their efforts examining other dependent variables. CSR is sometimes used as a dependent variable, and this is a good step (as long as the construct definition and measures are consistent). Other dependent variables could include community welfare, employee welfare, supplier welfare or customer welfare, just for a start. Some of the big databases that are already in use contain data that may be useful in creating these types of measures. Qualitative methodologies and methods can also be very helpful. The key is to think about the stakeholder and societal value that is created or destroyed as firms implement their strategies (Harrison & Wicks, 2021 ).
• Finally, new theory is sorely needed. Among the most used theories at the intersection of strategy and ethics are stakeholder theory, agency theory, stewardship theory, or salience theory. Scholars also borrow theory from other disciplines to support their arguments, which is good, but where are the new theories that are specific to strategy and ethics?

In summary, the intersection of strategy and ethics offers many opportunities to address some of the problems associated with global changes and challenges. In addition, there are research opportunities for advancing the field through cleaning up some of the remaining conceptual and methodological problems that have impeded research in the area for many years. Of course, the overarching aim of the journal is to develop more of an awareness of ethical issues in business and ways that businesses can become more ethical, and do more good in the world, thus reducing the propensity for people to look at business as clashing with ethical principles—ethical businesses strategies instead of “strategy vs. ethics.”

Toward a Framework to Explore Unethical Business Models

This essay proposes a framework for research that critiques not only the ethical implications of business practice, but also of business models. If there are embedded ethics, there can also be embedded unethicality. If there are social enterprises, surely there are also antisocial ones (a categorization as yet undefined), who by their very business model, promote unsustainability or exacerbate inequality. Beyond the idea of bad apples or even bad barrels, which has been well explored in this journal (the latter implying a flaw in a barrel designed to be “good”) there are business structures hiding in plain sight which by their very design embody and reify unethical practice.

The negative impact of some businesses is clear, particularly if the model is one that operates outside the law. With the proviso that laws vary more widely by jurisdiction than ethics do, and may be subject to political influence, or other cultural factors, illegal activities are often, although by no means always, unethical. The sale of heroin, for instance, and armed robbery are both for-profit enterprises which exist outside the boundaries of legality and therefore of respectability. This makes research on the ethics inherent in their models appear redundant, a waste of scholars’ energy and resources. It appears obvious that these models are unethical because we first see them as illegal. But in fact it is the other way around. The reason that these things are illegal, the trigger for their being sanctioned by law, is that they have been deemed at a particular place and time to be unethical and harmful. Correspondingly, the legalization of formerly criminalized activities reflects a changing understanding of how society should operate. Law is a response to societal understandings of ethics. Therefore, while it offers one option to reveal the kinds of models we, as scholars, might address, it does so at a delay, lagging societal awareness.

Consider activities that have recently been banned. The sale and deployment of cluster bombs, for example, was outlawed in 2010 by the Convention on Cluster Munitions (Oslo Convention) due to their indiscriminate and harmful nature. Prior to that date, they were still harmful, but the law would not have acted as a flag to this effect. Right now, their illegality points toward their unethicality. It is our role as researchers in this field to question business models that are legal, but which have built-in unethicality which may 1 day be banned, or which might deserve such sanction even if it is politically untenable. At the time of writing in early 2022, proposals are under consideration in New Zealand which will effectively, over time, outlaw the sale of cigarettes. Why is the New Zealand government taking this position? Because tobacco is inherently harmful, killing half of its users, according to the World Health Organization. Unlike alcohol, that is harmful with over-consumption, the World Health Organization observes that “there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco” (WHO, 2021 ). The business model for supply of tobacco depends on knowingly selling a product that will harm consumers. It is not that some, or even many, tobacco companies practice unethical behavior. It is the model, the design, that is inherently unethical.

Like tobacco, we know there are other industries, sectors and companies with business models which are (currently) legal yet ripe for analysis, containing elements that are inherently, almost by design, damaging or unsustainable. Can we frame this in terms of ethics, and what would such an approach tell us about business ethics itself? By default, scholars approach ethics in relation to decisions, and when we apply this to business, our perspective can tend toward a micro rather than a macro view. As well as looking at bad practice, bad apples, and bad barrels, the ethicality of business models would be an interesting topic to explore further in this journal.

A desire to do so, as a community of scholars, begs the next question: how do we identify such businesses? Harrison and Wicks ( 2021 ) have written on this topic in the context of stakeholder theory, providing a basis for identifying strategies that might be considered unethical by stakeholders and exploring the response of firms. A complementary approach would be to develop a framework. What we are seeking to identify is not unethical practice on an individual firm basis, or even unethical practice that is widespread but avoidable within particular industries, such as low wages in hospitality, but business models that depend on specific unethical elements. It is common, for instance, for food delivery workers to be poorly paid, but, arguably, the business model does not depend on those low wages. A delivery service could exist which charged more and paid well. However, other business models depend clearly on some harmful or unethical dimension. An example might be the tobacco industry, as noted above, or the provision of essay-cheating services to students. The purpose of this commentary is to explore a framework to identify and examine these.

Toward a Framework of Unethical Business Models

An approach to the question of how to identify unethical business models can be made either deductively or inductively. We might, for instance, locate a pre-existing code that can be used to classify them, or we could inductively explore businesses with significant ethical issues, and attempt to isolate the specific elements on which they rely. Using a code, the law, as we have seen, is somewhat useful ex-post, but overall it is inadequate to the task, being slow to respond, subjective in some ways, insufficient and geographically inconsistent. Another potentially useful rubric might be the criteria applied by ethical investment funds. The ethics of ethical investing have long been scrutinized in this journal, 1 and as the field transitions into ESG metrics and socially responsible investment factors, major issues that emerge are a lack of transparency, and a lack of convergence across the field on how and which criteria should be applied (Widyawati, 2020 ). For these and other reasons, this essay adopts the second of the two possible approaches flagged above, and explores in an inductive way business models that appear fundamentally harmful or unethical, aiming to synthesize a tentative framework for evaluation. Note that the dimensions explored may not, on an individual basis, brand a business model as unethical. In aggregate, however, they may provide a frame by which such business categories could be considered.

The tobacco industry may be seen as an example of a business that causes inherent harm, in its case primarily to the human health of consumers. Even where the tobacco is grown organically and sold on a fair trade basis, with well-remunerated workers and a supply chain free of exploitation, the sale of the product itself is always, even at low levels of consumption, damaging. Inherent harm, as a dimension of unethical business models, could also apply beyond consumers. Some forms of mineral exploration, for instance, may cause irreparable harm to the environment. A business that requires such approaches, especially if the exploration is not strictly necessary, may be given a high score on the dimension of harm.

Another dimension may be dependence. Some for-profit models are built on the foundation of locking consumers or suppliers in to future purchases. For example, newer Apple products which do not have a standard headphone port require users to either buy an adaptor, or to depend on the company to supply such accessories. A related element is built-in redundancy, or a lack of backwards compatibility. In gaming, for instance, some new games require upgrading of the hardware needed to play them, and in some cases the newer consoles will not support older games. Another example is phone batteries designed to degrade after a certain length of time, or digital cameras which become redundant even while functional when there is no longer software available to link to newer computer operating systems. Practices of creating dependency create moral hazard for the design of entire business models built on this behavior.

