supply chain management-tutor mitchelle

European Business Review The role of moral disengagement in supply chain management research David Eriksson

Article information: To cite this document: David Eriksson , (2016),"The role of moral disengagement in supply chain management research", European Business Review, Vol. 28 Iss 3 pp. - Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-05-2015-0047

Downloaded on: 17 April 2016, At: 02:43 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 23 times since 2016*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2016),"Embedding the ethos of codes of ethics into corporate South Africa: current status", European Business Review, Vol. 28 Iss 3 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:449525 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

1

The role of moral disengagement in supply chain

management research

1 Introduction In recent years, increased attention has been paid to corporate social responsibility and

sustainability in supply chain management (SCM) (e.g. Fassin and Van Rossem, 2009;

Høgevold, 2011; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). Despite insightful research on the importance,

for example, of collaboration between stakeholders (Walker and Laplume, 2014) and

transparency (Hutchinson et al., 2012), the field still suffers from a lack of theoretical

foundation (e.g. Winter and Knemeyer, 2013). Aguinis and Glavas (2012) stress the need for

understanding mechanisms that govern personal conduct, which could more effectively

explain misconduct. One established theory that targets such mechanisms, but has not yet

gained recognition in SCM, is that of moral disengagement from Albert Bandura.

Bandura is considered to be the most eminent living psychologist of the 20 th century

(Haggbloom et al., 2002). Bandura is most famous for social learning theory (Bandura, 1963),

but has gained attention from researchers in areas related to SCM regarding the theory of

‘moral disengagement’ (Bandura et al., 1996). While the use of moral disengagement in

organizational research is relatively new (Samnani et al., 2014), several examples can be

found. These include consumer attitudes (Egan et al., 2015), unethical employee behavior

(Martin et al., 2014), and counterproductive workplace behavior (Fida et al., 2014). However,

the theory has still not achieved a breakthrough in SCM, despite offering great potential

through the intersection between the field itself and business ethics, corporate social

responsibility, and sustainability (Eriksson and Svensson, 2014). Recently, a few authors have

used moral disengagement in SCM research (e.g., Eriksson et al., 2013a; Eriksson et al.,

2013b; Eriksson and Svensson, 2014; Egels-Zandén, 2015), but guidelines on how to actually

use the theory in this research field have not yet been established. By offering guidelines for

an early stage of the theory adoption, this paper seeks to reduce future problems which may

arise through misuse of the theory.

While both Bandura and his moral disengagement work are highly regarded, there are

problems with regard to how the theory is used in business-related research. One important

issue is that moral disengagement is sometimes applied to organizations. A better

understanding of these application problems is necessary, in order to avoid confusion and

misguidance, if we wish to use the theory in SCM research. The purpose of this paper is to

clarify how moral disengagement can be used in SCM, and the challenges that emerge if it is

used outside its intended area. The main research question is:

RQ: What must be taken into account if the theory of moral

disengagement is applied to supply chain management?

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

2

To answer this question, it is also necessary to understand how the theory is created, what it is

intended for, whether there are any uncertainties relating to it, and whether there are any other

concerns worthy of attention.

2 Method The investigation is limited to articles published by Bandura in research, and centered on

moral disengagement. This means omitting parts of works published as books or chapters, but

captures the body of literature readily available to researchers. Each reviewed paper is

explained briefly and quotes explaining its perspective on the theory of moral disengagement

presented. Three uses are to be expected. One where a consistent line is argued; a second with

a main line, but inconsistencies; and a third where multiple conflicting lines are argued.

Statements from articles that relate the theory to individuals or organizations have been

collated and considered in the review. References to the articles are discussed in such a

manner to enable the reader to verify that a true picture of the material used is provided in this

paper.

For this article, a decision was made not to provide a detailed explanation of the theory itself,

although a short introduction is provided in Section 3, and parts of the theory are explained in

Table 1. For more information, the reader is referred to the works of Bandura. Also, authors

actually using moral disengagement theory are not included, except for some examples of the

use of the theory and/or related concepts. Instead, this article lays a basis for considering how

moral disengagement can be used, based on Bandura. A separate literature review on authors

referencing Bandura (1999) has also been conducted (Eriksson, 2014, pp. 29-30), showing

that such authors have generally accepted the theory, but did not continue refining it.

