Write a short paper that demonstrates a brief analysis on the attached Ethics and Organizational Culture Article

Organizational Ethics Research: A Systematic Review of Methods and Analytical Techniques

Michael S. McLeod • G. Tyge Payne •

Robert E. Evert

Received: 9 January 2014 / Accepted: 16 October 2014 / Published online: 1 November 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Ethics are of interest to business scholars

because they influence decisions, behaviors, and outcomes.

While scholars have increasingly shown interest in busi-

ness ethics as a research topic, there are a mounting

number of studies that examine ethical issues at the orga-

nizational level of analysis. This manuscript reports the

results of a systematic review of empirical research on

organizational ethics published in a broad sample of busi-

ness journals over a 33-year period (1980–2012). A total of

184 articles are analyzed to reveal gaps in the literature

and, subsequently, lead to suggestions for future research;

this is done in an effort to stimulate and perpetuate high

quality research that more broadly impacts business

scholars and practitioners.

Keywords Analytics � Methods � Statistics � Empirical � Ethics � Virtues � Organization � Firm

Introduction

Ethics play an important role in business because they

influence decisions, behaviors, and outcomes at multiple

levels of analysis (Majluf and Navarrete 2011; Mayer-

Sommer and Roshwalb 1996; Payne et al. 2013; Shao et al.

2013; Somers 2001). Scholars have increasingly shown

interest in business ethics as a research topic, with related

research nearly tripling from 2000 to 2006 as compared to

the entire previous decade (Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe

2008). Recognizing this change, Tenbrunsel and Smith-

Crowe (2008, p. 545) state that ethics research ‘‘has

developed from a small niche area to a burgeoning stand-

alone field.’’ Similarly, Wright and Goodstein (2007,

p. 929) note that many scholars and practitioners have

‘‘rediscovered the importance of individual character

strengths and organizational virtues.’’ Indeed, the large

number of meta-analyses and literature reviews pertaining

to business ethics is testament to continued interest in the

topic (Trevino et al. 2014).

With increased attention given to business ethics in

general, there are a mounting number of studies that

examine ethical issues at levels of analysis beyond the

individual. For instance, Nielsen and Massa (2013) recently

discussed how scholars need to better understand how

institutional systems can influence the ethical nature and

behaviors of both individuals and organizations. At the

organizational level, which is of particular interest to this

review, there is growing interest in ethics because indi-

viduals rely on the structures, processes, and the people

around them when facing ethical dilemmas (Trevino 1986).

The contextual factors of organizations are generally

referred to as the ethical infrastructure and include such

aspects as codes, programs, climate, and culture (Tenb-

runsel and Smith-Crowe 2008; Trevino et al. 2014). Of

late, positive organizational ethics (POE) has emerged as a

strong area of interest (Sekerka et al. 2014), where POE

research seeks to understand the ‘‘factors that enable

exceptional, strong ethical conditions in organizational

life’’ (Bright et al. 2014, p. 445). In particular, the positive

organizational scholarship (POS) area of research, which

examines attributes, processes and outcomes of

M. S. McLeod � G. T. Payne (&) � R. E. Evert Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,

TX 79409, USA

e-mail: tyge.payne@ttu.edu

M. S. McLeod

e-mail: mike.mcleod@ttu.edu

R. E. Evert

e-mail: robert.evert@ttu.edu

123

J Bus Ethics (2016) 134:429–443

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2436-9

organizations (Cameron et al. 2003), has contributed to the

increased study of organizational ethics through its focus

on constructs such as resilience, positive deviance, and

organizational virtuousness (e.g., Cameron 2003; Spreitzer

and Sonenshein 2004; Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003).

While organizational ethics research is taking on a more

prominent role in the overall business and ethics literatures, to

date there has not been a systematic review of the literature to

ascertain the status of the field in terms of empirics (i.e.,

methods and statistical techniques). Empirics, generally, are

an important consideration because they influence the devel-

opment of knowledge and, hence, practical implications as

well as future research (Sackett and Larson 1990; Scandura

and Williams 2000; Schriescheim et al. 1993). Empirical

considerations are specifically important to organizational-

level ethics research because it commonly borrows from

individual-level concepts and theories. While borrowing from

lower levels of analysis has long been a fruitful endeavor for

organizational theory in general (e.g., organizational learning,

organizational identity), doing so comes with unique diffi-

culties, often because of misspecification (Klein and Koz-

lowski 2000). Basically, both theoretical and empirical

concernsexist because organizationscannotbeconsideredthe

equivalent of individuals nor can they be approached simply

as the sum of the individuals working within them (McKenny

et al. 2013a; Whetten et al. 2009). Hence, research at the

organizational level is unique and should be considered

independently in order for the field to progress.

The purpose of this review is to ascertain the progress

and limitations of the current empirical research on busi-

ness ethics conducted at the organizational level. Specifi-

cally, this review addresses the empirical challenges faced

by organizational ethics researchers by systematically

reviewing the methods and techniques published in the 45

academic journals listed by the Financial Times. The

Financial Times list is commonly used in compiling the

research ranks of business schools and, therefore, allows us

to not only capture research published in the top journals,

but also obtain a large multidisciplinary breadth of research

across business fields. Overall, we wish to move beyond a

basic conjecture of the empirical challenges in organiza-

tional ethics research (e.g., Chun 2005; Kaptein 2010;

Payne et al. 2011a, b, 2013; Wright and Goodstein 2007)

and toward a structured understanding of what these

challenges are and where they occur within the extant lit-

erature. For example, some of these challenges include

appropriately elevating individual-level constructs to the

organizational level (e.g., Chun 2005), assessing the gen-

eralizability of organizational ethics and how ethics may

differ across organizational types (e.g., Payne et al. 2011a,

b), and developing and obtaining accurate measures of

organizational ethics (e.g., Douglas et al. 2001; Houghton

et al. 2009).

Armed with a greater understanding of the uncertainties

associated with the empirical study of organizational-level

ethics research, scholars can make more ‘‘effective use of

scientific evidence’’ and improve the research in this

growing and important field of study (Rousseau et al. 2008,

p. 475, italics in original). Further, by highlighting the

methodological challenges and opportunities found within

organizational ethics research, our review responds to

scholarly calls for the enhancement and enrichment of

empirics in the field of business ethics (e.g., Robertson

2008; Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008; Wright and

Goodstein 2007).

Method and Results

Sample

In order to get a comprehensive and high quality sample of

articles from the primary business fields such as account-

ing, finance, information technology, management, and

marketing, we electronically searched the 45 journals listed

in the Financial Times, with no restriction on year of

publication, using the keywords organization or firm along

with ethic, moral, virtue, or virtuousness. Virtue and vir-

tuousness were included as key terms because virtue is the

ethical character of individuals and organizations and

integrates a set of values and beliefs in support of ethical

character traits (Chun 2005; Payne et al. 2011a, b; Solomon

1992; Williams 1985). Simply put, virtues (e.g., justice,

courage, truthfulness, etc.) play a significant role in how

business practices are affected by the organizations in

which the practices are embedded (MacIntyre 2013; Moore

2002). Further, there has been a notable increase in atten-

tion being given to virtue ethics, which places special

emphasis on moral character, and its application to orga-

nizations (e.g., Chun 2005; Hartman 2008; Rego et al.

2010; Payne et al. 2013). Moral was also included as a key

term because of its association with virtue, as well as

because it is often used synonymously with ethics. Further,

as argued by Moore (1999, 2002), organizations can be

considered moral agents and a source for moral develop-

ment in individuals.

Each of the 1,122 articles initially identified in the

electronic search was screened to determine if it was

empirical and addressed ethics at the organizational level

of analysis. Articles that did not clearly examine ethics at

the organizational level, or had only a tangentially related

discussion regarding organizational ethics, were not

included in our sample. For instance, some studies focused

more on the difference between individuals, such as senior

managers and lower level employees (Trevino et al. 2008)

or tax partners and non-tax partners (Bobek et al. 2010),

430 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

instead of the organizational collective. As a result, these

types of studies were not included in our sample. In other

words, while individuals can be a part of the study, the

organization had to be the main focus of the study to be

included in the sample.