Another element is facilitating or encouraging unethical behavior on the part of others. Essay-writing services for students are an example, or those parts of the dark web that depend on platforming racist groups. A fourth dimension might be appropriation: privatization or theft of common resources like water supplies, radical overfishing, the patenting of genetic material, or, spectacularly, the February 2020 call by the Adam Smith Institute for the privatization of the moon. Deception is also a clearly unethical practice, and some businesses, notably in the field of natural medicine, beauty or diet products, promise far beyond what they can or do deliver. A congruent idea is that of an industry creating a problem for which they are the only solution, as in the case of some “smart food products” or much of the beauty industry.

Another dimension, not unconnected but distinct, is that of predation, or predatory behavior. An example is the selling to vulnerable groups of payday loans which only become profitable if the borrower does not pay on time. The loans are marketed in a disingenuous way, based on early repayment, but the business model depends on default. More indirectly, predation might include the sale of products that promote unrealistic beauty standards to young women in particular.

Exploitation is intrinsic to business models ranging from the use of near-forced labor to parts of the gig economy, or creative outlets that do not pay performers a living wage. Even the language used in the creative industry is revealing: artistic work is now routinely called content, relegating it to something that serves the distribution channels, rather than the other way around.

A Stylized Framework

These seven dimensions, harm, dependence, facilitation, appropriation, deception, predation and exploitation, may act in overlapping ways to support a business model with an unethical core. Such a simple framework would allow researchers to map the dependence of any given business model on each of these dimensions, perhaps with results as shown graphically as in Fig.  1 , below, for four stylized, pro-forma business models labeled A to D.

Framework mapping the ethicality of business models

This initial framework requires refinement in three key ways, and research is invited to explore correlations and redundancies, to add missing elements and dimensions, and, critically, to devise a means of scoring, perhaps based on large datasets.

The Means of Distribution

In applying the framework to business, it may be important to once again step back from examining products and services, to focus on elements of distribution. A central tenet of Marxism, eloquently expressed in W. E. B. DuBois’s posthumous autobiography ( 1968 ) was: “for working people to be free, they must seize control of the means of production .” He was thinking of slavery and forced labor in the cotton fields of the US South, where the invention of the cotton gin had made free labor in plantation fields extremely profitable for the few, but back-breaking and imprisoning for the many. In that pre-globalization context, he correctly saw the planation system as a generator of inequality, and a perpetuator of poverty and slavery. If the people were to be free, control of this means of production needed to be in wider hands. Production was the controlling element of its time. If you looked and asked: “Who are the wealthy? And what have they that the poor do not?” the answer would be factories, mills, mines, farms.

Our current system of financial accounting developed in the service of this old model of capitalism, accounting to the providers of capital on how their investment has been deployed in order to produce something. We assess companies—“account” for their activity in a literal sense—by evaluating the cost of the goods they produce and the revenue they obtain by selling them. Financial accounting developed to account for a commodity-based business—sales, cost of goods sold. Services are accounted for using the same structure, and thus are seen, in a way, as a special class of goods. Through a financial accounting lens, a service company is seen as selling something that is ultimately consumed in the same way as, say, a sandwich, or a widget. Profit is accounted for by taking the revenue from “selling” the service, and subtracting in some sense the cost of this sale. This fundamental idea—that the value generated within companies is linked to what they produce— has shaped our thinking about how business works. It colors how we theorize on how invested capital will be concentrated or distributed or generate value within or outside an organization. It forms the basis of financial accounting and delineates how we think about business ethics and about power, capital, production, value, and inequality. But is there a new element to consider?

Consider The Evergiven . In March of 2021, the unfortunate captain of the container ship, The Evergiven ran aground near the village of Manshiyet Rugola, blocking the Suez Canal. For a week, the world watched efforts to free it on nightly news broadcasts, daily newspapers, and in real time on social media. It was just one ship, run aground in a place most people had never heard of. But it mattered, somehow, to us all. Factories in countries dominated by production open and close all the time, and those of us in the privileged countries dominated by consumption barely notice. But let a ship block up the Suez Canal for a week, and we sit up, our fingers poised over the “Buy Now” button, wondering how this disruption to shipping might affect us, how it might affect our spending.

We now live in a globalized age of networked capitalism and consumerism, where rising inequality and its associated societal damage is driven not just by a few individuals controlling the means of production of valuable goods or services, but by distribution. Amazon destroys millions of items of unsold stock every year. Consider the business model that makes this more profitable for Amazon than selling the items cheaply. They have found a way to make money from the offer of distribution, even if no goods are sold or consumed. When billionaire artists like Beyoncé and JayZ set up Tidal in competition with Spotify, it was clear that, even for superstar producers of music, the money lies in distribution.

More generally, on a basic level, failures of distribution impact disproportionately on the poor. Wealthier people can stockpile a little, or time their spending. Those without a financial buffer are more reliant on getting that fill of fuel when they need and can afford it—they can’t afford to wait. For a starker example, consider the distribution of vaccines in the Covid-19 pandemic, booster vaccines were rolled out widely in countries with good health infrastructure, while many in the global South were still waiting for their first dose, putting their health and their lives at risk.

Perhaps our system of financial accounting, which developed to provide an account to the providers of capital about their commodity-based businesses, is no longer appropriate to this new era. Perhaps it even serves to occlude the means by which an elite can generate private profits without producing any goods. Perhaps we need to reconsider what it means to run a successful business, what it means to be productive in a real sense. Amazon does not need to provide a commodity the world needs, and price it accordingly, to be profitable. It gives us something else we appear to desperately want: instant consumption of everything, 24 h a day, delivered to our homes “for free.” Their model does not need to know or care about the utility of the goods. It simply needs us to want to buy something, anything at all, as the control the channels for an ever-widening range of goods. What they are selling us is consumption itself. The only desire they need to awaken is the desire to purchase. Once that is established, profits accrue to them, the distributor, regardless of whether they accrue to the producers. To an extent, then, they may be facilitating this harmful practice of over-consumption; their model may be predatory in relation to smaller, local suppliers; it may be designed to create dependency—not absolutely, but to some extent that could be scored using the framework above. Applying the framework with a distribution as well as a production lens could therefore be useful.

Of course, there are still production-based problems. Sweatshops persist. The ILO ( 2022 ) estimates about 40 million people are trapped in forced labor, a quarter of whom are children. 2 Neither is it a choice between the merits of production or distribution. Modern modes of production are themselves complex and networked, dependent on interwoven pathways of materials and processes that span the globe. Distribution underpins production. And if we stand and look around, as W. E. B. Dubois may have done, and ask: “Who are the wealthy? What do they have that the poor do not?” we will find ourselves looking not at the finery of plantation-owners, but at billionaires taking daytrips to space whose wealth is founded not on production, but on the distribution of goods, and the curation and channeling of our ideas and even of our relationships, thereby creating a lasting dependency.

