Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach

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

Abstract

Ethical decision-making (EDM) descriptive theoretical models often conflict with each other and typically lack comprehensiveness. To address this deficiency, a revised EDM model is proposed that consolidates and attempts to bridge together the varying and sometimes directly conflicting propositions and perspectives that have been advanced. To do so, the paper is organized as follows. First, a review of the various theoretical models of EDM is provided. These models can generally be divided into (a) rationalist-based (i.e., reason); and (b) non-rationalist-based (i.e., intuition and emotion). Second, the proposed model, called ‘Integrated Ethical Decision Making,’ is introduced in order to fill the gaps and bridge the current divide in EDM theory. The individual and situational factors as well as the process of the proposed model are then described. Third, the academic and managerial implications of the proposed model are discussed. Finally, the limitations of the proposed model are presented.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For ease of reference, ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical’ are considered throughout the paper to be synonymous with ‘morality’ or ‘moral.’

  2. For example, Ferrell and Gresham state (1985, p. 87): “Absence of a clear consensus about ethical conduct…has resulted in much confusion among academicians…”

  3. This is similar to the approach used by Treviño et al. (2006) in their literature review of EDM.

  4. One might try to distinguish situations involving ‘ethical dilemmas’ from those whereby an individual is facing a ‘moral temptation.’ ‘Ethical dilemmas’ can be seen as those more challenging situations involving ‘right versus right’ or ‘wrong versus wrong’ alternatives, such as deciding which employee to lay off. ‘Moral temptations’ however involve ‘right versus wrong’ alternatives more directly linked to one’s self-interest, such as deciding whether to steal supplies from the office supply cabinet (see Kidder 1995). For the purposes of the I-EDM model, both ethical dilemmas and moral temptations can be faced by individual decision makers as ethical issues.

  5. Jones states (1991, p. 367): “…an ethical decision is defined as a decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger community. Conversely, an unethical decision is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community.” This is too limited a definition of ‘ethical’ to be utilized for the purposes of properly studying the EDM process. Jones (1991, p. 367) himself admits that his definition of an ethical decision is “imprecise and relativistic” and refers to the difficulties of establishing substantive definitions for ethical behavior. Others have also suggested that this definition of what is ethical is “too relativistic” and avoids a precise normative position on right versus wrong (Reynolds 2008; Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008). In addition, community norms can violate ‘hypernorms’ (see Donaldson and Dunfee 1999).

  6. While there is an extensive literature on moral theory, the moral standards can be grouped under three general categories: (i) conventionalist (e.g., industry or corporate codes of ethics); (ii) consequentialist (e.g., utilitarianism); or (iii) deontological, including trustworthiness, respect, moral rights, and justice/fairness (see Schwartz and Carroll 2003; Schwartz 2005).

  7. Another possible way of dividing up EDM models is to categorize those that focus primarily on the disposition of the decision maker, versus those that are more interactional (person-situation) in nature. See Tsang (2002, p. 25).

  8. Ferrell et al. (1989) later suggest a revised ‘synthesis model’ which incorporates into their original model (1985) Kohlberg’s stages of moral development as well as the deontological and teleological moral evaluation process taken from Hunt and Vitells’ EDM model (1986).

  9. Kohlberg (1973) proposed three general levels of moral development including the pre-conventional (stage one: punishment; stage two: self-interest), conventional (stage three: referent others; stage four: law), and post-conventional (stage five: social contract; stage six: universal ethical principles). Kohlberg in later years indicated that his model focused on moral reasoning, and later clarified that it really only focused on justice/fairness issues. See Rest et al. (1999).

  10. For ‘heightened ethical concern,’ see De Cremer et al. (2010, p. 3). Moral awareness is defined by Rest (1986, p. 3) as the “…interpretation of the particular situation in terms of what actions (are) possible, who (including oneself) would be affected by each course of action, and how the interested parties would regard such effects on their welfare.”

  11. Moral judgment is defined by Rest as: “[F]iguring out what one ought to do. Applying moral ideals to the situation to determine the moral course of action” (Rest 1984, p. 26).

  12. For ‘determination’ see Ferrell et al. (1989, p. 60). Moral intention might be considered synonymous with moral motivation which Rest defines as giving “…priority to moral values above other personal values such that a decision is made to intend to do what is morally right” (1986, p. 3).