Overall, a total of 184 empirical articles were deemed

appropriate for our review, consisting of articles published

between 1980 and 2012. Of these, 77 (42 %) were pub-

lished in the last five years of our sampling time frame

(2008–2012)—a testament to the growing scholarly interest

in this area of research. Also, 91 % of the total were

published in the Journal of Business Ethics (JBE) making it

the dominant outlet for organizational-level ethics

research. Other journals publishing relevant articles outside

of JBE included: California Management Review (Chatov

1980; Trevino et al. 1999; Tyler et al. 2008), Organization

Studies (Gordon et al. 2009; Moore 2012), Academy of

Management Executive (Veiga and Dechant 1993), Acad-

emy of Management Journal (Weaver et al. 1999),

Administrative Science Quarterly (Victor and Cullen

1988), Journal of Management Studies (Muller and Kolk

2010), Journal of Marketing (Hunt et al. 1989),

Organization Science (McKendall and Wagner 1997), and

Strategic Management Journal (Stevens et al. 2005).

Table 1 contains a breakdown of the frequency of articles

by academic journal.

Study Design

An organizing structure was required to systematically

assess the sampled articles and accentuate the methodo-

logical issues in organizational ethics research (e.g., Casper

et al. 2007; Short et al. 2008). Following Casper et al.

(2007), we systematically assessed the 184 articles using

the following parameters: (1) time horizon, (2) data col-

lection method, (3) sources of data, (4) geographic scope,

(5) content areas, (6) statistical techniques, and (7) business

discipline focus. Mutually exclusive coding was performed

in applicable situations. One author coded all articles,

while another author coded a random sample representing

43 % of the total; inter-rater reliability was 93 %. As

suggested by Rousseau et al. (2008), the items that were

not initially agreed upon were discussed between the two

authors until an agreement was reached. More details

Table 1 Frequency of methodological articles in the financial times 45 list

Journal Title Frequency % Journal title Frequency %

(1) Academy of Management Journal 2 1 (24) Journal of Financial Economics 0 0

(2) Academy of Management Perspectives 1 1 (25) Journal of International Business Studies 0 0

(3) Academy of Management Review 0 0 (26) Journal of Management Studies 1 1

(4) Accounting, Organizations and Society 1 1 (27) Journal of Marketing 1 1

(5) Accounting Review 0 0 (28) Journal of Marketing Research 0 0

(6) Administrative Science Quarterly 1 1 (29) Journal of Operations Management 0 0

(7) American Economic Review 0 0 (30) Journal of Political Economy 0 0

(8) California Management Review 3 2 (31) Journal of the American Statistical Association 0 0

(9) Contemporary Accounting Research 0 0 (32) Management Science 0 0

(10) Econometrica 0 0 (33) Marketing Science 0 0

(11) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 0 0 (34) MIS Quarterly 0 0

(12) Harvard Business Review 0 0 (35) Operations Research 0 0

(13) Human Resource Management 0 0 (36) Organization Science 2 1

(14) Information Systems Research 0 0 (37) Organization Studies 3 2

(15) Journal of Accounting and Economics 0 0 (38) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes

0 0

(16) Journal of Accounting Research 0 0 (39) Production and Operations Management 0 0

(17) Journal of Applied Psychology 0 0 (40) Quarterly Journal of Economics 0 0

(18) Journal of Business Ethics 168 91 (41) Rand Journal of Economics 0 0

(19) Journal of Business Venturing 0 0 (42) Review of Accounting Studies 0 0

(20) Journal of Consumer Psychology 0 0 (43) Review of Financial Studies 0 0

(21) Journal of Consumer Research 0 0 (44) Sloan Management Review 0 0

(22) Journal of Finance 0 0 (45) Strategic Management Journal 1 1

(23) Journal of Financial and Quantitative

Analysis

0 0

Percentages are based on total number of studies (N = 184)

Organizational Ethics Research 431

123

regarding the assessment of articles are discussed in the

following paragraphs, along with results.

Overall Study Design

Articles were coded as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed

methods (i.e., incorporating both quantitative and qualita-

tive approaches). Of the 184 articles, 132 were quantitative,

35 were qualitative, 16 used mixed methods, and 1 article

used a simulation. Time horizon was also coded as either

cross-sectional or longitudinal (Scandura and Williams

2000). Studies were overwhelmingly cross-sectional

(90 %) in their design. Also, we found that 59 % of the

quantitative and mixed methods studies formally stated

their hypotheses, while the remainder opted to propose a

general research question or agenda. Table 2 summarizes

the major design characteristics, delineating between

quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches.

Collection Method, Geographic Scope, and Business

Discipline

We coded for the data collection method utilized by each

study, labeling them as survey, archival, interview, or

observation. Since several studies used multiple collection

methods within a single study, coding was exhaustive and

included all data collection methods presented. Overall, the

most frequently used data collection method was survey

(65 %). Commonly used scales included Kaptein’s (1998)

Corporate Ethical Virtues Scale (e.g., Huhtala et al. 2011;

Kaptein2008),EthicalCommitment Index(e.g.,PaeandChoi

2011), and the Ethical Climate Scale developed by Victor and

Cullen (1988); the Ethical Climate scale was utilized in 32 %

of all quantitative and mixed-methods studies reviewed.

Archival data were utilized in 34 % of all studies and in

66 % of those classified as qualitative. Content analysis

was a noticeably commonly-employed method of archival

data collection; it was utilized in 20 % of all studies and

51 % of all qualitative studies. But while content analysis

was utilized frequently in the qualitative studies, it is worth

noting that scholars also applied content analysis tech-

niques in quantitative studies. For instance, content ana-

lysis was used in quantitative studies to evaluate business

code of ethics (Donker et al. 2008) and 10k reports

(Loughran et al. 2009). Interviews were also employed

regularly in qualitative studies (66 %), while direct

observations were used less frequently (34 %). Lastly,

Table 2 Data collection, research design, and sample

characteristics

Percentages are based on total

number of studies within the

quantitative (N = 132),

qualitative (N = 35), and mixed

methods (N = 16) categories.

Frequencies cumulate to more

than 100 % due to occurring

more than once per study

Study characteristics Freq:

quantitative

% Freq:

qualitative

% Freq: mixed

methods

%

Time horizon 132 35 16

Cross-sectional 126 95 24 69 15 94

Longitudinal 6 5 11 31 1 6

Data collection methods 132 35 16

Survey 104 79 0 0 16 100

Archival 38 29 23 66 2 13

Interview 0 0 23 66 15 94

Observation 0 0 12 34 2 13

Sources of data 132 35 16

Primary 102 77 28 80 16 100

Secondary 38 29 19 54 2 13

Geographic scope 132 35 16

North America 62 47 8 23 4 25

South America 3 2 0 0 1 6

Europe 10 8 9 26 5 31

Asia 9 7 3 9 2 13

Rest of the world (single

region)

4 3 2 6 1 6

Multiple Continents 14 11 3 9 0 0

Not specified 31 23 10 29 3 19

Business discipline focus 132 35 16

Management 110 83 32 91 15 94

Accounting or finance 14 11 1 3 1 6

Marketing 5 4 1 3 0 0

IT related 3 2 1 3 0 0

432 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

experimental or quasi-experimental efforts were used

infrequently at 1 % and 3 %, respectively

Geographic scope was coded as North America, South

America, Europe, Asia, rest of the world (single region),

multiple regions, and not specified; these frequencies and

percentages are summarized in Table 2. Geographic scope

is an important aspect of methods since region and culture

are likely to affect organizational-level ethics (Cowton and

Thompson 2000). Overall, the majority of research was

performed in North America (40 %), particularly in the

U.S. (31 %). Another telling statistic is that 24 % of the

studies failed to specify the chosen geographic location for

their study.

Finally, we determined how articles were aligned with a

specific business discipline; results are summarized in

Table 2. Specifically, each article was classified according

to whether it primarily focused on management, accounting

or finance, marketing, or information technology (IT). Of

these groupings, which parallel the Financial Times list,

the most studied business discipline perspective is man-

agement (86 %).

Statistical Techniques

Following related reviews (e.g., Dean et al. 2007), we coded

for the statistical techniques performed in each of the 184

organizational ethics studies in our sample. We entered into

this review without bias toward certain methodologies and a

wide variety of statistical techniques were analyzed and

coded, including regression, analysis of variance, factor

analysis, correlation, cluster analysis, structural equation

modeling, cross-tabulation, partial least squares, simple

descriptive statistics (e.g., survey data aggregation), repe-

ated measures, data over time analysis (e.g., time series

analysis), and qualitative methods. Articles containing

qualitative studies were primarily coded by the method uti-

lized to gather data (i.e., interviews, observations, content

analysis, archival) into the theme or content area of the study.

As Table 3 demonstrates, regression was the most

commonly utilized technique in the sample of quantitative,

mixed-methods, and simulation studies (52 %). Of the

studies using regression techniques, ordinary least squares

and hierarchical regression were most frequent, with 48 %

and 32 %, respectively. Following regression, the most

commonly used statistical techniques among the quantita-

tive, mixed-methods, and simulation studies were analysis

of variance (28 %), factor analysis (28 %), and descriptive

statistics only (14 %).

Content Areas

Articles were coded according to the ethics-based themes

that appeared regularly, such as code of ethics, corporate

social responsibility, and ethics programs. These categories

were not chosen a priori, but allowed to develop in an

iterative fashion. The most popular theme in organizational

ethics research is code of ethics, which are most often

studied with surveys (58 %), using cross-sectional (93 %)

designs. Ethical climate was the second most common

content area in our sample. Survey instruments were

heavily employed for these studies (87 %). Similar to other

content areas, the majority of ethical climate research has

been based in the management discipline (91 %) and

conducted in North America (46 %). Additionally, ethical

climate research at the organizational level is almost

exclusively cross-sectional (94 %).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) was the third most

common content area in our sample. Survey instruments

(47 %), archival (47 %), and interviews (40 %) were the

most popular sources of data. Unlike some other research

content areas (e.g., code of ethics, ethical climate), CSR

maintained a fairly balanced geographic scope; studies

Table 3 Statistical techniques used in articles on organizational ethics

Statistical Techniques Freq %

Regression 77

Ordinary least squares 37 48

Hierarchal regression 25 32

Logistic regression 7 9

Tobit regression 4 5

Step-wise regression 3 4

Ordinal regression 2 3

Robust regression 1 1

Two-stage least squares 1 1

Three-stage least squares 1 1

Analysis of variance 41

ANOVA 27 66

MANOVA 8 20

ANCOVA 11 27

MANCOVA 3 7

Factor analysis 41

Confirmatory factor analysis 28 68

Exploratory factor analysis 11 27

Principal components analysis 11 27

Descriptive statistics only 21

Pearson correlation 16

Cluster analysis 6

Structural equation modeling 10

Cross-tabulations 6

Partial least squares 2

Spearman correlation 2

Percentages are based on total conducted within each statistical

methodology

Organizational Ethics Research 433

123

T a b le

4 S tu d y c h a ra c te ri st ic s b y a rt ic le

c a te g o ri e s

C a te g o ry

C o d e o f

e th ic s

E th ic a l

c li m a te

C S R

E th ic s

p ro g ra m

E th ic s

H o tl in e a n d

W B

O rg . v a lu e s

a n d v ir tu e s

E th ic a l

c u lt u re

E th ic a l st ru c tu re s

a n d c o m m it m e n t

O rg . e th ic a l

d e c is io n

m a k in g

O rg .

c o rr u p ti o n

O rg . e th ic a l

id e n ti ty

a n d

re p u ta ti o n

F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

%

M e th o d o lo g ic a l a p p ro a c h

6 9

5 4

4 7

2 1

1 2

1 8

1 0

1 4

1 2

5 7

Q u a n ti ta ti v e

5 1

7 4

4 2

7 8

2 3

4 9

1 8

8 6

1 2

1 0 0

1 2

6 7

6 6 0

7 5 0

1 1

9 2

3 6 0

6 8 6

Q u a li ta ti v e

1 4

2 0

4 7

1 9

4 0

3 1 4

0 0

3 1 7

0 0

4 2 9

1 8

2 4 0

1 1 4

M ix e d m e th o d s

4 6

7 1 3

5 1 1

0 0

0 0

3 1 7

3 3 0

3 2 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

D a ta

c o ll e c ti o n m e th o d s

6 9

5 4

4 7

2 1

1 2

1 8

1 0

1 4

1 2

5 7

S u rv e y

4 0

5 8

4 7

8 7

2 2

4 7

1 7

8 1

1 0

8 3

1 2

6 7

6 6 0

1 0

7 1

9 7 5

2 4 0

5 7 1

A rc h iv a l

2 8

4 1

4 7

2 2

4 7

5 2 4

2 1 7

6 3 3

0 0

3 2 1

2 1 7

4 8 0

3 4 3

In te rv ie w

1 2

1 7

1 0

1 9

1 9

4 0

2 1 0

0 0

4 2 2

2 2 0

4 2 9

1 8

2 4 0

1 1 4

O b se rv a ti o n

3 4

1 2

4 9

2 1 0

0 0

3 1 7

1 1 0

3 2 1

1 8

2 4 0

0 0

Q u a si -e x p e ri m e n t

4 6

7 1 3

5 1 1

0 0

0 0

3 1 7

3 3 0

3 2 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

E x p e ri m e n t

2 3

1 2

1 2

0 0

0 0

1 6

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

G e o g ra p h ic

sc o p e

6 9

5 4

4 7

2 1

1 2

1 8

1 0

1 4

1 2

5 7

N o rt h A m e ri c a

2 8

4 1

2 5

4 6

1 4

3 0

1 2

5 7

8 6 7

3 1 7

4 4 0

4 2 9

3 2 5

1 2 0

1 1 4

S o u th

A m e ri c a

2 3

0 0

0 0

1 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 1 4

E u ro p e

6 9

4 7

1 0

2 1

1 5

1 8

8 4 4

1 1 0

3 2 1

0 0

2 4 0

0 0

A si a

3 4

7 1 3

4 9

1 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 1 4

1 8

0 0

0 0

R e st

o f th e w o rl d

4 6

1 2

4 9

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

M u lt ip le

c o n ti n e n ts

9 1 3

1 2

4 9

0 0

2 1 7

3 1 7

0 0

1 7

0 0

1 2 0

1 1 4

N o t sp e c ifi e d

1 8

2 6

1 5

2 8

1 1

2 3

6 2 9

1 8

4 2 2

3 3 0

4 2 9

8 6 7

1 2 0

4 5 7

B u si n e ss

d is c ip li n e fo c u s

6 9

5 4

4 7

2 1

1 2

1 8

1 0

1 4

1 2

5 7

M a n a g e m e n t re la te d

5 8

8 4

4 9

9 1

4 2

8 9

2 0

9 5

1 1

9 2

1 7

9 4

8 8 0

1 2

8 6

8 6 7

4 8 0

5 7 1

A c c o u n ti n g o r fi n a n c e

6 9

3 6

4 9

1 5

1 8

0 0

2 2 0

1 7

3 2 5

0 0

1 1 4

M a rk e ti n g re la te d

4 6

1 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 6

0 0

1 7

0 0

0 0

1 1 4

IT re la te d

1 1

1 2

1 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 8

1 2 0

0 0

B e c a u se

o f ro u n d in g u p o r d o w n to

th e n e a re st w h o le n u m b e r, p e rc e n ta g e s d o n o t a lw a y s a d d to

e x a c tl y 1 0 0 % . F re q u e n c ie s w it h in

d a ta c o ll e c ti o n m e th o d s a n d a rt ic le

c a te g o ri e s (e .g ., c o d e o f

e th ic s, e th ic a l c li m a te , e tc .) m a y a d d to

g re a te r th a n 1 0 0 %

b e c a u se

c o d in g w a s e x h a u st iv e

C S R c o rp o ra te

so c ia l re sp o n si b il it y , W B w h is tl e b lo w in g ; O rg . o rg a n iz a ti o n a l, F re q fr e q u e n c y

434 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

were conducted using samples from North America

(30 %), Europe (21 %), Asia (9 %), multiple continents

(9 %), and the rest of the world (9 %). However, CSR

lacked a study within the South American region, which

was also the case for most of the organizational ethics

research content areas. In fact, only four empirical studies

were conducted using data from South America making it

the least studied geographic region (see Tables 2, 4).