This proposed framework, while imperfect, can be progressed to help identify unethical business models. Having done so, many aspects of the business would merit examination: design and packaging of the product or service; marketing strategies; price points and availability; the CSR strategies of companies operating this business model; social impact accounting. Researchers could explore the ethics of people who work in, patronize or invest in such businesses, with due regard to issues of power, choice and voice. The framework could also be applied to aspects of otherwise benign industries, such as education or healthcare. Closer to home, for example, it could be applied to the model of academic publishing, considering how young scholars need to corral their ideas into narrow channels that will reach publication in the few outlets that will be recognized by their employers. There are design issues to be explored in terms of the cost of open access, the dominance of English language, the pressure placed on our future scholars by tight and demanding tenure tracks, the role of encouragers and gatekeepers, the motivations created by our promotion and recruitment systems.

Overall, this approach could complement work that seeks out examples of good or bad business ethics, by examining business systems, their morality and who they serve.

Taboo and Totems in the Study of Social Ventures, Entrepreneurship, and Small Businesses

M. Tina Dacin and Julia Roloff

Descriptions of entrepreneurial activities range from glorifying entrepreneurs for their willingness to take risks, hard work, and innovativeness to raising general suspicion that entrepreneurs cut corners to get their business going and are motivated by self-serving goals. The literature on social enterprises, family businesses, start-ups, and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often belongs to one extreme or the other: either entrepreneurs or their ventures are studied as exemplars for outstanding achievement and contributions to society (e.g., Fowler et al., 2019 ), or they are studied for their deviance. Studies that present small businesses, family firms, and social ventures as places where well-intentioned people struggle to walk the talk about responsible and sustainable business practices are rare. However, without research that captures both the good and the bad, we fail to create management theory and recommendations that are relevant to business practice.

We observe contributions to the literature on social entrepreneurship and small business in which successful business ventures and their leaders are revered in a way that reminds us of totems. These examples are adverted to as proof that socially and environmentally responsible business ventures can also be financially successful. This idea is essentially so precious that criticizing these ventures, their operations or their leaders essentially becomes taboo. We explore the notions of totem and taboo and how they dominate our thinking and push for a move toward a more nuanced and balanced approach to research in this domain.

The terms totem and taboo have a long history in anthropology and anthropologists have described practices of totemism among ethnic groups from various continents. For example, Frazer (1887, p. 1) wrote: “A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards with superstitious respect, believing that there exists between him and every member of the class an intimate and altogether special relation.” A wide range of cultural practices is described in connection with totemism, ranging from worshipping the totem to identification with it. Totemism comes with taboos, such as the taboo against killing or eating any individual of the totem species since this would be considered cannibalism. Freud ( 2013 /1913) claims in his book “Totem and Taboo” that this identification with a totem is the social institution that laid the ground for an incest taboo, as two people who identify with the same totem will not “consume” each other sexually. According to Freud ( 2013 /1913), the origin of taboos is unclear, as he believes them to be older than religious and moral prohibitions and they come with no clear explanation. He borrowed largely from the work of writers such as Van Gennep ( 1904 ), who referred to a taboo largely as a prohibition that could be grounded in religious, moral, or even social foundations. While taboos and their associated prohibitions can be behavioral, they can also be conversational—neither talked about nor publicly debated and discussed (Sabri et al., 2010 ).

We assert that some contributions to the business ethics literature show signs of totemism and of taboos that lack justification. Sabri et al. ( 2010 ) suggest that taboos are “cultural productions” that are crafted and embedded in social and historical contexts. The accelerated evolution of social ventures as a panacea for society’s ailing aid and impact sector has imposed enormous pressure to present only the good while downplaying the bad sides of these ventures. We see case studies that do not dare criticize any aspect of a social venture, or those that present claims of successful leaders as gospel without critical distancing or considering the possibility that an exemplary venture may also be fraught with weaknesses. Here, social ventures are approached as totems. Taboos play a role when entrepreneurs are studied for their deviant behavior, such as their propensity to lie, distort and/or misrepresent information in order to gain support from investors and clients, but there is neglection of discussion of those who do not resort to such behaviors (e.g., Ji et al., 2019 ): in this case, the idea that entrepreneurs forego a business opportunity because of their individual or organizational values is the taboo. This tendency of researchers to revere totems and observe taboos has led to a number of problematic outcomes that limit our ability to meaningfully unpack this literature. We encourage researchers to consider how their theoretical framing and methodological approaches can introduce or remove bias in their research.

Bias Introduced by Theoretical Framing

First, for the most part, the social venture and small business literature tends to focus on hybrid forms of organizing, where it is assumed at the outset that there are tensions across the logics (most often social and commercial) which are blended to guide and govern the enterprise. The assumption is that the logics driving social ventures compete and are largely incompatible. However, this assumption may be unfounded and ignores the fact that firms generally operate in pluralistic institutional spheres that involve the simultaneous juggling of multiple logics. An example is a family firm, which has to balance the needs of the business, the family and those of the firm’s stakeholders (Signori & Fassin, 2021 ). We do not want to discount the rise of conflicts or tensions because of multiple logics. However, an implicit assumption that there is incompatibility from the outset is largely misguided.

Second, there is a romanticized narrative that often accompanies small, entrepreneurial enterprises and family businesses, and especially in the discourse around social ventures. Indeed, most of the narratives describe the work of social entrepreneurs in a positive light. Social entrepreneurs are heroic totems who seek and gather accolades at a variety of field-configuring events led by various foundations and luminaries. At these events, entrepreneurs are highly celebrated, reinforcing a cycle of pointing out the positive in an extreme form of hero worship. These same heroes go on to enjoy a cycle of success receiving awards from one event to the next. As they continue their momentum of success, these heroic social entrepreneurs are rarely scrutinized, and in fact their stories are careful curations of their origin, work, and impact. In so doing, we know of little to nothing in published scholarly work about the darker side of these actors and their ventures, although recent examples in the news media shed light on some controversial activities (Waldie, 2020 ).

Third, by focusing on totems and ignoring more mid-range dialogue about the positive and darker sides of entrepreneurial activity, we privilege the role of individual actors and ignore the collective side of entrepreneuring (Montgomery et al., 2012 ). In fact, many social ventures involve groups of individuals. Collective sets of actors such as key stakeholders, including partners, funders, and community actors, should not be discounted nor ignored. In fact, in community settings, much good comes from the efforts of collective social innovation (Dacin & Dacin, 2019 ).

Taboos can influence researchers when they develop their theoretical frameworks. For example, two recent studies investigating how entrepreneurs describe their ventures on crowdfunding platforms exemplify this problem. Defazio et al. ( 2021 ) study the impact of prosocial framing in these descriptions, while Calic et al. ( 2021 ) investigate whether using Machiavellian rhetoric makes projects more or less successful in receiving financial backing. Both studies address the same research question on how project descriptions influence funding success and failure, but they approach this question from diametrically opposed positions, assuming that investors are either drawn to socially impactful projects or manipulated by ingratiation and stories of betrayal. Together, these two studies provide a more complex understanding of venture presentations on crowdsourcing websites. However, it is often feasible to design studies that capture a wide range of motivations and actions and therefore allow exploration of both the good and the bad in the same study.