  13. Moral action is defined as having “…sufficient perseverance, ego strength, and implementation skills to be able to follow through on his/her intention to behave morally, to withstand fatigue and flagging will, and to overcome obstacles” (Rest 1986, pp. 4–5).

  14. For example, other rationalist models include the ‘general theory model’ proposed by Hunt and Vitell (1986), a ‘behavior model’ proposed by Bommer et al. (1987), and a ‘reasoned action’ model proposed by Dubinsky and Loken (1989) based on the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In conducting a summary of various early models, Brady and Hatch (1992) propose that at least four of the models (Ferrell and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986; Treviño 1986; Bommer et al. 1987) contain the same four elements (1) a decision process, modified by (2) internal and (3) external factors, leading to (4) ethical or unethical behavior.

  15. For example, Rest himself refers to the cognitive–affective interactions that take place during each of the four stages of EDM (Rest 1984, p. 27). According to Rest (1986, p. 6), the moral awareness stage involves trying to understand our own ‘gut feelings’ and in terms of the moral judgment stage “…most people seem to have at least intuitions about what’s morally right or wrong” (1986, p. 8). Rest states: “…there are different affect and cognition interactions in every component” (1984, p. 28). He also states: “…I take the view that there are no moral cognitions completely devoid of affect, no moral affects completely devoid of cognitions, and no moral behavior separable from the cognitions and affects that prompt the behavior” (Rest 1986, p. 4). Hunt and Vitell (1986, p. 10) also refer to the ‘feeling of guilt’ one might experience if behavior and intentions are inconsistent with one’s ethical judgments.

  16. ‘Bounded ethicality’ can be defined as one making decisions that run counter to values or principles without being aware of it (Chugh et al. 2005; Palazzo et al. 2012).

  17. In terms of cognitive biases, Messick and Bazerman (1996) propose a series of theories about the world, other people, and ourselves which are suggested to help explain the often unethical decisions that executives make. In terms of theories about the world, people often ignore possible outcomes or consequences due to five biases: “…ignoring low-probability events, limiting the search for stakeholders, ignoring the possibility that the public will ‘find out,’ discounting the future, and undervaluing collective outcomes” (1996, p. 10).

  18. Moral reasoning might also be argued to potentially take place without a conscious, effortful deliberation, suggesting it can be classified as a form of intuition. Intuition might also be classified as a very basic form of moral reasoning, meaning there is no real dispute between the two forms of processing, but rather they merely represent a difference in degree (i.e., time or effort) of processing. However, because moral reasoning involves non-automatic inferential processing, moral reasoning can be distinguished from intuition not only in terms of degree but also in terms of the kind of processing taking place (see Wright 2005, pp. 28–29 and 44–45).

  19. While positive emotions such as empathy are generally associated with ethical behavior, it may also be the case that positive affect arises following unethical behavior (e.g., cheating) which can then reinforce additional future unethical behavior. See: Ruedy et al. (2013).

  20. The sorts of emotions that have been suggested as impacting EDM include anger; anxiety; compassion; distress; dominance; embarrassment; empathy; fear; grief; guilt; hope; humiliation; love; meaninglessness; mercy; pride; regret; remorse; responsibility; sadness; shame; and sympathy (see: Haidt 2001; Agnihotri et al. 2012). Eisenberg (2000) provides a review of the research on guilt, shame, empathy, and moods in relation to morality.

  21. ‘Moral-personal’ dilemmas (as opposed to ‘impersonal’ dilemmas) that trigger an emotional response relate to situations such as deciding whether to physically push someone onto a trolley track to save the lives of many others. See Greene et al. (2001).

  22. Moral willpower (or self-sanction) can act like a ‘moral muscle’ that can be depleted following heavy use, or strengthened over time (see Muraven et al. 1999).

  23. For example, one might include intuition and emotions (or the ability to control one’s emotions) as part and parcel of one’s moral character based on a virtue-based ethics approach. For the purposes of the I-EDM model, intuition and emotion are described as part of the moral judgment stage; however, the extent and manner in which this takes place would potentially depend on one’s moral character disposition.

  24. ‘Current ethical value system’ (CEVS) is the framework that guides an individual’s ethical choices and behavior (see Jackson et al. 2013, p. 236).