Ethics programs were researched in 11 % of the studies

in our sample of articles. Ethics programs and training have

been linked to a stronger ethical culture (Kaptein 2009),

greater job satisfaction (Valentine and Fleischman 2008),

and more representation of independent board members

(Felo 2001). Most ethics program research was quantita-

tively conducted (86 %), using survey data (81 %) and

management related (95 %). For studies on ethics hotlines

and whistleblowing, which made up 7 % of the total, sur-

vey instruments (83 %) and archival (17 %) were the only

data collection methods employed. Moreover, these studies

were primarily conducted in the North American geo-

graphic region (67 %).

With the exception of research on ethics hotline and

whistleblowing, all other content areas commonly

employed qualitative approaches. In particular, CSR

(40 %), organizational corruption (40 %), and ethical

structures and commitment (29 %) were particularly high

relative to the total number of studies. For mixed methods

research, the content areas of ethical culture (30 %), ethical

structures and commitment (21 %), and organizational

values and virtues (17 %) were higher than others. Also,

examining organizational values and virtues research

revealed that, unlike most content areas, the U.S. was not

the most researched geographic region. Finally, factor

analysis (50 %), regression (39 %), analysis of variance

(22 %), and structural equation modeling (22 %) were

heavily utilized statistical techniques in this content area.

Discussion and Implications

Despite the inherent and practical importance of organi-

zational ethics (Aadland 2010; Mahoney and Thorne 2005;

Yeh et al. 2008), our review indicates that, outside of JBE,

relatively few empirical articles on the subject have been

published in the journals recognized by Financial Times.

This is troublesome because the Financial Times list

includes many of the most widely read and highly cited

journals across all major business disciplines. While many

of these are more general journals and, arguably, should

not contain as many organizational ethics studies, this

dearth of studies suggests that the issues surrounding

organizational ethics are not reaching many mainstream

readers. We would argue that publishing organizational

ethics research in these more general journals is important

for greater dissemination of evidence; it may also legiti-

mate the area of study by signaling higher research quality

(Laband 1986; Laband and Piette 1994) and may be more

likely to be read and cited (Judge et al. 2007). Further,

since such a large percentage of relevant studies published

in JBE was oriented toward the management discipline,

more effort needs to be placed into other disciplines; topics

limited to only one or a very few journals or disciplines can

lead a research field to become stagnant—slowing empir-

ical and theoretical advancement.

Given this chief concern regarding limited dissemina-

tion of empirical evidence on organizational ethics, we

searched four additional journals not included on the

Financial Times 45 list; two journals focus on business

ethics (Business Ethics Quarterly and Business & Society)

and two general management journals (Journal of Orga-

nizational Behavior and Journal of Management). 1

Essentially, the additional analyses are utilized to deter-

mine if organizational ethics research is indeed restricted to

business ethics specific journals or just JBE. Using the

same search words and criteria as before, we only found

five articles from Business Ethics Quarterly (Johnson et al.

2011; Jovanovic and Wood 2007; McCabe et al. 1996;

Payne et al. 2011a, b; Trevino et al. 1998) and two from the

Journal of Organizational Behavior (Kaptein 2008; Weber,

Unterrainer, and Schmid 2009) that met our criteria for

inclusion in the sample; no appropriate articles were found

from Business & Society or the Journal of Management.

These results suggest that the research on organizational

ethics is largely contained within JBE and efforts should be

made to better disseminate research on organizational

ethics to a more general audience. Therefore, we make a

call for more rigorous research on organizational ethics that

can reach more general business journals in all disciplines.

A broader dissemination would allow the conversation on

organizational ethics to be expanded and strengthened,

having a greater impact on researchers and, ultimately,

business practitioners and policy makers.

Calls for more rigorous research are commonly made

and we acknowledge the inherent difficulty in publishing

empirical research in many of the journals covered in this

review, particularly if there is not an ongoing conversa-

tion on the topic. Indeed, for business ethics researchers,

the challenge may be especially difficult due to the

inherent limitations associated with ethics research, which

often involves substantial biases that limit the scope,

methods, and empirics (Crane 1999). For instance, biases

exist due to cultural misinterpretations of researchers

(McDonald 2000), social desirability (Randall and

1 We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for suggestions

regarding these additional analyses.

Organizational Ethics Research 435

123

Fernandes 1991), stereotypes (Fagenson 1990), theoretical

perspectives employed (Stevenson 1990), and environ-

mental factors (Vitell 2003), including researcher inter-

actions (Miyazaki and Taylor 2008). Together, such

limitations not only restrict the type, scope and quality of

relevant research, but inhibit our ability to draw strong

conclusions and make meaningful inferences about

findings.

Challenges are also inherent in ethics research when

drawing parallels or comparisons between seemingly

similar individual-, group-, or organizational-level con-

structs. For example, virtuousness in an organization can

be viewed as the collective actions, attributes and pro-

cesses of organizational members (Cameron et al. 2004),

but we should simultaneously recognize how higher levels

of virtuousness can ‘‘facilitate, enable, and even engen-

der’’ lower levels (Luthans and Youssef 2007, p. 337).

This is an example of simultaneity—when two variables

concurrently cause one another; simultaneity is one of

several reasons for endogeneity (Antonakis et al. 2010).

Indeed, there seems to be an inherent difficulty in ethics

research associated with endogeneity (Garcia-Castro et al.

2010), which ‘‘includes omitted variables, omitted selec-

tion, simultaneity, common-method variance, and mea-

surement error,’’ that can create difficulties in modeling

and interpreting relationships, particularly regarding cau-

sality (Antonakis et al. 2010, p. 186)

With such intrinsic challenges in mind, the remainder

of this section seeks primarily to offer suggestions for

future research intended to advance the field forward;

these opportunities, of course, build on the limitations and

challenges of prior work. For although ethics research has

made considerable progress since the turn of the millen-

nium (Calabretta et al. 2011; Tenbrunsel and Smith-

Crowe 2008), there are clearly still numerous opportuni-

ties within all functional business fields (e.g., accounting,

finance, information technology, management, marketing)

to examine ethics, particularly from an organizational

perspective (Wright and Goodstein 2007) and through the

use of more advanced methods (Etzioni 2007). Thus,

following the primary objectives of this review, we now

consider the future of organizational ethics research from

an empirical perspective. Namely, we consider issues of

cross-sectional data and causality, misuse and misspeci-

fication of data, replication and reproduction, and con-

textual factors, including effects at multiple levels of

analysis. However, we are compelled to note the impor-

tance of theory when making methodological and analytic

decisions. Indeed, deep thought and consideration must be

given to the methods employed in organizational research

since ‘‘methods can generate and shape theory, just as

theory can generate and shape methods’’ (Van Maanen

et al. 2007, p. 1146).

Cross-Sectional Data and Causality

One of the most identifiable characteristics of studies in our

sample is the predominance of cross-sectional designs

(90 %), with many of these studies indicating influence or

causality between variables when the data and methods do

not support such inferences. For example, Halter et al.

(2009) claimed causality using only basic averages and

standard deviations of cross-sectional data. Further, Alas

(2009) and Lin (2011) drew several inferences to causality

using regression techniques in a cross-sectional design. In

such studies, biased estimates are likely because the cor-

relation between measures that are collected at the same

point in time is commonly different than when measures

are collected at different time periods (Edwards 2008).

Causality requires a correlation between the cause and

effect, a time difference between the two, and the ability to

rule out alternative explanations (Cook and Campbell

1979). As such, causality can generally not be substantiated

without the use of randomized experiments (Antonakis

et al. 2010), which are infeasible for most research on

organizational ethics. And while longitudinal designs can

address the second condition for causality, assuming an

otherwise correctly specified model, they do not com-

pletely rule out other causal orders that may influence

findings (Edwards 2008). Thus, more studies should

incorporate longitudinal data to overcome some of the

inherent difficulties associated with cross-sectional designs

(e.g., Mahoney and Thorne 2005; Payne et al. 2013), but

also consider other options that might further ameliorate

bias. For example, when common methods bias is

unavoidable, the use of instruments in two-stage-least

squares (2SLS) models may allow for more consistent

estimates (Antonakis et al. 2010).