Consequently, focusing on Bandura’s papers alone should provide an objective explanation of

the theory. One small remark on the theory was found in Treviño et al. (2006, p. 958), who

state that “[r]esearch will be needed to better understand whether these same processes [moral

disengagement] are anticipatory, post hoc, or both”. This issue will be elaborated further in

the present paper. Finally, this paper reveals inconsistencies, and areas in need of clarification,

based on Bandura’s publications alone.

Several other theories and concepts can be used to understand morality in business and supply

chain research. These include attachment theory (Chugh et al., 2014), cognitive dissonance

(Festinger, 1957), demoralizing processes (Jensen, 2010), and moral approbation (Jones and

Ryan, 1997). There are also several researchers who have investigated moral behavior in

various familiar experiments, notably Milgram (1974) and Zimbardo (2007). While there

certainly are other options, there are two reasons why Bandura and moral disengagement are

reviewed in this paper. Firstly, moral disengagement offers eight mechanisms that can be

linked to the context of SCM, making it relatively easy to integrate into SCM. Secondly, the

theory has been used in organizational research, and may be on the brink of gaining

momentum in SCM.

3 Global Supply Chains and Morality In this paper, a supply chain is considered as a chain or network of organizations (cf. Cooper

et al., 1997; Miemczyk et al., 2012). Depending on the sources, it is sometimes necessary to

refer to a single organization. However, the organizations mentioned do not act alone, but are

included in supply chains. The difference in scope is a result of varying units of analysis used

by researchers. Supply chain research usually focuses on a dyad, chain, or network

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

3

(Miemczyk et al., 2012), but a narrow focus does not exclude the organization from the rest

of the chain. The management direction responsible for supply chains is called SCM.

Sometimes, it is considered a management of flows (Forrester, 1958), and sometimes as

process management (Cooper et al., 1997). These chains are not confined to isolated

geographical, or cultural islands, but span several such regions (Lowson, 2001; Warburton

and Stratton, 2002). Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that a chain also spans several

different perspectives of what is moral, which might appear to be a problem when discussing

morality in a supply chain.

The definition of morality has long been debated, evidenced by the fact that the debate was

already considered old in the 18 th century (cf. Hume, 1777, ch. 1). Discussing moral

disengagement, Bandura addresses an individual’s sense of right and wrong. Moral

disengagement occurs when the individual is able to act in contravention of his or her morals,

without feeling bad. The mechanisms by which one’s morals are disengaged are the same

across different geographical and cultural contexts, even though the individual’s sense of

morality may differ, depending on these contexts. As such, moral disengagement can be

applied to each individual associated with a supply chain, as it only addresses how the

specific individual is able to disengage morally, regardless of their real morals.

4 Moral Disengagement In this article, five papers written by Bandura (1999; 2002; Bandura et al., 1996; 2000; 2001)

are investigated, in order to evaluate what role moral disengagement can play in supply chain

research. Moral disengagement is related to social learning theory (Bandura, 1963). To

understand behavior, Bandura (1978, p. 346) uses what he calls reciprocal determinism,

where “behavior, internal personal factors, and environmental influences all operate as

interlocking determinants of each other […] the process involves a triadic reciprocal

interaction rather than a dyadic conjoint or dyadic bidirectional one”. Moral disengagement

entails eight mechanisms that separate moral reactions from inhumane conduct, allowing an

individual to avoid self-condemnation for what is considered immoral (Bandura et al., 1996;

Bandura, 1999). The mechanisms are: moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous

comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, disregard or distortion

of consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame. As such, the theory includes

behavior, cognitive processes, and environmental influences. The following investigation

considers how Bandura has both developed and used the theory.

4.1 Development of the Theory: Focus on Individuals, and Context While earlier related sources are available, Bandura et al. (1996) authored the first journal

publication focusing on moral disengagement. Together with a publication from 1999

(Bandura, 1999), it develops and sets the stage for using the theory in the future. The articles

focus on the morality of human beings.