  25. Ethical ideology is “…an integrated system of beliefs, values, standards, and self-assessments that define an individual’s orientation toward matters of right and wrong” (McFerran et al. 2010, p. 35). One’s ‘ethical ideology’ is made up of one’s ‘moral personality’ and ‘moral identity’ (McFerran et al. 2010). Schlenker (2008, p. 1079) suggests that there is a continuum between a ‘principled ideology’ (one believes moral principles exist and should guide conduct “…regardless of personal consequences or self-serving rationalizations”) and ‘expedient ideology’ (one believes moral principles have flexibility and that deviations for personal gain are justifiable).

  26. Ethical predisposition is defined as “…the cognitive frameworks individuals prefer to use in moral decision making” (Reynolds 2006b, p. 234).

  27. ‘Moral identity’ has been suggested by several theorists as playing an important self-regulatory role in linking moral attitudes to one’s behavior. See Schlenker (2008, p. 1081). See also Lapsley and Narvaez (2004) for a review of the concept of moral identity.

  28. See O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) and Craft (2013) for a complete list of EDM individual-related variables that would potentially fall into these categories.

  29. For example, Herndon states (1996, p. 504): “While Jones (1991) adds the concept of moral intensity which is the degree of ‘badness’ of an act; it can be placed in the consequences and behavioral evaluation portions of the synthesis integrated model.”

  30. As an alternative to ‘ethical infrastructure,’ others (e.g., Valentine et al. 2013) have used the term ‘ethical context’ to refer to both the ‘ethical culture’ (Treviño et al. 1998) and the ‘ethical climate’ of the organization (Victor and Cullen 1988).

  31. The notion of ‘vulnerability’ has apparently received little attention in the business ethics literature. See: Brown (2013).

  32. The firm’s ethical infrastructure should be considered distinct from organizational-level norms, although there would clearly be a relationship between them. This discussion is however beyond the scope of the paper.

  33. There is however a risk of moral awareness being confounded with moral judgment, especially when the definition of moral awareness includes consideration of one or more ethical standards (see Reynolds 2006b, p. 233).

  34. Carroll (1987) refers to ‘amoral managers,’ who can either act intentionally or unintentionally. Unintentional amoral managers “…do not think about business activity in ethical terms. These managers are simply casual about, careless about, or inattentive to the fact that their decisions and actions may have negative or deleterious effects on others. These managers lack ethical perception and moral awareness; that is, they blithely go through their organizational lives not thinking that what they are doing has an ethical dimension to it. They may be well intentioned but are either too insensitive or egocentric to consider the impacts on others of their behavior” (Carroll 1987, p. 11).

  35. The classic example of ‘ethical blindness’ comes from the recall coordinator of the defective Ford Pinto vehicle who asked himself: “Why didn’t I see the gravity of the problem and its ethical overtones?” (Gioia 1992, p. 383).

  36. This can also take place due to moral muting, which involves managers who “…avoid moral expressions in their communications…” (Bird and Waters 1989, p. 75).

  37. Ethical intention is sometimes linked with ethical behavior as being part of the ‘same phenomenon’ (Reynolds 2006a, p. 741) or they can be combined together as representing one’s ‘ethical choice’ (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010, p. 2). It may be therefore that ‘intention’ should be eliminated from Rest’s (1986) four-stage model, but might continue to act as a proxy for measuring judgment or behavior in EDM empirical research (see Mencl and May 2009, p. 205). For the purposes of the I-EDM model, intention remains theoretically distinct from behavior.

  38. Some have argued that the debate over reason versus intuition/emotion is actually based on whether one is experiencing a moral dilemma requiring a reasoning process, versus an affective or emotion-laden process based on reacting to a shocking situation such as considering the prospect of eating one’s own dog (Monin et al., 2007, p. 99).

  39. Heath (2008) provides a similar list of moral rationalizations which he refers to as ‘neutralization techniques.’

  40. Three notable exceptions include Reynolds (2006a), who makes rationalization explicit in his model as a retrospective (e.g., post hoc analysis) process operating as part of the higher order conscious reasoning system, while the decision-making model proposed by Tsang (2002) positions moral rationalization (along with situational factors) as being central to the ethical decision-making process. Dedeke (2015) also indicates that rationalization of one’s reflexive (intuitive or emotion-based) judgment can be part of the ‘moral reflection’ stage of EDM where moral reasoning also takes place.