Particularly relevant to our review, Garcia-Castro et al.

(2010) explicitly demonstrated how endogeneity largely

accounts for the positive relationship found between KLD

measures of social performance and firm performance in

other studies (e.g., Hillman and Klein 2001). Specifically,

they demonstrate how fixed effect and instrumental vari-

able estimations might be utilized to ameliorate some

endogeneity concerns. Further, Garcia-Castro et al. (2010)

note the importance of accounting for firm-specific char-

acteristics (e.g., management quality, culture) in under-

standing why some firms adopt certain ethical practices

initially.

Appropriately Applied Methods

Another area of concern that emerged while reviewing the

sample articles is the misuse and/or misspecification of

methods and data relative to the initial research questions

or hypotheses. Inappropriate application of methods may

436 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

lead to erroneous conclusions and, subsequently, improper

implications and future research directions. For instance,

Ki et al. (2012, p. 269) utilized step-wise regression in an

effort to answer their stated research question: ‘‘Does an

ethics statement of a Korean public relations firm have a

significant impact on the ethical behaviors of its public

relations professionals?’’ A method such as hierarchical

regression would have been more appropriate. Step-wise

regression, as compared to hierarchical regression, is a

more exploratory technique typically used to define a

posteriori order of significance of variables based solely on

statistical considerations. Hierarchical regression, on the

other hand, uses pre-specified (i.e., theory-driven) model-

ing to guide statistical analysis and is generally preferred

over the automatic algorithm—and the many limitations—

associated with stepwise regression (Judd and McClelland

1989). Overall, great care must be taken to properly match

the conceptual arguments or goals of the paper to the sta-

tistical technique. In other words, future research should

allow their theory and research questions to drive the

methodologies used.

While most studies in our sample appeared to use suit-

able methodologies, the breadth of approaches is rather

limited. For instance, 87 % of all studies on the ethical

climate construct utilized survey methods whereas quali-

tative techniques, archival, and experimental designs only

make up 7, 7, and 2 %, respectively. While surveys are

typically an effective research tool, there appears to be a

need to branch out from survey designs and find different

ways to measure ethical climate (among other organiza-

tional ethics topics) so that new questions might be asked

and answered. For example, Almer et al. (2008) used an

experimental case to examine how post-restatement of

financial statements could impact the ethical perceptions

that investors have on the organization. Future research on

ethical climate could do something similar, examining how

each of the five parts of the ethical climate construct affect

the perceptions of employees and the different employee

reactions that might occur as a result (Table 5).

Generally, a greater variety of methodologies and tech-

niques should be used to explore new research questions and

phenomena. In a somewhat counterintuitive way, scholars

may be able to use this review to first identify areas in need of

methodologicalvariation,andthenusethesegapstorecognize

new phenomena and previously untested relationships or

reexamine questions that are yet to be fully answered. For

instance, Jo and Na (2012) recently utilized a three-stage-least

squares (3SLS) approach to examine the relationship between

firm risk and CSR engagement in controversial industries; this

was done in an effort to test the two competing hypotheses of

window dressing and risk reduction. Additionally, researchers

should consider how multiple methodological approaches

might be used in a complementary fashion to get more robust

and meaningful results. For instance, Yauch and Steudel

(2003) discuss how both qualitative and quantitative methods

were used to better understand culture in organizations; they

specifically state, ‘‘Using mixed methods to acquire data can

increase the validity of the results [and] from a paradigm

perspective, using mixed methods can produce complemen-

tary results’’ (p. 477). Future research in organizational ethics

could follow similar triangulation approaches, where trian-

gulation is the use of multiple perspectives to verify and

clarify meaning (Jick 1979).

While clear gaps and areas for future research exist,

there are numerous examples of innovative approaches to

address the difficult challenges associated with organiza-

tional ethics research; we highlight several of these as an

additional way to encourage new approaches. For example,

to overcome social desirability response bias, Houghton

et al. (2009) had participants respond to hypothetical

vignettes, as opposed to asking respondents directly about

their perceptions, values, social norms or impressions of an

event or organizational practice (e.g., corporate social

responsibility). Another method that could similarly be

utilized is a forced ranking system wherein respondents

would be forced to rank their most likely action for a given

scenario. Also, conjoint analysis, which has been previ-

ously utilized in the entrepreneurship literature to explore

how venture capitalists make investment decisions (e.g.,

Drover et al. 2014), could be applied to ethics, virtue, and

moral decisions and behaviors. More specifically, conjoint

analysis requires research participants to make decisions

based on various controlled trade-offs, which reveal the

relative importance of the attributes under analysis. Thus,

researchers could provide organizations with a hypothetical

scenario wherein organizations chose certain actions based

on trade-offs of each action. Past research has shown that

organizations are constantly forced to make trade-offs

when attempting to address multiple demands with a

restricted set of options (Payne 2006). Thus, conjoint

analysis would be a suitable method to use when examin-

ing ethical trade-offs.

Another avenue of high potential for future research is

found in the configurations literature, which commonly

utilizes typological and taxonomical groupings of organi-

zations to explain a variety of outcomes (Short et al. 2008).

According to configurations theory, different configura-

tions of strategy, structure or other characteristic are pre-

dictive of performance, effectiveness or other outcomes.

Hence, it seems reasonable to consider organizational

ethics in a similar fashion, not as individual activities but as

configurations of characteristics or approaches. For exam-

ple, Tseng and Fan (2011) used hierarchical clustering to

group organizations into two distinct ethical climate

groups; these groupings were then used to test hypotheses

regarding the impact of ethical climate on knowledge

Organizational Ethics Research 437

123

T a b le

5 S ta ti st ic a l te c h n iq u e s a n d st u d y ty p e s b y a rt ic le

c a te g o ri e s

C a te g o ry

C o d e o f

e th ic s

E th ic a l

c li m a te

C S R

E th ic s

p ro g ra m

E th ic s

H o tl in e a n d

W B

O rg . v a lu e s

a n d v ir tu e s

E th ic a l

c u lt u re

E th ic a l

st ru c tu re s a n d

c o m m it m e n t

O rg . e th ic a l

d e c is io n

m a k in g

O rg .

C o rr u p ti o n

O rg . e th ic a l

id e n ti ty

a n d

re p u ta ti o n

F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

% F re q

%

S ta ti st ic a l te c h n iq u e s

6 9

5 4

4 7

2 1

1 2

1 8

1 0

1 4

1 2

5 7

R e g re ss io n

2 1

3 0

3 5

6 5

1 7

3 6

1 1

5 2

4 3 3

7 3 9

5 5 0

4 2 9

1 0

8 3

2 4 0

4 5 7

A n a ly si s o f v a ri a n c e

1 4

2 0

1 6

3 0

5 1 1

3 1 4

2 1 7

4 2 2

5 5 0

2 1 4

5 4 2

0 0

3 4 3

C F A /E F A /P C A

7 1 0

1 9

3 5

9 1 9

6 2 9

2 1 7

9 5 0

2 2 0

2 1 4

4 3 3

0 0

1 1 4

D e sc ri p ti v e st a ti st ic s o n ly

1 5

2 2

1 2

6 1 3

3 1 4

2 1 7

1 6

2 2 0

2 1 4

0 0

1 2 0

0 0

P e a rs o n c o rr e la ti o n

4 6

6 1 1

3 6

2 1 0

3 2 5

2 1 1

2 2 0

0 0

1 8

0 0

0 0

S E M

1 1

2 4

2 4

2 1 0

2 1 7

4 2 2

1 1 0

1 7

0 0

1 2 0

0 0

C lu st e r a n a ly si s

2 3

3 6

2 4

1 5

1 8

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 2 0

0 0

C ro ss -t a b u la ti o n s

4 6

0 0

2 4

0 0

1 8

1 6

0 0

1 7

0 0

0 0

0 0

P a rt ia l le a st

sq u a re s

0 0

2 4

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

S p e a rm

a n c o rr e la ti o n

0 0

1 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 6

0 0

1 7

0 0

0 0

0 0

S tu d y ty p e

6 9

5 4

4 7

2 1

1 2

1 8

1 0

1 4

0 0

7

C ro ss

se c ti o n a l

6 4

9 3

5 1

9 4

4 2

8 9

1 9

9 0

1 1

9 2

1 4

7 8

9 9 0

1 0

7 1

1 1

9 2

3 6 0

7 1 0 0

L o n g it u d in a l

5 7

2 4

5 1 1

2 1 0

1 8

4 2 2

0 0

4 2 9

1 8

2 4 0

0 0

S im

u la ti o n

0 0

1 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

C a se

st u d y

6 9

5 9

1 3

2 8

0 0

0 0

4 2 2

1 1 0

2 1 4

1 8

2 4 0

0 0

B e c a u se

o f ro u n d in g u p o r d o w n to

th e n e a re st w h o le

n u m b e r, p e rc e n ta g e s d o n o t a lw a y s a d d to

e x a c tl y 1 0 0 % . F re q u e n c ie s m a y a d d to

g re a te r th a n 1 0 0 %

b e c a u se

c o d in g w a s e x h a u st iv e

C S R c o rp o ra te

so c ia l re sp o n si b il it y , W B w h is tl e b lo w in g ; O rg . o rg a n iz a ti o n a l, F re q fr e q u e n c y

438 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

management attitudes and process involvement. Similarly,

Morris et al. (2002) found four distinct clusters of firms

using cross-sectional survey data. While mostly descrip-

tive, this study confirms that small firms may take very

different approaches to ethics at the organizational level.

Future research should consider the antecedents to such

groupings, as well as the outcomes associated with these

types. Also, given some concerns regarding the use of

cluster analysis and other agglomerative methods, Fiss

(2007, p. 1183) suggests using a set-theoretic approach to

configurations; a set-theoretic approach ‘‘uses Boolean

algebra to determine which combination of organizational

characteristics combine to result in the outcome.’’ As such,

a more subjective and, perhaps, meaningful approach to

organizational ethics groupings might be achieved.

Replication and Reproduction

Organizational-level ethics research is arguably still early

in its development. Therefore, it is even more imperative

that authors provide the details necessary regarding data

and methods to ensure replication is possible, along with

reproducibility, if given access to data. Reproducibility, in

particular, has become an increasingly important discus-

sion topic in the social sciences. Other fields outside of

business, such as psychology, economics, and medical

research, have also expressed concern with a lack of

reproducible research (e.g., Amir and Sharon 1990; Ioan-

nidis 2007). Case in point, we found that 24 % of the

studies did not specify the chosen geographic location of

their sample or study. Such omissions of information can

be troublesome, particularly when considering how

research builds upon itself to produce new knowledge.

Further, such lackadaisical reporting may be seen by

scholars, particularly those outside of the field, to be

indicative of the quality or rigor of the research itself.

Missing information is also an ethical concern because

studies that do not properly report information cannot be

scrutinized fully. Considering the nature of the field, it

seems even more prudent that scholars studying organiza-

tional ethics lead the way in taking responsibility for pro-

viding detailed and accurate information regarding our

research. We ask that scholars think deeply about their

ethical responsibilities when conducting and reporting

research. More specifically, issues of appropriate sampling,

properly specified methods, technical proficiency, and

proper reporting should be at the forefront of concerns.

Overall, we argue for the importance of performing high

quality empirical research. Without properly conducting

and reporting research, organizational ethics scholars could

expend valuable time and resources chasing after the pro-

verbial wild goose.

Context and Multi-level Considerations

Organizational behaviors are often dependent on the situ-

ational and environmental context (Donaldson 2001).

Consequently, the context within which ethical actions are

performed by organizations seems to be an important area

of research that remains largely under-examined. Mirroring

Zahra and Wright’s (2011) arguments regarding the

entrepreneurship field’s next steps, we recognize the need

to examine the heterogeneous facets of context and incor-

porate those aspects into future research and theory-

building efforts in the ethics field. By analyzing organi-

zational ethics within various contexts—including spatial,

time, social and institutional contextual dimensions (e.g.,

Zahra and Wright 2011)—ethics scholars should be able to

more precisely identify and clarify the empirical links

found in our literature and how context may alter previ-

ously held views.

When considering context empirically, a major issue is

the nested nature of most data and organizations. For

example, Jin and Drozdenko (2010) take a multi-level

perspective of how organizational-level ethics and indi-

vidual-level ethics affect each other. We suggest that along

with the individual and organizational levels, other levels

(e.g., groups, industries, nation-states) should likewise be

examined to ascertain the origination and differentiation of

organizational ethics within these various contexts. Indeed,

we did not identify in our sample any studies that compared

organizational differences in ethics among industries. We

did, however, note some studies that analyzed differences

using alternative categorizations. In particular, our review

shows that only 7 % of the studies analyzed ethics of

family firms. For example, Deniz and Suarez (2005) use

non-hierarchical k-means cluster analysis as an exploratory

technique to extract the profile of family firms according to

their perception of social responsibility. Non-hierarchical

cluster analysis offers a method whereby the degree of

clustering within the data can be optimized and appropri-

ately assessed, allowing researchers to set the desired

number of clusters according to their theoretical basis and

find the best cluster solution (Hair et al. 2010). Such cat-

egorization techniques can aid researchers seeking to not

only better understand differences among groupings, but

also to help explain and predict how various characteristics

of organizational groups influence various outcomes.

Multilevel modeling and analytical techniques, such as

random coefficient modeling, have also shown to be

important and useful in related phenomena (e.g., Payne

et al. 2011a, b). In particular, multi-level perspectives can

help illuminate the various contexts of organizations and

how these contexts influence organizational ethics or phe-

nomena occurring in and around organizations. Indeed, the

very nature of ethics and values is inherently nested (i.e.,

Organizational Ethics Research 439

123

individuals within teams within organizations within

industries) and offers great potential for better under-

standing multi-level phenomena in general.

Although potentially useful, caution is advised when

examining ethics at the organizational level. For example,

Johnson et al. (2011) could have further enhanced their use

of the anomie construct at the organizational level through

more careful specification of the definition and a stronger

approach to its validation. First, the definition provided by

Johnson et al. (2011, p. 473), a ‘‘collective condition

characterized by the absence of normative guidelines’’,

conflicts with Durkheim (1951)—an originator of the

anomie construct—who defined it as a mismatch, not an

absence, of normative guidelines (Star et al. 1997). Second,

the validation of the construct was minimal, including only

interviews of seven managers, and should be expanded,

particularly given changes in the levels of analysis

(McKenny et al. 2013b). As an exemplar study, Chun

(2005) conducted a rigorous examination of virtue in which

she empirically defined and measured organizational vir-

tues by first examining individual virtues and delineating

which individual virtues transferred to the organizational

level through a methodical triangulation of content ana-

lysis, surveys, and interviews using a large and highly

diverse sample. We encourage future ethics researchers to

take similar prudence when transferring individual level

constructs to the organizational level (McKenny et al.

2013a, b).

Conclusion

‘‘Scholarly progress…requires us to assess what we know and how well we know it as well as what we don’t know’’

(Zahra and Wright 2011, p. 67). This review of the orga-

nizational ethics literature is intended to assess what we do

and do not know about empirical practices in an effort to

increase the relevance and impact of this important area of

research. This review also responds to the call by

researchers to provide stronger methodological practices in

organizational ethics research by taking the first step

toward understanding the state of the field in terms of

empirics (e.g., Robertson 2008; Tenbrunsel and Smith-

Crowe 2008; Wright and Goodstein 2007). Overall, our

review suggests that while advances have been made

recently, more sophisticated methodologies and statistics

need to be facilitated such that the field of organizational

ethics can improve in rigor and become more broadly

disseminated. Basically, with more advanced empirical

research on organizational ethics, more studies can be

published in the more general journals of each business

discipline and, subsequently, have a greater impact on

business research and practice.

While such general suggestions are simplistic, and may

easily apply to many other fields of research, they are still

meaningful. Therefore, in conclusion, we wish to empha-

size three key characteristics of organizational-level ethics

research that lend support for conducting this study. First,

business ethics is difficult to define and measure because

the perception of ethics varies extensively. Indeed, per-

ceptions of ethics varies, both morally and legally, among

cultures and nations (e.g., Calderón-Cuadrado et al. 2009;

Robertson et al. 2008; Wines and Napier 1992), as well as

business disciplines (Nicholson and DeMoss 2009). Hence,

an assessment of how and where ethics research is being

conducted can help us move the field forward. With greater

awareness of the field’s boundaries, we can expand said

boundaries to impact a greater constituency. Second, there

is a taboo generally associated with answering honestly to

tough ethical questions (Houghton et al. 2009). As such,

more innovative methods are needed to tap into the ethical

nature of organizations. For instance, Payne et al. (2013)

utilized content analysis techniques to examine how vir-

tuous rhetoric influences the financial outcomes of foreign

IPOs. Finally, ethics are generally considered at the indi-

vidual level and have only relatively recently been elevated

for use at the organizational level. As previously men-

tioned, an inherent challenge with ethics research is its

embedded nature, which presents multi-level challenges,

but also opportunities.

In summary, ethics are difficult to ascertain and under-

stand since they are abstract, riddled with biases, constantly

evolving, and inherently nested across levels of analysis.

Each of these reasons individually and collectively dem-

onstrates the uniqueness of the methodological challenges

found in organizational ethics research. Taken together,

such limitations inhibit organizational ethics research from

realizing its full potential (e.g., Robertson 2008; Tenb-

runsel and Smith-Crowe 2008; Wright and Goodstein

2007). Our desire is that researchers will build upon the

guidance found within this review in such a way that

organizational ethics scholars will be able to perpetuate the

field’s tremendous methodological and theoretical

advancement for many years to come.

References

Aadland, E. (2010). Values in professional practice: Towards a

critical reflective methodology. Journal of Business Ethics,

97(3), 461–472.

Alas, R. (2009). The impact of work-related values on the readiness to

change in Estonian organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,

86(2), 113–124.

Almer, E. D., Gramling, A., & Kaplan, S. E. (2008). Impact of post-

restatement actions taken by a firm on non-professional

440 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

investors’ credibility perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics,

80(1), 61–76.

Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1990). Replication research: A ‘must’ for the

scientific advancement of psychology. Journal of Social Behav-

ior and Personality, 5(4), 51–69.

Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On

making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leader-

ship Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.

Bobek, D. D., Hageman, A. M., & Radtke, R. R. (2010). The ethical

environment of tax professionals: Partner and non-partner

perceptions and experiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4),

637–654.

Bright, D., Winn, B., & Kanov, J. (2014). Reconsidering virtue:

Differences of perspective in virtue ethics and the positive social

sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(4), 445–460.

Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., & Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the

intellectual structure of research in business ethics: A journey

through the history, the classics, and the pillars of Journal of

Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499–524.

Calderón-Cuadrado, R., Álvarez-Arce, J. L., Rodrı́guez-Tejedo, I., &

Salvatierra, S. (2009). ‘‘Ethics hotlines’’ in transnational com-

panies: A comparative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1),

199–210.

Cameron, K. S. (2003). Organizational virtuousness and performance.

In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive

organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp.

48–65). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cameron, K. S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the

relationships between organizational virtuousness and perfor-

mance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766–790.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive

organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert,

D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family

research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 28–43.

Chatov, R. (1980). What corporate ethics statements say. California

Management Review, 22(4), 20–29.

Chun, R. (2005). Ethical character and virtue of organizations: An

empirical assessment and strategic implications. Journal of

Business Ethics, 57(3), 269–284.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:

Design and analysis for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand

McNally.

Cowton, C. J., & Thompson, P. (2000). Do codes make a difference ?

The case of bank lending and the environment. Journal of

Business Ethics, 24(2), 165–178.

Crane, A. (1999). Are you ethical? Please tick yes or no: On

researching ethics in business organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 20(3), 237–248.

Dean, M. A., Shook, C. L., & Payne, G. T. (2007). The past, present,

and future of entrepreneurship research: Data analytic trends and

training. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(4), 601–618.

Deniz, M. D. L. C. D., & Suarez, M. K. C. (2005). Corporate social

responsibility and family business in Spain. Journal of Business

Ethics, 56(1), 27–41.

Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Donker, H., Poff, D., & Zahir, S. (2008). Corporate values, codes of

ethics, and firm performance: A look at the Canadian context.

Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 527–537.

Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect

of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’

ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 101–121.

Drover, W., Wood, M., & Payne, G. T. (2014). The effects of

perceived control on venture capitalist investment decisions: A

configurational perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-

tice, 38(4), 833–861.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: a Study in Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free

Press.

Edwards, J. R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology

should… overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(4), 469–491.

Etzioni, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural

environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal of Management,

33(4), 637–664.

Fagenson, E. A. (1990). At the heart of women in management

research: Theoretical and methodological approaches and their

biases. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4–5), 267–274.

Felo, A. J. (2001). Ethics programs, board involvement, and potential

conflicts of interest in corporate governance. Journal of Business

Ethics, 32(3), 205–218.

Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational

configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32,

1180–1198.

Garcia-Castro, R., Ariño, M., & Canela, M. (2010). Does social

performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting

for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 107–126.

Gordon, R., Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (2009). Embedded ethics:

Discourse and power in the New South Wales police service.

Organization Studies, 30(1), 73–99.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).

Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Halter, M. V., Arruda, M. C. C., & Halter, R. B. (2009). Transparency

to reduce corruption? Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3),

373–385.

Hartman, E. M. (2008). Reconciliation in business ethics: Some

advice from Aristotle. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 253–265.

Hillman, A. J., & Klein, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder

management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?

Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

Holder-Webb, L., & Cohen, J. (2012). The cut and paste society:

Isomorphism in codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,

107(4), 485–509.

Houghton, S. M., Gabel, J. T. A., & Williams, D. W. (2009). Connecting

the two faces of CSR: Does employee volunteerism improve

compliance? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 477–494.

Huhtala, M., Feldt, T., Lämsä, A.-M., Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U.

(2011). Does the ethical culture of organisations promote

managers’ occupational well-being? Investigating indirect links

via ethical strain. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 231–247.

Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical

values and organizational commitment in marketing. Journal of

Marketing, 53(3), 79–90.

Ioannidis, J. P. (2007). Non-replication and inconsistency in the

genome-wide association setting. Human Heredity, 64(4),

203–213.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods:

Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4),

602–611.

Jin, K. G., & Drozdenko, R. G. (2010). Relationships among

perceived organizational core values, corporate social responsi- bility, ethics, and organizational performance outcomes: An

empirical study of information technology professionals. Journal

of Business Ethics, 92(3), 341–359.

Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from

controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics,

110(4), 441–456.

Johnson, J. L., Martin, K. D., & Saini, A. (2011). Strategic culture and

environmental dimensions as determinants of anomie in pub-

licly-traded and privately-held firms. Business Ethics Quarterly,

21(3), 473–502.

Organizational Ethics Research 441

123

Jovanovic, S., & Wood, R. V. (2007). Dialectical interactions:

Decoupling and integrating ethics and ethics initiatives. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 17(2), 217–238.

Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model

comparison approach. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007).

What causes a management article to be cited—Article, author,

or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491–506.

Kaptein, M. (1998). Ethics management: Auditing and developing the

ethical content of organizations. Dordrecht: Springer.

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing and testing a measure for the ethical

culture of organizations: The corporate ethical virtues model.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 923–947.

Kaptein, M. (2009). Ethics programs and ethical culture: A next step

in unraveling their multi-faceted relationship. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 89(2), 261–281.

Kaptein, M. (2010). The ethics of organizations: A longitudinal study

of the U.S. working population. Journal of Business Ethics,

92(4), 601–618.