“A theory of morality must specify the mechanisms by which people

come to live in accordance with moral standards.” (Bandura et al.,

1996, p. 364)

“People do not ordinarily engage in reprehensible conduct until they

have justified to themselves the rightness of their actions.” (Bandura

et al., 1996, p. 365)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

4

“People have little reason to be troubled by guilt or to feel any need to

make amends for inhumane conduct if they reconstrue it as serving

worthy purposes or if they disown personal agency for it.” (Bandura et

al., 1996, p. 366)

“Selective activation and disengagement of personal control permit

different types of conduct by persons with the same moral standards

under different circumstances.” (Bandura, 1999, p. 194)

Bandura (1999) also investigates the functioning of each of the eight mechanisms of moral

disengagement. As can be seen in Table 1, these are described in relation to individuals. It is

interesting to note that, while the mechanisms focus on individuals, the impacts of such

behavior can cause problems for entire groups of individuals. For example, the

dehumanization of workers can lead to the justification of poor labor conditions.

*** Please insert Table 1 about here ***

“The disengagement of moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct

is a growing human problem at both individual and collective levels.”

(Bandura, 1999, p. 193)

While moral disengagement has focused on the morality of individuals, that does not exclude

considering how groups of people who morally disengage affect their environment.

“Collective moral disengagement can have widespread societal and

political ramifications by supporting, justifying, and legitimizing

inhumane social practices and policies.” (Bandura et al., 1996, p. 372)

During the development of the theory, data has been centered on individuals from different

demographics. In brief, a study on proneness to moral disengagement, including 799 children

aged 10-15 (Bandura et al., 1996); explanations built on earlier research focusing on

individual engagement in and attitudes toward detrimental behavior, with the original research

including a wide range of adult individuals, such as young adults, soldiers, and professionals

(Bandura, 1999); and a longitudinal study, including 564 children age 11 at the start of the

study (Bandura et al., 2001). There exists, however, a close connection between collectives of

individuals, and the individuals themselves.

“People do not operate as autonomous moral agents impervious to the

social realities in which they are immersed. Moral agency is socially

situated and exercised in particularized ways depending on the life

conditions under which people transact their affairs.” (Bandura, 1999,

p. 207)

Bandura (1999) argues that the context can drive or halt moral disengagement. The above

quote highlights the notion that human beings cannot be seen as isolated entities, a view that

is consistent with reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978). One such environment is the

organization in which the individual works, and the extended chain of actors in the supply

chain is another. The “conditions under which people transact their affairs” thus extends to

the supply chain, and it is reasonable to consider the supply chain as part of the environmental

influence. This is also how the theory is used by Bandura et al. (2000), discussing

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

5

transgression in the downstream supply chain, and by Bandura (1999, p. 198), explaining the

diffusion of responsibility through subdivided routinized tasks making a distinction between

behavior and environmental influences is not only done by Bandura (1978), but is also

advocated in social sciences (see Sayer (1992, p. 213) discussing ‘object’, ‘causal powers’,

‘conditions’ and ‘events’), and can be seen in SCM research (Eriksson, 2015).

4.2 Application of the Theory: Focus on Individuals, but with Inconsistencies Investigating moral disengagement and corporate transgression should, according to the

above snapshot, focus on how individuals disengage from their morals. Moral disengagement

might be a consequence of the context, which is how the theory is used.

“People do not operate as autonomous moral agents, impervious to the

social realities in which they are enmeshed. […] Moral actions are the

product of the reciprocal interplay of cognitive, affective and social

influences.” (Bandura, 2002, p. 102)

People behave more cruelly when it is easy to escape accountability, which is manifested in

organizations with group decisions and hierarchical chains of command (Bandura, 2002, pp.

107-108). Despite mainly focusing on individuals, Bandura et al. (2000) also try to apply

moral disengagement to a corporation,

“In many cases corporations actively defend their interests in ways

that would normally be unthinkable for common law breakers”.

(Bandura et al., 2000, p. 58)

The authors continue by arguing why moral disengagement can be applied to the corporation

itself.

“First, the reciprocal causation operates among corporate modes of

thinking, corporate behaviour and the environment.” (Bandura et al.,

2000, pp. 59-60)

“Second, a corporation can be viewed both as a social construction

and as an agentic system with the power to realize intentions.”