In particular, research on social ventures has been limited by the tendency and practice to establish totems and to avoid taboos. To what extent can we be confident that the literature to date has rendered valuable knowledge and insight about whether social ventures have produced lasting, systemic, and structural change in the range of complex, inter-related problems, such as homelessness and poverty? By assuming that social ventures are inherently good, there is a tendency to avoid comparison to other forms of doing good, take impact as given, and often inspection is seen as harsh and also is often unwanted. The mythical status attributed to social ventures being “inherently good” means we tend to overlook potentially viable alternative approaches such as public, private, and charitable organizations, cross-sector partnerships and corporate philanthropy (Dacin et al., 2011 ). In fact, in the last two decades other pathways for good may have been subjugated to the allure of the social enterprise over other alternatives.

Bias Introduced by the Methodological Approach

We want to encourage researchers to be mindful of tendencies toward glorification and vilification in the research of social ventures, entrepreneurship, and small businesses. There are examples for studies that are designed to identify virtuous as well as problematic patterns.

Such research can be motivated by unexpected observations such as the study by Dorado et al. ( 2022 ) of a successful social bank that struggles with employee retention. Dorado et al. investigate the reasons why this value-driven social enterprise sees so many of its employees leaving after a few years of service. A similar inquiry—but based on large population samples—is conducted by Brieger et al. ( 2021 ), who study how social value creation, meaningful work and burnout are related. This research helps us to understand the price people pay when working for a social venture as they perceive pressure to set private needs and goals aside.

On the other hand, keeping a business on the right path is challenging to do. For example, Sendlhofer ( 2020 ) describes how employees of a SME that is recognized as a corporate social responsibly (CSR) pioneer started decoupling from the firm’s praised practices. Moreover, they procrastinated when it came to creating new socially responsible practices because their past success made them confident that their firm would continue to excel anyway. Similar observations of mission drift are made in the microfinance sector when over time lenders tend to prefer more capable clients over more needy ones (Beisland et al., 2019 ). These studies help us to understand the messy nature of business ventures aimed at creating valuable outcomes for society and highlight that these organizations can hardly be categorized as good or bad, but that they are operating between high aspiration and very real human and organizational limitations. Limitations and aspirations are best studied with research questions that are interested in a wide range of observations.

Other examples of studies avoiding bias can be found in the research on what motivates entrepreneurs that capture responses ranging from egoistic to altruistic motivations. For example, a study on indigenous entrepreneurs demonstrates that emancipation through entrepreneurship can take on many meanings, as some entrepreneurs work toward making themselves autonomous while others want to instigate change in their community (Pergelova et al., 2021 ). If the researchers had only asked questions on how indigenous entrepreneurs seek to help their community, we would have learned less about their need for individual autonomy. Another study avoiding taboos investigated the role of SME in peacekeeping was able to capture dynamics that promote peace and others which foster conflict (Joseph et al., 2021 ): this study highlights that creating income and employment in a conflict-ridden community is not sufficient to promote peace—in order to make a contribution, firms needed to reduce inter-group conflict between Lebanese citizens and Syrian refugees within the firm. If the researchers had only been interested in observing how firms contribute to peacekeeping, they might have failed to observe that in some firms conflictual beliefs are perpetuated. Such findings are feasible since the studies were designed to capture motivations, beliefs, and behaviors along a continuum between virtuous and beneficial, on one side, and deviant and harmful, on the other. Thus, we can learn more about the struggles people experience when they are trying to do the right thing, create ventures that produce more than financial value and work toward keeping these ventures on the right path in changing environments.

These studies link observations on the individual, organizational and societal level, such as exhaustion and decoupling among employees and unintended problematic consequences of entrepreneurial activities at organizational and community level. By conducting research that sheds light on the gray zones of entrepreneurship and managing small ventures, we can create theories that address problems that entrepreneurs and their teams experience every day. A focus on only one end of the continuum between virtuosity and deviance blinds us to the nuances and complexity of entrepreneurial activities and the difficulties that people experience when they are trying to “walk the talk” and not to lose their path as they continue walking.

The Path Forward

To reduce our focus on totems and taboos from research on social ventures, family businesses, start-ups, and SMEs, we need to be open to observing the good and the bad in any empirical context, and we need to find ways to describe and explain a complex and embedded social system, in which people with good intentions fail to deliver desired outcomes and people with questionable intentions create value for others. Only by designing studies that can capture the complexity of doing business in a dynamic environment can we create theory that provides an accurate description of our messy reality and permits us to develop solutions that work under given constraints.

We invite efforts for more systematic research on the motivation and rationale as to why some businesses work toward more responsible and sustainable business practices and others neglect to do the same. Future research ought to inquire whether good, moderate, and poor practices can be explained by factors influencing enterprises at a societal or cultural level, such as institutional and legislative pressures, market demands, or the absence of such factors. Do inadequate organizational resources, capabilities, or resistance to change explain why businesses fail to do better? Are individual factors such as motivation, values, and beliefs the reason why entrepreneurs, managers, and employees engage with or decouple from such goals? What is the role of stakeholders and partners in encouraging or discouraging responsible business practices? How can we better understand the unintended negative consequences of doing good?

Moreover, we are also interested in a critical analysis of our research traditions. To what extent do the totems we perpetuate maintain the façade or serve as a mask for material or ideological interests? Where does the dark side reside? Is it hidden, just below the surface, or more deeply embedded in the core of entrepreneurial activity? Moving forward, what can we learn about social impact creation by focussing more on how ventures capture value instead on how they create it (Bacq & Eddleston, 2018 )? How do various pathways to social impact compare? Are social ventures more effective than other forms of impact such as cross-sector partnerships (Vurro et al., 2010 )?

We are looking forward to a discourse on social ventures, family businesses, start-ups, and SMEs that is ready to question old assumptions and ready to capture the potential but also the limitations of individuals and collectives to create socially beneficial ventures.

1 See, for instance, Schwartz ( 2003 ) and the considerable body of work citing that paper, or, more recently, Widyawati ( 2020 ).

2 See https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang--en/index.htm for estimates of the level of forced and child labor worldwide.

Please note that authors are listed by alphabetical order and not based on author contribution. Each commentary in this essay was written by different authors.

This article has been changed to open access. The setting in Jflux have been amended regarding copyright holder name, grants and licence

Publisher's Note

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

• Alotaibi KO, Helliar C, Tantisantiwong N. Competing logics in the Islamic funds industry: A market logic versus a religious logic. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 175 (1):207–230. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04653-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bacq S, Eddleston KA. A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship: How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 152 (5):589–611. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3317-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beisland LA, D’Espallier B, Mersland R. The commercialization of the microfinance industry: Is there a ‘personal mission drift’ among credit officers? Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 158 (1):119–134. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3710-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birkey RN, Guidry RP, Islam MA, Patten DM. Mandated social disclosure: An analysis of the response to the California transparency in supply chains act of 2010. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 152 (3):827–841. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3364-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosse DA, Sutton T. The stakeholder perspective in strategic management. In: Harrison JS, Barney JB, Freeman RE, Phillips RA, editors. Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory. Cambridge University Press; 2019. pp. 189–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brieger SA, De Clercq D, Meynhardt T. Doing good, feeling good? Entrepreneurs’ social value creation beliefs and work-related well-being. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021; 172 (4):707–725. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04512-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buhmann K. Public regulators and CSR: The ‘Social Licence to Operate’ in recent United Nations instruments on business and human rights and the juridification of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics. 2016; 136 (4):699–714. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2869-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calic G, Arseneault R, Ghasemaghaei M. The dark side of Machiavellian rhetoric: Signaling in reward-based crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04984-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carton TL, Wokutch RE, Murrmann KF. Bluffing in labor negotiations: Legal and ethical Issues. Journal of Business Ethics. 1982; 1 (1):13–22. doi: 10.1007/BF00382801. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi J, Wang H. Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2009; 30 (8):895–907. doi: 10.1002/smj.759. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dacin MT, Dacin PA. Collective social innovation: leveraging custodianship, tradition and place on Fogo Island. In: George G, Baker T, Tracey P, Joshi H, editors. Handbook of inclusive innovation: The role of organizations, markets and communities in social innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2019. pp. 167–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dacin MT, Dacin PA, Tracey P. Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science. 2011; 22 (5):1203–1213. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0620. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Defazio D, Franzoni C, Rossi-Lamastra C. How pro-social framing affects the success of crowdfunding projects: The role of emphasis and information crowdedness. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021; 171 (2):357–378. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04428-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derakhshan R. Building projects on the local communities’ planet: Studying organizations’ care-giving approaches. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 175 (4):721–740. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04636-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorado S, Chen Y, Prado AM, Simon V. Attuned HRM systems for social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 178 (3):1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04821-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Du Bois WEB. A soliloquy on viewing my life from the last decade of its first century. Oxford University Press; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fasterling B, Demuijnck G. Human rights in the void? Due diligence in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013; 116 (4):799–814. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1822-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fowler EA, Coffey BS, Dixon-Fowler HR. Transforming good intentions into social impact: A case on the creation and evolution of a social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 159 (3):665–678. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3754-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RE. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RE. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly. 1994; 4 (4):409–421. doi: 10.2307/3857340. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar B, de Colle S. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud, S. (2013/1913). Totem and taboo: Some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics. Routledge.
• Harrison JS, Barney JB, Freeman RE, Phillips RA, editors. Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory. Cambridge University Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison JS, Wicks AC. Harmful stakeholder strategies. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021; 169 (3):405–419. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04310-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hess D. The management and oversight of human rights due diligence. American Business Law Journal. 2021; 58 (4):751–798. doi: 10.1111/ablj.12197. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofmann H, Schleper MC, Blome C. Conflict minerals and supply chain due diligence: An exploratory study of multi-tier supply chains. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 147 (1):115–141. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2963-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ILO. (2022). ILO Topics. Forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking: facts and figures . International Labour Organisation. Retrieved May 18, 2022, from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang--en/index.htm .
• Islam MA, Van Staden CJ. Modern slavery disclosure regulation and global supply chains: Insights from stakeholder narratives on the UK Modern Slavery Act. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04878-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jago AS, Fast N, Pfeffer J. Losing more than money: Organizations’ prosocial actions appear less authentic when their resources are declining. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 175 (2):413–425. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04645-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ji J, Dimitratos P, Huang Q, Su T. Everyday-life business deviance among Chinese SME owners. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 155 (4):1179–1194. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3542-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones TM. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20 (2):404–437. doi: 10.2307/258852. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones TM, Donaldson T, Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Leana CR, Mahoney JT, Pearce JL. Management theory and social welfare: Contributions and challenges. Academy of Management Review. 2016; 41 (2):216–228. doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joseph J, Katsos JE, Daher M. Local business, local peace? Intergroup and economic dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021; 173 (4):835–854. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04515-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loughran T, McDonald B, Otteson JR. How have corporate codes of ethics responded to an era of increased scrutiny? Journal of Business Ethics. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05104-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macdonald K. Re-thinking ‘Spheres of responsibility’: Business responsibility for indirect harm. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 99 (4):549–563. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0668-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin-Ortega O. Public procurement as a tool for the protection and promotion of human rights: A study of collaboration, due diligence and leverage in the electronics industry. Business and Human Rights Journal. 2018; 3 (1):75–95. doi: 10.1017/bhj.2017.35. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McVey M, Ferguson J, Puyou F-R. “Traduttore, traditore?” Translating human rights into the corporate context. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-05028-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michell JR, Mitchell RK, Hunt RA, Townsend DM, Lee JH. Stakeholder engagement, knowledge problems and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 175 (1):75–94. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04550-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mintzberg H. Patterns in strategy formulation. Management Science. 1978; 24 (9):934–948. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.24.9.934. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review. 1997; 22 (4):853–886. doi: 10.2307/259247. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montgomery AW, Dacin PA, Dacin MT. Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics. 2012; 111 (3):375–388. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1501-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pergelova A, Angulo-Ruiz F, Dana LP. The entrepreneurial quest for emancipation: Trade-offs, practices and outcomes in an indigenous context. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04894-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinnington B, Benstead A, Meehan J. Transparency in supply chains (TISC): Assessing and Improving the quality of modern slavery statements. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05037-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• PwC [PricewaterhouseCoopers]. (2021). PwC’s 2021 annual corporate director survey. The director’s new playbook: Taking on change . Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/governance-insights-center/assets/pwc-2021-annual-corporate-directors-survey.pdf .
• Radu C, Smaili N. Alignment versus monitoring: An examination of the effect of the CSR committee and CSR-linked executive compensation on CSR performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04904-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramasastry A. Corporate social responsibility versus business and human rights: Bridging the gap between responsibility and accountability. Journal of Human Rights. 2015; 14 (2):237–259. doi: 10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabri O, Manceau D, Pras B. Taboo: An underexplored concept in marketing. Recherche Et Applications En Marketing. 2010; 25 (1):59–85. doi: 10.1177/076737011002500103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrempf-Stirling J, Wettstein F. Beyond guilty verdicts: Human rights litigation and its impact on corporations’ human rights policies. Journal of Business Ethics. 2017; 145 (3):545–562. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2889-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz MS. The "ethics" of ethical investing. Journal of Business Ethics. 2003; 43 (3):195–213. doi: 10.1023/A:1022933912939. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sendlhofer T. Decoupling from moral responsibility for CSR: Employees' visionary procrastination at a SME. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020; 167 (2):361–378. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04174-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Signori S, Fassin Y. Family members’ salience in family business: An identity-based stakeholder approach. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04998-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Gennep, A. (1904). Tabou et totémisme à Madagascar: étude descriptive et théorique (Vol. 17). Pипoл Клaccик [Ripol Classic].
• Vurro C, Dacin MT, Perrini F. Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010; 94 (1):39–53. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0778-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waheed A, Zhang Q. Effect of CSR and ethical practices on sustainable competitive performance: A case of emerging markets from stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 175 (4):837–855. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04679-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldie, P. (2020). WE Charity’s fall from grace: The Kielburger brothers’ philanthropic empire is struggling to survive. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved May 4, 2022.
• Wang H, Choi J. A new look at the corporate social-financial performance relationship: The moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance. Journal of Management. 2013; 39 (2):416–441. doi: 10.1177/0149206310375850. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wettstein F. The duty to protect: Corporate complicity, political responsibility, and human rights advocacy. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010; 96 (1):33–47. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0447-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widyawati L. A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020; 29 (2):619–637. doi: 10.1002/bse.2393. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organisation. (2021). Fact sheet: Tobacco . 26 July, 2021. Retrieved February 2022, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco .
• Young C. Putting the law in its place: Business ethics and the assumption that illegal implies unethical. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 160 (1):35–51. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3904-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang T, Zhang Z, Yang J. When does corporate social responsibility backfire in acquisitions? Signal incongruence and acquirer returns. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022; 175 (1):45–58. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04583-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

share this!

June 25, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

A model of Collaborative Ethics to guide translational research from fundamental discoveries to real-world applications

by Benjamin Boettner, Harvard University

In sciences, disruptive research that is breaking new ground often raises new and not-yet-explored ethical questions. Although new scientific breakthroughs can have the power to change how we understand and live in the world, the ethical implications of technologies that will emerge based on these new insights can affect an emerging field's public acceptance and have moral implications for society at large. They can also impact the process of translating discoveries into real-world products, sometimes requiring new regulations.

Historically, ethicists—who form the branch of philosophy that is concerned with morality and studies of human conduct in relation to the self, others, and the natural world—were only given the opportunity to analyze transformative breakthroughs in the life sciences after-the-fact, when new scientific possibilities already start to impact the real world. This has often prevented the creation of crucial decision moments and course corrections before ethical controversies gained momentum and bioethicists specializing on medical, public health, animal, or environmental ethics were called upon.

"To overcome current limitations, it is crucial that the analysis process be initiated at the earliest stages when fundamental discoveries are made to clearly answer the question of what, for example, newly created biological constructs are . This first analysis is actually an explicitly philosophical one—only when it determines that an 'ethical threshold' is reached should a more ethics-focused analysis follow," said Wyss Institute Collaborative Ethics lead Jeantine Lunshof. "This analysis ensures that an ethical analysis is conducted when it is relevant and useful."

Lunshof, in her collaborative work with researchers at the Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School (HMS) over more than 15 years, has advanced a generic model of "Collaborative Ethics." There is special need for frequent philosophical and ethical reassessment in organizations, such as the Wyss Institute, which develop new breakthrough technologies and translate them at an extremely fast pace.

To ensure this is most functional, "The Collaborative Ethics effort is also aligned with the Wyss Institute's Technology Innovation Funnel, which formalizes the journey of its cutting-edge technologies starting at the 'Idea Generation' stage when fundamental discoveries are made and first assessed for their translational potential," said Lunshof, who holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in Philosophy and Health Law. "But they can be applied to translational research in any academic environment."

Now, Lunshof and Julia Rijssenbeek, a Graduate Student at Wageningen University in the Netherlands who did a Ph.D. internship at the Wyss Institute, have published the Collaborative Ethics model in Nature Methods .

In the Wyss' Translation Innovation Funnel, potentially life-saving and changing technologies proceed through "Concept Refinement," "Technology Validation," "Technology Optimization" and "Commercialization" stages. This path is paralleled by steps the Collaborative Ethics model provides for investigating philosophically and ethically relevant implications and creating further actionable decision points.

For Collaborative Ethics to work effectively, it is essential that the early dialogue between researchers and ethicists continues through all stages of technology development, all the way to the creation of products that can be commercialized.

"It doesn't suffice that a philosopher or an ethicist occasionally reviews a research group's work as an outsider or audits it for a different department or organization. For a meaningful dialogue to happen, it is essential that they become actual members of project teams to facilitate meaningful reflections during the scientific process instead of when it has been concluded," said Rijssenbeek.

"This immensely facilitates the exchange of thoughts in both directions, philosophical and ethical innovation, as well as decision-making processes that enable responsible research and innovation towards life-changing technologies."

Lunshof's philosophical and ethical work at Harvard University began in 2006 in the lab of Wyss Institute Core Faculty member George Church, Ph.D., who at HMS pioneered the decoding and study of genomes, particularly that of the human genome, and the relatively young field of synthetic biology. Church is also the Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at HMS. As Church's collaborator, Lunshof became involved with the Personal Genome Project, which was begun the previous year and aimed to sequence and publicize the complete genomes and medical records of 100,000 volunteers.

Subsequently, as a Marie Sklodowska Curie International Fellow, her interest expanded into the new realities of genome engineering, the creation of chimeras from cells stemming from different organisms, and other disruptive scientific advances made in Church's lab. Her participation helped pave the way toward a more balanced public perception of the research.

Lunshof continued her work by focusing on other "hot topic" ethical areas, some of them closely related to research conceived at the Wyss Institute. She co-led the Brainstorm Project, which was part of the US National Institutes of Health BRAIN initiative neuroethics program, where she helped create an ethically recommendable path forward for neural or "brain organoids" as models for human brain development and brain disease. The Wyss Institute's CircaVent Project, led by Church, uses brain organoids to model neurological and psychiatric disorders, in the discovery of urgently needed drugs.

Another example of ethically complex technology is "biobots," tiny computer-designed living organisms with programmed behaviors built from animal or human cells. Developed by Michael Levin's group at the Wyss Institute and Tufts University in collaboration with roboticists and computer scientists at the University of Vermont, biobots do not fit into any traditional ethical category. They raise important questions regarding their identities and what the researchers' intentions and goals are. Levin is an Associate Faculty member at the Wyss Institute as well as Distinguished Professor and Vannevar Bush Chair at Tufts University's Department of Biology.

Lunshof and Rijssenbeek used these and other examples to illustrate how the Collaborative Ethics model has been successfully applied in practice. Being integrated with the research process through four defined steps, it first carries out a "Conceptual Analysis," by asking the question "what is it?"—in the case of biobots, are these novel life forms organisms, robots, or machines?

The second step, "Normative Analysis," marks the transition from general philosophy to ethics and drills into the question of whether certain research raises any ethical concerns.

The model's third step, "Applied Ethics," is similar to bioethicist's role, and applies ethical theories to assess the real-world impact of technology developments like, for example, the use of animals in research, the provenance of human biological specimens, questions of privacy and consent, the benefits and risks of new technologies such as genome editing for patients, and the justification of gain-of-function research that could lead to new antimicrobials but also result in enhanced pathogens. The question of whether a finding that can bring benefits but also carries risks of harm should be published at all to prevent any misuse is also considered here.

Finally, in the "Regulatory Science and Legal Aspects" step, researchers and ethicists guided by the Collaborative Ethics model team up with business development and technology transfer experts to analyze how a technology can be translated into real-world applications by a spin-off or through licensing by industry.

"Because science and technology development are progressing at an ever-higher speed, and are globalizing rapidly, real-time collaboration between researchers and ethicists becomes vital. It enables a learning curve and necessary adjustments in the research process, as well as the development of missing ethical approaches and the revision of ethics positions," said Lunshof, who was named a Fellow of The Kavli Foundation which supports the advancement of science and the increase of public understanding and support for scientists and their work, earlier this year.

"In their relentless pursuit of urgently needed solutions for patients and the environment, Wyss Institute researchers not only collaborate across disciplines with one another and with industrial partners scientifically, but they also make sure that they evaluate their research from a philosophical and ethical perspective—the Collaborative Ethics model is an invaluable guide to accomplish this," said Wyss Founding Director Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., who is also the Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at HMS and Boston Children's Hospital, and Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Bioinspired Engineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

Journal information: Nature Methods

Provided by Harvard University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

NASA astronauts will stay at the space station longer for more troubleshooting of Boeing capsule

2 hours ago

The beginnings of fashion: Paleolithic eyed needles and the evolution of dress

17 hours ago

Analysis of NASA InSight data suggests Mars hit by meteoroids more often than thought

New computational microscopy technique provides more direct route to crisp images

A harmless asteroid will whiz past Earth Saturday. Here's how to spot it

18 hours ago

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

New method for generating monochromatic light in storage rings

19 hours ago

Soft, stretchy electrode simulates touch sensations using electrical signals

Updating the textbook on polarization in gallium nitride to optimize wide bandgap semiconductors

Investigating newly discovered hydrothermal vents at depths of 3,000 meters off Svalbard

Relevant physicsforums posts, who chooses official designations for individual dolphins, such as fb15, f153, f286.

Jun 26, 2024

Color Recognition: What we see vs animals with a larger color range

Jun 25, 2024

Innovative ideas and technologies to help folks with disabilities

Jun 24, 2024

Is meat broth really nutritious?

Covid virus lives longer with higher co2 in the air.

Jun 22, 2024

Periodical Cicada Life Cycle

Jun 21, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Investigating the ethical landscape of brain organoid research

Feb 28, 2024

Framework provides guidance for ethical wildlife management

Nov 8, 2023

Exploring ethical and legal ramifications of growing brain organoids from human fetal brain tissue

Apr 9, 2024

AI could transform ethics committees

Mar 1, 2024

Initiative encourages computer science students to incorporate ethics into their work

Apr 29, 2024

Q&A: The embedded ethics approach in AI development

Sep 1, 2020

Recommended for you

Researchers propose a new, holistic way to teach synthetic biology

Jun 27, 2024

Unlocking biodiversity insights from the tropical Andes

Biomechanics of sound production in high-pitched classical singing

Jun 18, 2024

'Sour Patch' adults: 1 in 8 grown-ups love extreme tartness, study shows

Linking environmental influences, genetic research to address concerns of genetic determinism of human behavior

Feb 27, 2024

40 years of crop research shows inequities

Feb 22, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

One Cohort at a Time: A New Perspective on the Declining Gender Pay Gap

This paper studies the interaction between the decrease in the gender pay gap and the stagnation in the careers of younger workers, analyzing data from the United States, Italy, Canada, and the United Kingdom. We propose a model of the labor market in which a larger supply of older workers can crowd out younger workers from top-paying positions. These negative career spillovers disproportionately affect the career trajectories of younger men because they are more likely than younger women to hold higher-paying jobs at baseline. The data strongly support this cohort-driven interpretation of the shrinking gender pay gap. The whole decline in the gap originates from (i) newer worker cohorts who enter the labor market with smaller-than-average gender pay gaps and (ii) older worker cohorts who exit with higher-than-average gender pay gaps. As predicted by the model, the gender pay convergence at labor-market entry stems from younger men's larger positional losses in the wage distribution. Younger men experience the largest positional losses within higher-paying firms, in which they become less represented over time at a faster rate than younger women. Finally, we document that labor-market exit is the sole contributor to the decline in the gender pay gap after the mid-1990s, which implies no full gender pay convergence for the foreseeable future. Consistent with our framework, we find evidence that most of the remaining gender pay gap at entry depends on predetermined educational choices.

We thank Patricia Cortés, Gordon Dahl, Fabian Lange, Claudia Olivetti, Michael Powell, Uta Schönberg, as well as participants at various seminars and conferences for helpful comments. We thank Sergey Abramenko, Thomas Barden, Carolina Bussotti, Sean Chen, and Chengmou Lei for outstanding research assistance. The realization of this article was possible thanks to the sponsorship of the “VisitINPS Scholars” program. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and should not be attributed to the Bank of Italy, the Eurosystem, or the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Working Groups

Mentioned in the news, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Americans’ Views of Government’s Role: Persistent Divisions and Areas of Agreement

1. Government’s scope, efficiency and role in regulating business

Table of contents.

• Views on the efficiency of government
• Views on the government’s regulation of business
• Confidence in the nation’s ability to solve problems
• Views on the effect of government aid to the poor
• Views on government’s role in health care
• Views on the future of Social Security
• Trust in government
• Feelings toward the federal government
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

American s are evenly divided in their preferences for the size of government. Yet a somewhat greater share wants the government to do more to solve problems than say it is doing too much better left to others.

There is a persistent belief that government is wasteful: 56% say it is “almost always wasteful and inefficient.”

However, a majority of Americans (58%) say government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public good.

Divisions on government’s size, scope

Overall, 49% say they would prefer a smaller government providing fewer services, while 48% say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services.

Most Democrats prefer a larger government. For nearly half a century, Democrats and Republicans have differed in their preferences for the size of government. Today, those differences are as wide as they have ever been:

• Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (74%) favor a bigger government, providing more services. By comparison, in 2015, a smaller majority of Democrats (59%) said they preferred a bigger government.
• Just 20% of Republicans and Republican leaners prefer a bigger government; nearly four times as many want smaller government with fewer services. Republicans’ views of the size of government have changed less than Democrats’. Still, when George W. Bush was running for reelection in 2004, roughly a third of Republicans favored a bigger government.

When asked about the proper role of government, about half of Americans (53%) say the government should do more to solve problems, while 46% say the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.

An overwhelming share of Democrats (76%) say government should do more to solve problems, while about a quarter (23%) say it is doing too many things better left to individuals and businesses.

By contrast, Republicans prefer a more limited role for government: 71% say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, while 28% say government should do more to solve problems.

There are also sizable demographic differences in these views:

• White adults (54%) are the most likely to say government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, while smaller shares of Asian (34%), Black (31%) and Hispanic (29%) adults say the same.
• Younger adults are more likely than older adults to favor a larger role for government, with adults ages 18 to 29 (66%) being the most likely to say government should do more to solve problems.
• Among income groups, a majority of lower-income adults (61%) say government should do more to solve problems, while smaller shares of upper- and middle-income adults (53% and 48%, respectively) say the same.

Views among partisans by race, ethnicity and income

Among partisans, there are wide demographic differences on the preferred role of government – especially among Republicans.

Hispanic Republicans (58%) are much more likely than White Republicans (21%) to favor a larger role for government.

Views among Democrats are much less divided, with at least seven-in-ten Democrats in each racial and ethnic group saying government should do more to solve problems.

Nearly half of lower-income Republicans (46%) say that the government should do more to solve problems, while smaller shares of middle- (22%) and upper-income (19%) Republicans say the same.

Wide majorities of Democrats across income groups say government should do more to solve problems.

In assessments of the efficiency of the government, a majority of Americans (56%) find it to be “almost always wasteful and inefficient.” A smaller share (42%) say government “often does a better job than people give it credit for.”

Overall, views on the efficiency of government have remained somewhat steady since 2019, with views today mirroring those five years ago.

Among partisans, a majority of Democrats (63%) say the government often does a better job than people give it credit for, while a large majority of Republicans (77%) say government is often wasteful and inefficient.

Views on the efficiency of government in both parties have remained steady since 2021.

While Democrats are generally more likely than Republicans to say government does not get enough credit, these views vary somewhat depending on which party holds the presidency:

• Democrats are now more likely to give credit to the government than they were during the Trump administration.
• Among Republicans, views of government efficiency were more positive during the Trump administration.

This is consistent with shifts in views during prior administrations .

On the topic of government regulation of business, about six-in-ten Americans (58%) say that government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest. Four-in-ten, however, say government regulation of business usually does more harm than good.

These views have remained largely unchanged since 2017.

As with other attitudes about government, Republicans and Democrats differ on the impact of government regulation of business:

• About two-thirds of Republicans (65%) say government regulation does more harm than good.
• Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats (82%) say government regulation is necessary to protect the public interest.

Among other demographic differences:

• White adults (45%) are the most likely to say government regulation does more harm than good, while smaller shares of Hispanic (32%), Asian (29%) and Black (27%) adults say the same.
• Younger adults are more likely than older adults to say government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest, with adults ages 18 to 29 (64%) being the most likely to say this.

Americans are divided in their views on the country’s ability to solve important problems. About half (52%) of Americans say “this country can’t solve many of its important problems,” while 47% say that “as Americans, we can always find ways to solve our problems and get what we want.”

More Americans express confidence in the country’s ability to solve problems now than a year ago (47% now, 43% then). Still, the share saying this is lower than it was from 2019 to 2022.

Unlike assessments of government, there are no partisan differences in views on the country’s ability to solve its important problems.

In both parties, about half say the U.S. can’t solve many of its important problems, while slightly narrower shares say Americans can always find ways to solve the country’s problems.

Views among age groups

Among age groups, younger adults are the most likely to express skepticism in the country’s ability to solve its important problems. About six-in-ten adults ages 18 to 29 (62%) say the U.S. can’t solve many of its important problems, while smaller shares of older adults say the same.

Overall, the shares of adults in each age group who voice skepticism on the country’s ability to solve its problems remain higher than they were in 2022.

However, older adults have grown slightly more optimistic on this issue in the past year. Views among the youngest adults are relatively unchanged from 2022.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Election 2024
• Federal Government
• Government Spending & the Deficit
• Health Care
• Partisanship & Issues
• Social Security & Medicare
• Trust in Government

Third-party and independent candidates for president often fall short of early polling numbers

6 facts about presidential and vice presidential debates, biden, trump are least-liked pair of major party presidential candidates in at least 3 decades, cultural issues and the 2024 election, more than half of americans are following election news closely, and many are already worn out, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

We use cookies to provide you with the best experience and to help improve our website. View Privacy Statement

A timeless resource: BGSU organizational change management research still highly sought after

Estimated Reading Time:  

The article “Organizational Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach” has been read more than 58,000 times

#1 University in Ohio for Student Experience

Innovative engineering degrees, #1 public university in the midwest students would choose again for the fourth consecutive year.

More than a decade after an article on organizational change management authored by current and retired Bowling Green State University faculty members was published, its groundbreaking research continues to draw interest.

According to ResearchGate, the “Organizational Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach” article has been read more than 58,000 times since its publication in 2012. It is the most frequently read article from BGSU accessed through its site.

“Often in management, there’s a focus on results,” said Dr. James McFillen, an emeritus BGSU business professor and the paper’s lead author. “It intends to be results-oriented rather than cause-oriented. To fix something, you first have to know what is wrong.”

The article's origins date back to the early days of the BGSU Executive Master of Organization Development program, established in 1974 by Dr. Glenn Varney, an emeritus business professor and co-author alongside McFillen; Dr. Deborah A. O’Neil, a professor of management and director of the master’s program; and Dr. William Balzer, emeritus psychology professor.

The program, housed in the Allen W. and Carol M. Schmidthorst College of Business , was the first in Ohio and third in the nation and has been widely recognized for excellence.

Following Varney’s tenure as the program’s director, McFillen led the organization development master's program for more than 15 years, beginning in 1994. He focused on the scientific side of organizational behavior, sparking the work that resulted in the Journal of Change Management article that has drawn interest from various disciplines.

“I decided that if I was going to be involved, it needed to be a scientifically based, research-driven program,” McFillen said. “Over time, I reworked the curriculum to give it a more behavioral science orientation to explain how organizations function and how you could change them.”

During the process of shifting the program’s focus to research, McFillen realized a vital piece was missing — the diagnostic process of determining causes of problems within an organization. He said existing organization development literature offered information on fixing problems but didn’t explain the process of diagnosing them.

“You had all these people writing articles about their favorite things to do to improve organizations, but there was no science behind it,” he said.

To find a solution, McFillen and his colleagues reviewed disciplines that used a diagnostic process to analyze problems, narrowing it down to engineering and medicine. While engineering uses a scientific method to diagnose issues, the process doesn’t account for human behavior. Consequently, they concluded the medical diagnosis model was better suited to organization development.

Using a medical model, the BGSU faculty members developed the concept of organizational diagnosis as the key step toward effective change and have successfully used it in many situations. They developed a rigorous process to correctly identify “symptoms” of problems plaguing an organization.

“The article continually finds a new audience,” Varney said. “If you are going to make a change in an organization, you need to use a very systematic way of doing it. Otherwise, it will backfire on you every single time. Organizations are going through tremendous change these days, and that’s why I think they are still reading our article now.”

First presented in the 2012 article, McFillen and Varney’s methods were later conveyed in a book they co-authored with Scott Janoch, “Grasp the Situation: Lessons Learned in Change Leadership,” which presents the organizational diagnosis process through lively stories from the authors’ experiences.

Related Stories

Media Contact | Michael Bratton | [email protected] | 419-372-6349

Updated: 06/26/2024 01:04PM