Ki, E. J., Choi, H. L., & Lee, J. (2012). Does ethics statement of a

public relations firm make a difference? Yes it does!! Journal of

Business Ethics, 105(2), 267–276.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso:

Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel

research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.

Laband, D. N. (1986). Article popularity. Economic Inquiry, 24(1),

173–180.

Laband, D. N., & Piette, M. J. (1994). A citation analysis of the

impact of blinded peer review. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 272(2), 147–149.

Lin, L. (2011). Cultural and organizational antecedents of guanxi: The

Chinese cases. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 441–451.

Loughran, T., McDonald, B., & Yun, H. (2009). A wolf in sheep’s

clothing: The use of ethics related terms in 10-K reports. Journal

of Business Ethics, 89(1), 39–49.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organiza-

tional behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–349.

MacIntyre, A. C. (2013). After virtue. Edinburgh: A&C Black.

Mahoney, L. S., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility

and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of

Business Ethics, 57(3), 241–253.

Majluf, N. S., & Navarrete, C. M. (2011). A two-component

compliance and ethics program model: An empirical application

to Chilean corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4),

567–579.

Mayer-Sommer, A. P., & Roshwalb, A. (1996). An examination of

the relationship between ethical behavior, espoused ethical

values and financial performance in the U.S. defense industry:

1988-1992. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1249–1274.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1996). The

influence of collegiate and corporate codes of conduct on ethics-

related behavior in the workplace. Business Ethics Quarterly,

6(4), 461–476.

McDonald, G. M. (2000). Cross-cultural methodological issues in

ethical research. Business challenging business ethics: New

instruments for coping with diversity in international business.

Dordrecht: Springer.

McKendall, M. A., & Wagner, J. A. (1997). Motive, opportunity,

choice, and corporate illegality. Organization Science, 8(6),

624–647.

McKenny, A. F., Payne, G. T., Zachary, M. A., & Short, J. C. (2013).

Multilevel analysis in family business studies. Sage Handbook of

Family Business. London: Sage Publications.

McKenny, A. M., Short, J. C., & Payne, G. T. (2013b). Using

computer-aided text analysis to elevate constructs: An

illustration using psychological capital. Organizational Research

Methods, 16(1), 152–184.

Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Researcher interaction

biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to

researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4),

779–795.

Moore, G. (1999). Corporate moral agency: Review and implications.

Journal of Business Ethics, 21(4), 329–343.

Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution

distinction: MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue

ethics to business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 19–32.

Moore, G. (2012). Virtue in business: Alliance boots and an empirical

exploration of MacIntyre’s conceptual framework. Organization

Studies, 33(3), 363–387.

Morris, M. H., Schindehutte, M., Walton, J., & Allen, J. (2002). The ethical

context of entrepreneurship: Proposing and testing a developmental

framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(4), 331–361.

Muller, A., & Kolk, A. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of

corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and

domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management Studies,

47(1), 1–26.

Nicholson, C. Y., & DeMoss, M. (2009). Teaching ethics and social

responsibility: An evaluation of undergraduate business educa-

tion at the discipline level. Journal of Education for Business,

84(4), 213–218.

Nielsen, R. P., & Massa, F. G. (2013). Reintegrating ethics and

institutional theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1),

135–147.

Pae, J., & Choi, T. H. (2011). Corporate governance, commitment to

business ethics, and firm valuation: Evidence from the Korean

stock market. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 323–348.

Payne, G. T. (2006). Examining configurations and firm performance

in a suboptimal equifinality context. Organization Science,

17(6), 756–770.

Payne, G. T., Brigham, K. H., Broberg, J., Moss, T. W., & Short, J. C.

(2011a). Organizational virtue orientation and family firms.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 257–285.

Payne, G. T., Moore, C. B., Bell, R. G., & Zachary, M. A. (2013).

Signaling organizational virtue: An examination of virtue

rhetoric, country-level corruption and performance of foreign

IPOs from emerging and developed economies. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(3), 230–251.

Payne, G. T., Moore, C. B., Griffis, S., & Autry, C. (2011b).

Multilevel challenges and opportunities in social capital

research. Journal of Management, 37(2), 395–403.

Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability

response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics,

10(11), 805–817.

Rego, A., Ribeiro, N., & Cunha, M. P. (2010). Perceptions of

organizational virtuousness and happiness as predictors of

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics,

93, 215–235.

Robertson, C. J. (2008). An analysis of 10 years of business ethics

research in Strategic Management Journal: 1996–2005. Journal

of Business Ethics, 80(4), 745–753.

Robertson, C., Gilley, K. M., & Crittenden, W. F. (2008). Trade

liberalization, corruption, and software piracy. Journal of

Business Ethics, 78(4), 623–634.

Rousseau, D., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Chapter 11:

Evidence in management and organizational science: Assem-

bling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through

syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515.

Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics

in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette

and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and

442 M. S. McLeod et al.

123

Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 419–489). Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in

management: Current practices, trends, and implications for

future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6),

1248–1264.

Schriescheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. G.,

& Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in

management research: Comments and a quantitative approach

for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-

pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2),

385–417.

Sekerka, L., Comer, D., & Godwin, L. (2014). Positive organizational

ethics: Cultivating and sustaining moral performance. Journal of

Business Ethics, 119(4), 435–444.

Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013).

Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Management, 39(1), 263–301.

Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Research on

organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future

challenges. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1053–1079.

Solomon, R. C. (1992). Corporate roles, personal virtues: An

Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quar-

terly, 317–339.

Somers, M. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational

context: A study of the relationship between codes of conduct,

employee behavior and organizational values. Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics, 30(2), 186–195.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct

definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist,

47, 828–847.

Star, S. L., Bowker, G. C., & Neumann, L. J. (1997). Transparency at

different levels of scale: convergence between information

artifacts and social worlds. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Library

and Information Science, University of Illinois.

Stevens, J. M., Kevin Steensma, H., Harrison, D. A., & Cochran, P. L.

(2005). Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of

ethics codes on financial executives’ decisions. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 26(2), 181–195.

Stevenson, L. (1990). Some methodological problems associated with

researching women entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Ethics,

9(4–5), 439–446.

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In

K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive

organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp.

94–110). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision

making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. The

Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A

person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management

Review, 11(3), 601–617.

Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The

ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee atti-

tudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.

Trevino, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014).

(Un) Ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of

Psychology, 65, 635–660.

Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Brown, M. E. (2008). It’s lovely at

the top. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 233–252.

Trevino, L., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. (1999).

Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What works and what

hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.

Tseng, F. C., & Fan, Y. J. (2011). Exploring the influence of

organizational ethical climate on knowledge management.

Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 325–342.

Tyler, T., Dienhart, J., & Thomas, T. (2008). The ethical commitment

to compliance: Building value-based cultures. California Man-

agement Review, 50(2), 31–51.

Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived

corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of

Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172.

Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The

interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management

Review, 32(4), 1145–1154.

Veiga, J. F., & Dechant, K. (1993). Fax Poll: Altruism in Corporate

America. Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 89–91.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical

work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1),

101–125.

Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and

suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2),

33–47.

Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics

programs as controls systems: Influences of executive commit-

ment and environmental factors. Academy of Management

Journal, 42(1), 41–57.

Weber, W. G., Unterrainer, C., & Schmid, B. E. (2009). The influence

of organizational democracy on employees’ socio-moral climate

and prosocial behavioral orientations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 30(8), 1127–1149.

Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. (2009). The practice of

theory borrowing in organizational studies: Current issues and

future directions. Journal of Management, 35(3), 537–563.

Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Wines, W., & Napier, N. (1992). Toward an understanding of cross-

cultural ethics: A tentative model. Journal of Business Ethics,

11, 831–841.

Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. (2007). Character is not ‘‘dead’’ in

management research: A review of individual character and

organizational-level virtue. Journal of Management, 33(6),

928–958.

Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of

qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Orga-

nizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465–481.

Yeh, Y. H., Lee, T. S., & Shu, P. G. (2008). The agency problems

embedded in firm’s equity investment. Journal of Business

Ethics, 79(1/2), 151–166.

Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act.

Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83.

Organizational Ethics Research 443

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.