Bandura et al., 2000, (p. 60)

“Third, corporate identity is crucial for the development and

functioning of a corporation.” (Bandura et al., 2000, p. 60)

“Moreover, the practices of a corporation operate through self-

regulatory mechanisms. These mechanisms regulate the allocation of

resources in the pursuit of the goals and objectives of the corporate in

accordance with its values and standards.” (Bandura et al., 2000, p.

60)

“When corporations engage in reprehensible conduct they are likely to

do so through selective disengagement of moral self-sanctions.”

(Bandura et al., 2000, p. 60)

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

6

The first quote does not clarify whether organizational thinking and behavior is that of

humans acting in an organization, or whether the organization itself is attributed with these,

otherwise human, abilities. The second and third quotes do not explain whether or why moral

disengagement can be applied to organizations. The fourth quote attributes organizations with

human traits of having a self, goals, objectives, values, and standards. The fifth quote is based

on the assumption that organizations have the ability to chose and engage in conduct, and that

the organization has both morality and a self.

While it is often useful to consider an organization as an entity of its own, which is also often

legally so, the justification for applying moral disengagement to the organization is clearly

rather vague, and so are the reasons. The justifications rest on an assumption that human traits

can be attributed to organizations through colloquial similarities, in terms of how

organizations and individuals are described, and not actual similarities, how they really are.

The given reasons thus overlook the fact that moral disengagement rests on reciprocal

determinisms, which already distinguishes between individuals and their environment.

Focusing on the individuals in their professional situation would be more consistent with the

theory, and could add value to the analysis, without losing justification for using the theory.

Bandura et al. (2000) actually focus on moral disengagement and individuals throughout the

article, apart from some exceptions, for example:

“Ford used different moral disengagement strategies to defend its

highly controversial decision.” (Bandura et al., 2000, p. 61)

This is a description by the authors of the reviewed article, addressing how Ford dealt with

controversy of faulty gas tanks in the Pinto. By exchanging “Ford” with “Managers at Ford”,

the theory can be applied consistently, with respect to how it has been developed, and the

need to apply it to the organization seems superfluous.

5 Analysis After reviewing these papers, it is now possible to reconsider the research question and shed

some light on the important topic addressed here.

RQ: What must be taken into account if the theory of moral disengagement is applied to

supply chain management?

Based on the works of Bandura, it is evident that the theory only applies to human beings. It is

developed through studies of humans, and rests on several traits that we use to describe and

understand only humans. The paper by Bandura et al. (2000) is the only inconsistent use by

Bandura himself. As mentioned above, the motivation for using moral disengagement on

organizations is not convincing, and the choice to do so did not even seem necessary for the

paper itself.

Using the theory in SCM requires us to consider two possible applications of moral

disengagement to supply chains. The first is whether the supply chain itself uses moral

disengagement, the second is whether it can be applied to individuals in a supply chain.

The first alternative, applying moral disengagement directly to a supply chain, or to the

companies therein, is not supported by the way in which the theory was developed, and must

therefore be considered incorrect. If it is to be done, it is necessary to justify very clearly how

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

7

this is possible, including both the generalizability of the theory to a supply chain, and the

attribution of human traits.

The second alternative, however, is supported by the theory and should be encouraged.

Bandura (1978) includes reciprocal determinism in the environment, in which organizations

and supply chains may be placed. To understand how the environment can influence morality,

the work of Sayer (1992) can be of assistance. He outlines how the possible events that

objects can generate are dependent on the context in which they occur. The context could both

cause and/or prevent moral disengagement. Multiple mechanisms of moral disengagement are

described through the context in which they are likely to prevail (Bandura et al., 1996). There

are plenty of examples of the theory being applied successfully to organizational contexts. For

examples, the theoretical overview by Johnson and Buckley (2014) focuses on organizational

structure and moral disengagement. See also Eriksson and Svensson (2014) for research

connecting moral disengagement with SCM.

Going forward, some concerns still exist. It could be beneficial to investigate the mechanisms

of moral disengagement in individuals, prior to and after the discovery of misconduct

associated with the supply chain. Is it possible that different mechanisms, or the same

mechanisms of moral disengagement, but to a different degree, are activated before and/or

after the harmful effects are realized? This is important, in order to understand how to

encourage individuals to act morally, and to understand how they may try to avoid moral

responsibility. The short Ford reference above (Bandura et al., 2000) reveals that it is possible

for certain mechanisms of moral disengagement to allow managers moral leeway in taking

decisions that would cause suffering, and that other mechanisms helped them escape moral

responsibility ex post facto.

The definition of moral itself can be debated, but Bandura uses it in relation to what an

individual considers to be right and wrong, which we must accept when using his theory.

Bandura does not provide a clear definition of ethics, so we need to turn to other sources.

Lewis (1985, p. 383) defines business ethics as “rules, standards, codes, or principles which

provide guidelines for morally right behavior and truthfulness in specific situations”, and

Bishop (2013, p. 636) states that “ethics concerns the moral behavior of individuals based on

an established and expressed standard of the group”. In these terms, morality is an inner

feeling for right and wrong, and ethics are social constructs.

Bandura focuses on morality, but research into organizations that use moral disengagement

often refers to ethics (e.g., Bandura et al., 2000; Baron et al., 2014; Chowdhury and Fernando,

2014). Johnson and Buckley (2014, p. 6) blur the line between morality and ethics, stating

that “…moral disengagement, [is] a method by which individuals cognitively ‘disconnect’ the

causal links between one’s actions and unethical outcomes…”. Moore et al. (2012p. 2) make

similar statements: “…an important driver of unethical behavior is an individual’s propensity

to morally disengage…”, and “…allows those inclined to morally disengage to behave

unethically without feeling distress…”. These comments imply that there is a direct

connection between morality and ethics, which might be fallacious. This is true, if ethics are

social constructs of right and wrong, and those constructs are based on reasoning from

morality. They are then likely to be aligned, but that is not necessarily the case.

To assume that reduced moral disengagement increases ethics assumes that there is little or no

difference between the morality of the individual, and the values that are agreed upon as

ethical. If these do not align, it is not possible to improve ethics by reducing moral

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

8

disengagement. For example, if individuals in a supply chain do not share the same views of

right and wrong as stipulated in ethical guidelines, they do not need to morally disengage in

order to behave unethically. They could, as a matter of fact, behave morally according to their

own perceptions, while being unethical according to an ethical guideline. It is therefore

important to maintain a distinction between morality and ethics, and to be aware that the one

does not, by default, produce the other.

Several authors have argued that morality can only be attributed to human beings (Bevan and

Corvellec, 2007; McMahon, 2008; Jensen, 2010). For authors in related fields, this is not an

issue, but if we refer only to Bandura to see how the theory is used, we may be misguided, as

he himself applies it to both individuals and non-individuals (e.g., organizations).

6 Concluding Discussion The purpose of this paper has been to clarify the appropriate uses of moral disengagement,

and the challenges if it is used outside of this framework. The conclusions are summarized in

the analysis section, outlining how moral disengagement should and should not be used. It has

been firmly established that moral disengagement should only be applied to human beings.

The supply chain setting is interesting, as it can provide an environment in which moral

disengagement is activated, or deactivated. If moral disengagement should be used in the

context of the organization (or the supply chain) itself, for example, as is the Pinto case, this

needs to be justified properly and comprehensively.

Moral disengagement offers considerable potential for use in SCM research. It could help to

explain demoralizing processes in organizations (Jensen, 2010), and increase knowledge on

how organizations can align their corporate social responsibility interests with individuals in

the supply chain (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012).

This paper can guide researchers in using the theory of moral disengagement in SCM research.

Through a better understanding of the supply chain context and its management, it might be

possible to influence the moral disengagement of individuals active within the supply chain.

This is, in turn, food for managerial thought. Perhaps corporate social responsibility and

sustainability in the supply chain could be enhanced by reducing the potential for employers

and employees to disengage morally?

References Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A., (2012). "What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate

Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda", Journal of Management, Vol.

38 No. 4, pp. 932-968.

Bandura, A., (1963). Social learning and personality development, Holt, Reinhart, and

Winston, New York, NY.

Bandura, A., (1978). "The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism", American Psychologist,

Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 344-358.

Bandura, A., (1999). "Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities", Personality

and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 193-209.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V. and Pastorelli, C., (1996). "Mechanisms of

Moral Dissengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency", Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 364-374.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

9

Bandura, A., Caprara, G.V. and Zsolnai, L., (2000). "Corporate Transgressions through Moral

Disengagement", Journal of Human Values, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 57-64.

Baron, R.A., Zhao, H. and Miao, Q., (2015). "Personal Motives, Moral Disengagement, and

Unethical Decisions by Entrepreneurs: Cognitive Mechanisms on the ‘Slippery

Slope’", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 107-118.

Bevan, D. and Corvellec, H., (2007). "The impossibility of corporate ethics: for a Levinasian

approach to managerial ethics", Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16 No. 3,

pp. 208-219.

Bishop, W.H., (2013). "The Role of Ethics in 21st Century Organizations", Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 118 No. 3, pp. 635-637.

Chowdhury, R.M.M.I. and Fernando, M., (2014). "The Relationships of Empathy, Moral

Identity and Cynicism with Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: The Mediating Role of Moral

Disengagement", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 124 No. 4, pp. 677-694.

Chugh, D., Kern, M.C., Zhu, Z. and Lee, S., (2014). "Withstanding moral disengagement:

Attachment security as an ethical intervention", Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, Vol. 51 No., pp. 88-93.

Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D., (1997). "Supply Chain Management: More

Than a New Name for Logistics", The International Journal of Logistics Management,

Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Egan, V., Hughes, N. and Palmer, E.J., (2015). "Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and

unethical consumer attitudes", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 76 No., pp.

123-128.

Egels-Zandén, N., (2015). "Responsibility Boundaries in Global Value Chains: Supplier audit

priotitizations and moral disengagement among Swedish firms", Journal of Business

Ethics. (in press)

Eriksson, D., (2014). Moral (De)coupling: Moral Disengagement and Supply Chain

Management, PhD Thesis, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden.

Eriksson, D., (2015). "Lessons on Knowledge Creation in Supply Chain Management",

European Business Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-368.

Eriksson, D., Hilletofth, P. and Hilmola, O.-P., (2013a). "Linking moral disengagement to

supply chain practices", World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, Vol. 4

No. 2/3, pp. 207-225.

Eriksson, D., Hilletofth, P. and Hilmola, O.-P., (2013b). "Supply chain configuration and

moral disengagement", International Journal of Procurement Management, Vol. 6 No.

6, pp. 718-736.

Eriksson, D. and Svensson, G., (2014). "The Process of Responsibility, Decoupling Point, and

Disengagement of Moral and Social Responsibility in Supply Chains: Empirical

Findings and Prescriptive Thoughts", Journal of Business Ethics. (in press)

Fassin, Y. and Van Rossem, A., (2009). "Corporate Governance in the Debate on CSR and

Ethics: Sensemaking of Social Issues in Management by Authorities and CEOs",

Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 573-593.

Festinger, L., (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford,

CA.

Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R.G., Barbaranelli, C. and Farnese, M.L.,

(2015). "An Integrative Approach to Understanding Counterproductive Work

Behavior: The Roles of Stressors, Negative Emotions, and Moral Disengagement",

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 131-144.

Forrester, J.W., (1958). "Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers",

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 118-130.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

10

Haggbloom, S.J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J.E., Jones, V.K., Yarbrough, G.L., Russell, T.M.,

Borecky, C.M., Mcgahhey, R., Powell, J.L.I., Beavers, J. and Monte, E., (2002). "The

100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.", Review of General Psychology,

Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 139-152.

Hume, D., (1777). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Project Gutenberg.

Hutchinson, D., Singh, J. and Walker, K., (2012). "An assessment of the early stages of a

sustainable business model in the Canadian fast food industry", European Business

Review, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 519-531.

Høgevold, N.M., (2011). "A corporate effort towards a sustainable business model: A case

study from the Norwegian furniture industry", European Business Review, Vol. 23 No.

4, pp. 392-400.

Jensen, T., (2010). "Beyond Good and Evil: The Adiaphoric Company", Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 425-434.

Johnson, J.F. and Buckley, M., (2014). "Multi-level Organizational Moral Disengagement:

Directions for Future Investigation", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 2, pp.

291-300.

Jones, T.M. and Ryan, L.V., (1997). "The Link Between Ethical Judgment and Action in

Organizations: A Moral Approbation Approach", Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6,

pp. 663-680.

Lewis, P.V., (1985). "Defining 'Business Ethics': Like Nailing Jello to a Wall", Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 377-383.

Lowson, R., (2001). "Analysing the Effectiveness of European Retail Sourcing Strategies",

European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 543-551.

Martin, S.R., Kish-Gephart, J.J. and Detert, J.R., (2014). "Blind forces: Ethical infrastructures

and moral disengagement in organizations", Organizational Psychology Review, Vol.

4 No. 4, pp. 295-325.

Mcmahon, C., (2008). "The ontological and moral status of organizations", Business Ethics

Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 541-554.

Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T.E. and Macquet, M., (2012). "Sustainable purchasing and supply

management: a structured literature review of definitions and measures at the dyad,

chain and network levels", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol.

17 No. 5, pp. 478-496.

Milgram, S., (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view, Harper & Row, New

York, NY.

Moore, C., Detert, J.R., Treviño, L.K., Baker, V.L. and Mayer, D.M., (2012). "Why

employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior",

Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 1-48.

Samnani, A.-K., Salamon, S.D. and Singh, P., (2014). "Negative Affect and

Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: The Moderating Role of Moral

Disengagement and Gender", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 235-244.

Sayer, A., (1992). Method in Social Science - A Realist Approach, 2nd ed. Routledge, London,

UK.

Treviño, L.K., Weaver, G.R. and Reynolds, S.J., (2006). "Behavioral Ethics in Organizations:

A Review", Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 951-990.

Walker, K. and Laplume, A., (2014). "Sustainability fellowships: the potential for collective

stakeholder influence", European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 149-168.

Warburton, R.D.H. and Stratton, R., (2002). "Questioning the relentless shift to offshore

manufacturing", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2,

pp. 101-108.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

11

Winter, M. and Knemeyer, M., (2013). "Exploring the integration of sustainability and supply

chain management: Current state and opportunities for future inquiry", International

Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 18-38.

Zimbardo, P.G., (2007). The Lucifer Effect, How Good People Turn Evil, Rider Books,

London, UK.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

1

Table 1: Examples of how moral disengagement is connected to individuals, from Bandura (1999, pp. 192-203)

Moral disengagement Example quote

Moral justification “People do not ordinarily engage in harmful conduct until they have justified

to themselves the morality of their actions.”

Euphemistic labeling “People behave much more cruelly when assaultive actions are verbally

sanitized than when they are called aggression.”

Advantageous comparison “Terrorists see their behavior as acts of selfless martyrdom by comparing

them with widespread cruelties inflicted on the people with whom they

identify.”

Displacement of responsibility “People will behave in ways they typically repudiate if a legitimate authority

accepts responsibility for the effects of their conduct.”

Diffusion of responsibility “The exercise of moral control is also weakened when personal agency is

obscured by diffusing responsibility for detrimental behavior.”

Disregard or distortion of

consequences

“When people pursue activities that are harmful to others for reasons of

personal gain or social pressure, they avoid facing the harm they cause, or

they minimize it.”

Dehumanization “The strength of moral self-censure depends partly on how the perpetrators

view the people they mistreat.”

Attribution of blame “In this process, people view themselves as faultless victims driven to

injurious conduct by forcible provocation.”

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )

Author Details

David Eriksson holds a PhD in Textile Management from the University of Borås, where he is

currently employed as a lecturer. He is an engaged scholar in the international research

community, authoring both journal articles and international conference contributions. His

research agenda consists of various research subjects, and he has published in areas such as

ethics, new product development, supply chain management, sustainability, and value creation.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by T

U R

K U

U N

IV E

R S

IT Y

O F

A P

P L

IE D

S C

IE N

C E

S A

t 02

:4 3

17 A

pr il

2 01

6 (P

T )