References

  • Agle, B. R., Hart, D. W., Thompson, J. A., & Hendricks, H. M. (Eds.). (2014). Research companion to ethical behavior in organizations: Constructs and measures. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnihotri, J., Rapp, A., Kothandaraman, P., & Singh, R. K. (2012). An emotion-based model of salesperson ethical behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, W. S. (2003). Fraud examination. Thomson: Mason, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2005). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2014. Report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse: 2014 Global Fraud Study, Austin, Texas. http://www.acfe.com/rttn/docs/2014-report-to-nations.pdf.

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, D. (2003). Management and business ethics: A critique and integration of ethical decision-making models. British Journal of Management, 14, 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, F. B., & Waters, G. A. (1989). The moral muteness of managers. California Management Review, 32, 73–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravender, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosco, S. M., Melchar, D. E., Beauvais, L. L., & Desplaces, D. E. (2010). Teaching business ethics: The effectiveness of common pedagogical practices in developing students’ moral judgment competence. Ethics and Education, 5(3), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Hatch, M. J. (1992). General causal models in business ethics: An essay on colliding research traditions. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 927–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E. (2013). Vulnerability and the basis of business ethics: From fiduciary duties to professionalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7), 981–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1987). In search of the moral manager. Business Horizons, 30(2), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casali, G. L. (2011). Developing a multidimensional scale for ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 485–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In D. Moore, G. Loewenstein, D. Cain, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Conflicts of interest (pp. 74–95). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 221–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1992). Self-understanding and its role in social and moral development. In M. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (3rd ed., pp. 421–464). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Schminke, M. (2010). Guest editors’ introduction on understanding ethical behavior and decision making: A behavioral ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De George, R. T. (2010). Business ethics (7th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedeke, A. (2015). A cognitive-intuitionist model of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumwright, M. E., & Murphy, P. E. (2004). How advertising practitioners view ethics: Moral muteness, moral myopia, and moral imagination. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, A. J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19, 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 315–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elm, D. R., & Radin, T. J. (2012). Ethical decision making: Special or no different? Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethics Resource Center (2014). 2013 National business ethics survey. Arlington, VA.

  • 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 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Gresham, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (1989). A synthesis of ethical decision models for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 9(2), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. (1992). Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. M. (1994). The ethical manager. New York: Macmillan College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science, 293, 2105–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 4, 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., Koller, S., & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, R., Street, M. D., & Haines, D. (2008). The influence of perceived importance of an ethical issue on moral judgment, moral obligation, and moral intent. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, J. B., & Knouse, S. B. (2011). The experience-focused model of ethical action. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics (pp. 223–257). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 663–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J. (2008). Business ethics and moral motivation: A criminological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 595–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, V. E. (1984). The spectrum of ethicality. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(2), 163–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herndon, N. C, Jr. (1996). A new context for ethics education objectives in a college of business: Ethical decision-making models. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 501–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., & Hauser, M. (2009). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R. W., Wood, C. M., & Zboja, J. J. (2013). The dissolution of ethical decision-making in organizations: A comprehensive review and model. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in organizations: A moral approbation approach. Organization Science, 8(6), 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaler, J. (2000). Reasons to be ethical: Self-interest and ethical business. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1/2), 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 630–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2004). Moral development, self, and identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehnert, K., Park, Y., & Singh, N. (2015). Research note and review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 195–219.

  • Liedka, J. M. (1989). Value congruence: The interplay of individual and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(10), 805–815.

    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 

  • Marquardt, N., & Hoeger, R. (2009). The effect of implicit moral attitudes on managerial decision-making: An implicit social cognition approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, D. R., & Pauli, K. P. (2002). The role of moral intensity in ethical decision making. Business and Society, 41(1), 84–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. (2010). How personality and moral identity relate to individuals’ ethical ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, J. M. and Harvey, R. J. (2007). The effect of moral intensity on ethical judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 335–357.

  • Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009). The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 201–226.

  • Messick, D. M., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37(2), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monin, B., Pizarro, D. A., & Beer, J. S. (2007). Deciding versus reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G., & Gino, F. (2013). Ethically adrift: How others pull our moral compass from true North, and how we can fix it. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33, 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2013). Dilemmas, conspiracies, and Sophie’s choice: Vignette themes and ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-regulation through practice: Building self-control strength through repeated exercise. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisan, M. (1995). Moral balance model. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 475–492). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., Krings, F., & Hoffrage, U. (2012). Ethical blindness. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Y., & Sparks, J. R. (2012). Predictors, consequence, and measurement of ethical judgments: Review and meta analysis. Journal of Business Research, 65, 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (2000). The integrity capacity construct and moral progress in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimental, J. R. C., Kuntz, J. R., & Elenkov, D. S. (2010). Ethical decision-making: An integrative model for business practice. European Business Review, 22(4), 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, J. J., & Nichols, S. (2010). Moral emotions. In J. M. Doris, & The Moral Psychology Research Group (Eds.), The moral psychology handbook (pp. 111–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Randall, D. M. (1989). Taking stock: Can the theory of reasoned action explain unethical conduct? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(11), 873–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 24–38). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Shoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional thinking: A new-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J. (2006a). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 737–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J. (2006b). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin, D. P., Reidenbach, R. E., & Forrest, P. J. (1996). The perceived importance of an ethical issue as an influence on the ethical decision-making of ad managers. Journal of Business Research, 35, 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossouw, D., & Stückelberger, C. (Eds.) (2012). Global survey of business ethics: In training, teaching and research. http://www.globethics.net/documents/4289936/13403236/GlobalSeries_5_GlobalSurveyBusinessEthics_text.pdf.

  • Ruedy, N. E., Moore, C., Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2013). The cheater’s high: The unexpected affective benefits of unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(4), 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltzstein, H. D., & Kasachkoff, T. (2004). Haidt’s moral intuitionist theory: A psychological and philosophical critique. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvador, R., & Folger, R. G. (2009). Business ethics and the brain. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of principled and expedient ethical ideologies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(10), 1078–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schminke, M. (1998). Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2005). Universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. S. (1996). The role of moral intensity and fairness perception in judgments of ethicality: A comparison of managerial professionals and the general public. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 469–474.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1022–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stead, W. E., Worrell, D. L., & Stead, J. G. (1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(3), 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, Betsy. (2008). Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 601–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 8, 220–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, M. D., Douglas, S. C., Geiger, S. W., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). The impact of cognitive expenditure on the ethical decision-making process: The cognitive elaboration model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 256–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toffler, B. (1986). Tough choices: Managers talk ethics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres, M. B. (2001). Character and decision making. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Navarra.

  • 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., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, J. A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Sentencing Commission (2014). Organizations receiving fines or restitution. Sourcebook for Federal Sentencing Statistics. www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/annual-reports-sourcebooks/2014/sourcebook-2014.

  • Valentine, S., & Hollingworth, D. (2012). Moral intensity, issue importance, and ethical reasoning in operations situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S., Nam, S. H., Hollingworth, D., & Hall, C. (2013). Ethical context and ethical decision making: Examination of an alternative statistical approach for identifying variable relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, D. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Deciding what’s right: The role of external sanctions and embarrassment in shaping moral judgments in the workplace. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. W., Berkley, R. A., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2009). Ambiguous allure: The value-pragmatics model of ethical decision making. Business and Society Review, 114(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990’s: An empirical study of the Fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(3), 283–294.

  • Weber, J. (1993). Exploring the relationship between personal values and moral reasoning. Human Relations, 46(4), 435–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (1996). Influences upon managerial moral decision-making: Nature of the harm and magnitude of consequences. Human Relations, 49(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webley, S. (2011). Corporate ethics policies and programmes: UK and Continental Europe survey 2010. London: UK, Institute of Business Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (1998). Moral imagination and the search for ethical decision-making in management. Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series, 1, 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittier, N. C., Williams, S., & Dewett, T. C. (2006). Evaluating ethical decision-making models: A review and application. Society and Business Review, 1(3), 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 311–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. C. (2005). The role of reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: A review. Unpublished PhD Comprehensive Exam, University of Wyoming.

  • Yu, Y. M. (2015). Comparative analysis of Jones’ and Kelley’s ethical decision-making models. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 573–583.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Administrative Studies, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada

    Mark S. Schwartz

Authors
  1. Mark S. Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark S. Schwartz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwartz, M.S. Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach. J Bus Ethics 139, 755–776 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation