Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Business Education and Idealism as Determinants of Stakeholder Orientation

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

Abstract

This paper based on the distinction between the instrumental and normative views of stakeholder management explores how business education and personal moral philosophies may influence the orientation adopted by an individual. A mediated regression analysis using survey information collected from 206 Spanish university students showed that those exposed to management theories were less willing to consider stakeholders when making business decisions if the consequent economic impacts on the firm were omitted. The results also provided support for a negative effect of business education on idealism and a mediating effect of the latter on the relationship between education and stakeholder management orientation. This study thus raises awareness on the influence of business education on individuals’ ethical decision-making processes and suggests some possible changes for business education.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity, ethical ideology, and intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1161–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F. J. (1998). Ethical ideology and the ethical judgments of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 715–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowes-Sperry, L., & Powell, G. N. (1999). Observers’ reaction to social-sexual behavior at work: An ethical decision making perspective. Journal of Management, 25(6), 779–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (1996). Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, C., Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Does stakeholder management have a dark side? Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. Y., & Leung, P. (2006). The effects of accounting students ethical reasoning and personal factors on their ethical sensitivity. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21, 436–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deering, T. E., Cavenagh, T. D., Kelley, K., & Stanutz, A. G. (1994). Absolutism versus relativism: Philosophies of education and business Majors. Educational Horizons, 72(3), 146–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, J. T., & Sockell, D. (1992). Do company ethics training programs make a difference? An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(9), 719–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, T. V., & Giacomino, D. E. (2001). An examination of personal values: Differences between accounting students and managers and differences between genders. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(2), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emiliani, M. L. (2004). Is management education beneficial to society? Management Decision, 42(3/4), 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eweje, G., & Brunton, M. (2010). Ethical perceptions of business students in a New Zealand university: Do gender, age and work experience matter? Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(1), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Gago, R., & Martínez-Campillo, A. (2012). Teaching business management from a perspective beyond self-interest. Innovar: Journal of Administrative and Social Sciences, 22(46), 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R., & Nye, J. L. (1990). Personal moral philosophy and moral choice. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 398–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R., Nye, J. L., & Kelley, K. (1988). Idealism, relativism, and the ethic of caring. Journal of Psychology, 122, 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R., O’Boyle, E. H, Jr, & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). East meets west: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, B., & Schulze, G. G. (2000). Does economics make citizens corrupt? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(1), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2002). Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. Donaldson, et al. (Eds.), Ethical issues in business (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010). Managing for stakeholders: Trade-offs or value creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Martin, K., & Parmar, B. (2007). Stakeholder capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2003). Are political economists selfish and indoctrinated? Evidence from a natural experiment. Economic Inquiry, 41(3), 448–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasnas, J. (2013). Whither stakeholder theory? A guide for the perplexed revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C., Giacalone, R., & Jurkiewicz, C. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in International Marketing (pp. 277–320). Bingley.

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and paediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. G. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N., Tomic, I., & Parsa, F. (2010). The impact of students’ major area of study on their ethical ideology’. In R.A. Oglesby et al. (eds.): Business research yearbook. Global Business Perspectives, (pp. 332–337). Publication of the International Academy of Business Disciplines.

  • Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, A. C., Smith, K. T., & Smith, L. M. (2007). Do gender, educational level, religiosity, and work experience affect the ethical decision-making of US accountants? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(3), 299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T. A. (2002). Addressing the crisis in confidence in corporations: Root causes, victims, and strategies for reform. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 139–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lämsa, A. M., Vehkaperä, M., Puttonen, T., & Pesonen, H. L. (2008). Effect of business education on women and men students’ attitudes on corporate responsibility in society. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, C. L. (2010). A step forward: Ethics education matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 565–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Yuthas, K. (1997). Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and organizational moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12–13), 1213–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maitland, I. (1994). The morality of the corporation: An empirical or normative disagreement? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 445–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martynov, A. (2009). Agents or stewards? Linking managerial behavior and moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minoja, M. (2012). Stakeholder management theory, firm strategy, and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. I. (2004). An open letter to the deans and faculties of American business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 185–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, D., Pagell, M., Drexler, J., Ryan, F. M. K., & Larson, E. (2009). Business education and its relationship to student personal moral philosophies and attitudes toward profits: An empirical response to critics. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okun, A. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not? Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behaviour Research Methods, 36, 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behaviour Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. New Jersey: Lawrence Ernbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simgan-Mugan, C., Daly, B. A., Onkal, D., & Kavut, L. (2005). The influence on nationality and gender on ethical sensitivity: An application of the issue contingent model. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S. J., & Franke, G. R. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1904). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, 5th Edition. First published 1776. London: Edwin Cannan. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN1.html.

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, (pp. 290–312). Washington, D.C: American Sociological Association.

  • Sternberg, E. (1997). The defects of stakeholder theory. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillmann, G. (2005). The equity-efficiency trade-off reconsidered. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K. (1992). Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications for research, education and management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S. R., & Bateman, C. R. (2011). The impact of ethical ideologies, moral intensity, and social context on sales-based ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S. R., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez, M. G., & Rostankowski, C. (1985). Ethics: Theory and practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teaching ethics to future managers: A review, assessment, and recommendations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yezer, A. M., Goldfarb, R. S., & Poppen, P. J. (1996). Does studying economics discourage cooperation? Watch what we do, not what we say of how we play. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(1), 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge the financial support provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Project ECO2012-35439) and the Regional Government of Castile and Leon (Project LE004A10-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of León, Campus of Vegazana s/n, 24071, León, Spain

    Jose-Luis Godos-Díez, Roberto Fernández-Gago & Laura Cabeza-García

Authors
  1. Jose-Luis Godos-Díez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Fernández-Gago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Cabeza-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose-Luis Godos-Díez.

Appendix: Measurement Scales

Appendix: Measurement Scales

Stakeholder Orientation

(Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree)

“Firms should take into account their stakeholders’ interests only when such groups may affect firms’ activities and goals now or in the future”.

“Firms should always take into account their stakeholders’ interests because that is the right thing to do, even when such groups are not able to affect firms’ activities and goals now or in the future”.

Idealism

(Likert-type scale, from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree)

Idealism 1:

People should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm others, even to a small degree.

Idealism 2:

Risks to others should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.

Idealism 3:

The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.

Idealism 4:

One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.

Idealism 5:

One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity or welfare of another individual.

Idealism 6:

If an action might harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.

Idealism 7:

Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing its positive consequences against its negative consequences is immoral.

Idealism 8:

The dignity and welfare of the people should be the most important concern in any society.

Idealism 9:

It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.

Idealism 10:

Moral behaviours are actions that closely match ideals of the most “perfect” action.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godos-Díez, JL., Fernández-Gago, R. & Cabeza-García, L. Business Education and Idealism as Determinants of Stakeholder Orientation. J Bus Ethics 131, 439–452 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2289-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2289-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation