HEC MONTRÉAL

École affiliée à l’Université de Montréal

Toward the Development of a Polyphonic Ethics Scale:

Assessing the Plurality of Ethical Perspectives in Organizations

par

Yoséline Leunens

Thèse présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade de Ph.D. en administration

(option Management)

Septembre 2014

© Yoséline Leunens, 2014

HEC MONTRÉAL

École affilié à l’Université de Montréal

Cette thèse intitulée:

Toward the Development of a Polyphonic Ethics Scale :

Assessing the Plurality of Ethical Perspectives in Organizations

Présentée par :

Yoséline Leunens

a été évaluée par un jury composé des personnes suivantes :

Emmanuel Raufflet

HEC Montréal

Président-rapporteur

Thierry C. Pauchant

HEC Montréal

Directeur de recherche

Paul Shrivastava

Concordia University

Membre du jury

Christophe Roux-Dufort

Université Laval

Examinateur externe

Danilo Correa Dantas

HEC Montréal

Représentant du directeur de HEC Montréal

Résumé

Cette thèse vise à aider les gestionnaires et les membres des organisations à reconnaître et

rendre explicite la diversité des conceptions de l’éthique qui les guident dans leurs

décisions. L’objectif de cette thèse est de développer une échelle de mesure incorporant une

pluralité de perspectives éthiques, reflétant non seulement les idées issues de philosophies

morales classiques, mais aussi des théories contemporaines en éthique des affaires, ainsi

que des traditions éthiques féminines et non-occidentales. Une telle échelle est nécessaire,

puisque les échelles de mesures actuellement utilisées pour les recherches sur l’éthique

dans les organisations se fondent sur la philosophie morale classique, engendrant ainsi un

fort biais masculin et occidental. Puisqu’elles ignorent les perspectives féminines, non-

occidentales et même les théories contemporaines développées en éthique des affaires, nous

proposons que les échelles actuelles réduisent au silence les voix des personnes guidées par

d’autres traditions éthiques.

Notre cadre conceptuel se fonde sur les construits théoriques de deux paradigmes

prédominants, représentés par les travaux d’Edgar Schein sur les présupposés de bases

organisationnels, et les travaux de Stephen Toulmin sur la structure de justification des

arguments logiques, incluant les arguments éthiques. Afin de bâtir une échelle éthique

polyphonique, nous proposons des énoncés représentant 30 théories éthiques, en

appliquant la méthode Toulmin. Nous générons ainsi 90 énoncés, traduisant un présupposé

de base sur la nature de la réalité (donnée), une prescription éthique (conclusion) et un idéal

éthique (loi de passage) distinct et représentatif pour chacune des 30 théories éthiques. La

sélection des 30 théories éthiques est guidée par les théories les plus citées dans la

littérature scientifique, et l’objectif d’inclure 40% de théories éthiques développées ou

promues par des femmes ou des penseurs non-occidentaux. Le degré d’accord ou de

désaccord avec ces énoncés fut mesuré dans un questionnaire complété par 441 répondants

du Québec, Canada, provenant d’organisations variées. Sur la base d’une analyse factorielle

exploratoire et d’une analyse d’échelle multidimensionnelle, nous proposons une échelle

vi

éthique polyphonique en cinq facteurs, et reflétant les perspectives éthiques suivantes:

harmonie écosociale, égalitarisme coopératif, conservatisme néolibéral, objectivité

rationnelle, et cynisme machiavélien.

Une importante contribution scientifique de l’échelle éthique polyphonique, par rapport à

d’autres échelles éthiques couramment utilisées telles que le Multidimensional Ethics Scale

(MES) ou le Defining Issue Test (DIT), est sa capacité de rendre explicites des croyances

issues de traditions non occidentales, par exemple, la tradition africaine Ubuntu, de même

que des traditions reliées au domaine des affaires, notamment les croyances véhiculées par

le mouvement coopératif ou celles véhiculées par la tradition néolibérale, de même que des

traditions féminines, dont les idées de Simone de Beauvoir, entre autres. Au niveau de la

contribution à la pratique, l’échelle éthique polyphonique est un outil supplémentaire lors

de la sélection du personnel permettant d’évaluer l’appariement entre les perspectives

éthiques dominantes d’un candidat et celles que l’employeur désire encourager dans

l’organisation. Également, il s’agit d’un outil pour accompagner et favoriser l’introspection

de gestionnaire sur leurs aspirations éthiques, ou même pour faciliter le dialogue entre

parties prenantes et favoriser l’action collaborative sur des enjeux éthiques communs.

Mots-clés: prise de décision éthique, évaluation éthique, perspectives éthiques, pluralisme

éthique, polyphonie éthique, développement d’échelle, analyse factorielle, échelle éthique

polyphonique.

vii

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to help managers and members of organizations identify and

make explicit the diversity of ethical conceptions that guide them in their decisions. The

objective of this thesis is to develop a scale which incorporates a variety of ethical

perspectives, reflecting not only ideas of classical Western moral philosophies, but also

contemporary business ethics theories, as well as feminine and non-Western ethical

traditions. Such a scale is needed, since current ethics scale used in business ethics research

are almost exclusively based on classical moral philosophy, which implies a strong

masculine and Western bias. Since they ignore feminine and non-Western ethical

perspectives, we suggest these scales are silencing the voices of people guided by other

ethical traditions.

Our conceptual framework builds upon the theoretical constructs from two prominent

paradigms, represented among others, by Edgar Schein’s work relating to organizational

basic assumptions, and Stephen Toulmin’s work on the justification structure of any logical

argument, including ethical arguments. To construct a polyphonic ethics scale, we applied

the Toulmin method to generate statements reflecting 30 ethical theories. In this manner,

we offer a pool of 90 items, describing one basic assumption about reality (data), one

ethical prescription (claim) and one ethical ideal (warrant) that is distinct and representative

of each ethical theory. We guided our selection of the 30 ethical theories based on the most

cited ethical theories in the business ethics literature, and the objective of including 40%

ethical theories developed or promoted by women, or by non-Western thinkers. We

measured the level of agreement or disagreement with these statements through a

questionnaire that was completed by 441 respondents working in various organizations, and

living in Quebec, Canada. We performed exploratory factor analysis and multidimensional

scaling analysis and retained a five factors solution, which reflect the following ethical

perspectives : Ecosocial harmony, cooperative egalitarianism, neoliberal conservatism,

viii

rational objectivity and Machiavellian cynicism.

A major contribution of the Polyphonic Ethics Scale, compared to other scales such as the

Multidimensional Ethics Scale or the Defining Issue Test, is its capacity to identify ethical

perspectives from non-Western traditions, such as the African “Ubuntu” tradition, as well

as business related traditions, for instance the beliefs of the cooperative movement or the

neoliberal tradition, as well as feminine traditions, including the ideas of Simone de

Beauvoir, among others. At the practical level, the Polyphonic Ethics Scale is an additional

tool for the personnel selection process, enabling to evaluate the fit between the dominant

ethical perspectives of a candidate and those that the employer wishes to encourage within

the organisation. Moreover, it can be used at the individual level as a tool to facilitate

ethical introspection by managers, or even collectively to promote collaborative action on

common ethical issues though effective dialogue between stakeholders.

Keywords: ethical decision-making, ethical evaluation, ethical perspectives, ethical

pluralism, ethical polyphony, scale development, factor analysis, Multidimensional Ethics

Scale, Polyphonic Ethics Scale.

ix

Contents

Résumé ............................................................................................................................................................... v

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... vii

List of tables ................................................................................................................................................... xiii

List of figures ................................................................................................................................................... xv

List of acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... xvii

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................................... xix

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... xxi

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1. The pluralistic nature of ethics ..................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Challenges for managers ................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Challenges for the field of business ethics ...................................................................................... 11

1.2.1 The universalistic approach to business ethics ....................................................................... 12

1.2.2 Influence of Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development theory .............................................. 19

1.2.3 Critiques concerning the MJI and the DIT ............................................................................ 21

1.2.4 William Perry’s Intellectual and Ethical Development Theory ............................................. 23

Chapter 2: A review of current ethics scales ................................................................................................ 27

2.1 Ethical decision-making models ...................................................................................................... 27

2.1.1 Rest’s four-components model of the ethical decision-making process ................................ 28

2.1.2 Hunt and Vitell’s model ......................................................................................................... 32

2.2 Moral philosophy and ethical decision-making ............................................................................. 37

2.2.1 Lack of polyphony in studies on organizational ethics .............................................................. 38

2.2.2 Conceptual categories of ethical theories ................................................................................... 40

2.2.3 Empirical categories of ethical theories ..................................................................................... 42

2.2.3.1 The Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) ........................................................................ 45

2.2.3.2 The Cognitive Philosophies Scale ...................................................................................... 49

2.3 Limitations of current measurement instruments ......................................................................... 53

2.3.1 Masculine and Western biases ............................................................................................... 53

2.3.2 Absence of contemporary ethical theories ............................................................................. 54

x

2.3.4 Lack of theoretical grounding for the scales .......................................................................... 54

2.4 Research agenda .............................................................................................................................. 55

Chapter 3: Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................... 57

3.1 Complexity and systems theory ...................................................................................................... 58

3.2 Schein’s three-level model of organizational culture .................................................................... 69

3.2.1 Schwartz’s model of culture-level value types ...................................................................... 72

3.2.2 Boltanski and Thevenot’s theory on the justification of values ............................................. 77

3.3 Toulmin’s model of the structure of a logical argument .............................................................. 79

3.3.1 The Toulmin Model of Argument ......................................................................................... 81

3.3.2 Ethical theories as claims, data, warrants and backings ........................................................ 82

Chapter 4: Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 87

4.1 Scale development procedure ......................................................................................................... 89

4.1.1 Determining the theoretical construct of the latent variable .................................................. 89

4.1.2 Generating the item pool ....................................................................................................... 95

4.1.3 Determining the format for measurement .............................................................................. 99

4.1.4 Pre-testing .............................................................................................................................. 99

4.1.5 Considering inclusion of validation items ........................................................................... 101

4.1.6 Administering the questionnaire to a development sample ................................................. 101

4.1.7 Evaluating the items ............................................................................................................ 106

4.1.8 Optimizing scale length ....................................................................................................... 111

4.2 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................... 112

Chapter 5: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 115

5.1 Preliminary results ........................................................................................................................ 115

5.2 Exploratory factor analysis results............................................................................................... 117

5.3 Reliability ....................................................................................................................................... 120

5.4 Interpretation of the factors .......................................................................................................... 121

5.5 Criterion validity ........................................................................................................................... 126

5.5.1 MANOVA by type of organization ..................................................................................... 126

5.5.2 MANOVA by hierarchical position in the organization ...................................................... 129

5.6 Convergent validity ....................................................................................................................... 131

5.7 Exploring new research opportunities ......................................................................................... 134

5.8 Exploring practical applications ................................................................................................... 137

xi

Chapter 6 : Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 145

6.1 Psychometric properties of the PES ............................................................................................ 145

6.2 Comparison with other ethics scales ............................................................................................. 149

6.3 Theoretical developments .............................................................................................................. 161

6.4 Methodological developments ....................................................................................................... 163

6.5 Some practical applications of the PES in organizations ............................................................ 164

6.5.1 A complementary tool for personnel selection .................................................................... 164

6.5.2 A tool to enhance introspection ........................................................................................... 166

6.5.3 A tool to facilitate dialogue for collaborative action ............................................................ 168

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 175

Theoretical contribution .................................................................................................................... 175

Contribution to practice .................................................................................................................... 177

Limits of this study ........................................................................................................................... 178

Research avenues .............................................................................................................................. 181

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................. 183

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... 195

APPENDIX 1- Statements generated with the Toulmin method .............................................................. 197

1- ARISTOTLE : Virtuous character .............................................................................................................. 199

2- Simone de BEAUVOIR : Existentialism .................................................................................................... 199

3- Jeremy BENTHAM : Legalistic Deontology .............................................................................................. 200

4- Gro Harlem BRUNDTLAND : Sustainable Development ........................................................................ 200

5- Archie CARROLL : Corporate Social Responsibility ................................................................................ 201

6- CONFUCIUS : Mutual Moral Obligations ................................................................................................. 201

7- Émile DURKHEIM : Moral Education ...................................................................................................... 202

8- Henry FORD : Corporate Paternalism ........................................................................................................ 202

9- Edward FREEMAN : Stakeholders Ethics ................................................................................................. 203

10- Milton FRIEDMAN : Neoliberal Ethics ................................................................................................... 203

11- Carol GILLIGAN : Ethics of Care ............................................................................................................ 204

xii

12- Jürgen HABERMAS : Ethics of Discussion ............................................................................................ 204

13- Thomas HOBBES : Ethics of Survival ..................................................................................................... 205

14- Immanuel KANT : Personal Deontology ................................................................................................. 205

15- Lawrence KOHLBERG : Moral Development ........................................................................................ 206

16- Hans KÜNG : Global Ethics .................................................................................................................... 206

17- LAO-TSEU : The Natural Way ................................................................................................................ 207

18- Wangari MAATHAÏ: Ubuntu Ethics ....................................................................................................... 207

19- Nicolas MACHIAVELLI : Political Realism ........................................................................................... 208

20- Karl MARX : Egalitarianism .................................................................................................................... 208

21- John Stuart MILL : Utilitarianism ............................................................................................................ 209

22- ROCHDALE PIONNEERS : Co-operative Ethics ................................................................................... 209

23- PLATO : The Good, the True and the Beautiful ...................................................................................... 210

24- Ayn RAND : Ethical Egoism ................................................................................................................... 210

25- John RAWLS : Distributive Justice .......................................................................................................... 211

26- Eleanor ROOSEVELT : Human Rights ................................................................................................... 211

27- Amartya SEN : Capability Approach ....................................................................................................... 212

28- Adam SMITH : Evolutionnary Ethics ...................................................................................................... 212

29- Rabindranâth TAGORE : Citizen of the World ....................................................................................... 213

30- Frans VAN DER HOFF : Fair Trade ........................................................................................................ 213

APPENDIX 2- Example of a chapter on an ethical theory ...........................................215

APPENDIX 3- Copy of the online questionnaire ..........................................................237

List of tables

TABLE I. FIVE IDEOLOGIES CONCEALMENT STRATEGIES (SHRIVASTAVA, 1986, PP. 365-367) ............................................ 17

TABLE II. DESCRIPTION OF REST'S FOUR COMPONENTS MODEL (REST, 1984, P. 20) ............................................................. 29

TABLE III. THREE CONCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF ETHICAL THEORIES ................................................................................. 41

TABLE IV. COMPARISON OF MOST RELEVANT ETHICAL THEORIES IN SEVEN SOURCES .............................................................. 44

TABLE V. REIDENBACH AND ROBIN'S MES (REIDENBACH & ROBIN, 1988) ........................................................................... 46

TABLE VI. FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE MES (REIDENBACH & ROBIN, 1990) ....................................................................... 47

TABLE VII. MCDONALD AND PAK’S COGNITIVE PHILOSOPHIES SCALE (MCDONALD & PAK, 1996) .................................. 50

TABLE VIII. DESCRIPTION OF SCHWARTZ’S SEVEN CULTURAL VALUE TYPES (SCHWARTZ, 1999) ....................................... 75

TABLE IX. BOLTANSKI AND THEVENOT'S COMMON WORLDS (BOLTANSKI & THEVENOT, 2006) ........................................ 78

TABLE X. DEFINITIONS OF THE CONCEPTS IN TOULMIN'S MODEL (TOULMIN, 1984) ............................................................. 81

TABLE XI. EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION OF TOULMIN'S METHOD TO ETHICAL THEORIES ................................................. 84

TABLE XII. RESULTS OF THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE REVIEWS OF THE LITERATURE ............................................ 91

TABLE XIII. SELECTED ETHICAL THEORIES FOR THE ITEM POOL ................................................................................................. 94

TABLE XIV. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC DATA ......................................................................................................................................... 103

TABLE XV. ORGANIZATIONAL DATA ............................................................................................................................................... 104

TABLE XVI. RANKING OF THE ETHICAL THEORIES BY AVERAGE SCORE ................................................................................... 116

TABLE XVII. EIGENVALUE OF THE 25 ITEMS ................................................................................................................................ 118

TABLE XVIII. FIVE FACTORS EFA SOLUTION (PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS EXTRACTION WITH VARIMAX ROTATION) ........ 119

TABLE XIX. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF THE FIVE FACTORS SOLUTION .................................................................................. 120

TABLE XX. FACTOR 1- ECOSOCIAL HARMONY ............................................................................................................................. 121

TABLE XXI. FACTOR 2 – COOPERATIVE EGALITARIANISM ......................................................................................................... 122

TABLE XXII. FACTOR 3 – NEOLIBERAL LAW AND ORDER .......................................................................................................... 123

TABLE XXIII. FACTOR 4 – RATIONAL OBJECTIVITY ..................................................................................................................... 124

TABLE XXIV. FACTOR 5 - MACHIAVELLIAN CYNICISM ................................................................................................................ 125

TABLE XXV. MEAN FACTOR SCORE BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................ 127

TABLE XXVI. IMPACT OF TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ON ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES ...................................................................... 128

TABLE XXVII. POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION (SCHEFFE TEST) ............................. 128

TABLE XXVIII. MEAN SCORE ON ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES BY HIERARCHICAL POSITION ........................................................ 130

TABLE XXIX. IMPACT OF HIERARCHICAL POSITION ON ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES ..................................................................... 131

TABLE XXX. CORRELATION BETWEEN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES AND ETHICAL PRACTICES ............................................... 135

TABLE XXXI. CLUSTER CENTERS OF THE FOUR CLUSTERS SOLUTION ....................................................................................... 138

TABLE XXXII. EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE BETWEEN CLUSTER CENTERS .......................................................................................... 139

xiv

TABLE XXXIII. CLUSTER MEMBERSHIP BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................141

TABLE XXXIV. CLUSTER MEMBERSHIP BY HIERARCHICAL POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATION ...............................................142

TABLE XXXV. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE PES, COGNITIVE PHILOSOPHIES SCALE AND THE MES ...................................151

TABLE XXXVI. UNIQUE FACTORS IN THE PES ...............................................................................................................................152

TABLE XXXVII. ECONOMIES OF WORTH OF THE PES .................................................................................................................159

xv

List of figures

FIGURE 1. HUNT AND VITELL'S ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODEL (HUNT & VITELL, 1986, P.8) ..................................... 33

FIGURE 2. SCHEIN'S THREE LEVELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE (SCHEIN, 2010) ............................................................. 70

FIGURE 3. MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF SCHWARTZ'S SEVEN CULTURE-LEVEL VALUE TYPES (SCHWARTZ, 1999) .... 74

FIGURE 4. MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF THE 25 ITEMS (EUCLIDIAN DISTANCE) ............................................................ 132

FIGURE 5. MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING : REGIONS OCCUPIED BY THE FIVE FACTORS EFA SOLUTION .............................. 133

FIGURE 6. COMPARISON OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE PES WITH SCHWARTZ’S MODEL .................... 157

xvii

List of acronyms

DIT Defining Issues Test

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

EPQ Ethics Position Questionnaire

MANOVA Multivariate analysis of variance

MES Multidimensional Ethics Scale

MDS Multidimensional scaling

MJI Moral Judgment Interview

PES Polyphonic Ethics Scale

xviii

xix

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my mother.

I love you and I am so blessed to have you as my mother. You truly are an angel.

xxi

Acknowledgements

In 2010, I had the privilege to attend a conference by Peter Senge during the annual

meeting of the Academy of Management. During his presentation, he invited all the

participants to experience systems thinking by doing a simple exercise. He invited us to

think about any great accomplishment that we are proud of, and then to make a list of all

the persons in our lives that have helped us achieve it. He then asked us to cross out the

name from the fifth person at the bottom of the list and imagine what would have happened

or not happened if that person had not been there. This exercise made us aware how

interdependent we are, and how strongly some people have influenced us in long lasting

ways. This thesis represents an important achievement for me and I hereby want to

acknowledge the special people in my life who have, in so many ways, prepared me,

nurtured me, encouraged me and made it possible for me to complete this thesis.

Firstly, I want to thank my thesis director, Thierry C. Pauchant, for believing in me and

taking me in as his apprentice. I will forever cherish the weeks we spent at your home,

working at your living-room table, next to your huge and beautiful library, discussing and

searching for a systematic method to operationalize the ethical theories into statements for a

questionnaire, followed by months of reviewing and discussing every statement. My

memory of you will always be associated with Indiana Jones, and the day you came back

from Scotland, so excited as you showed me the photographs you had taken of some

handwritten notes taken during one of Adam Smith’s lecture, which you discovered in the

archives of the University of Glasgow. This dated manuscript was a physical confirmation

of your intuition about Adam Smith and his evolutionary view on ethics. I thank you for

sharing your passion for research and teaching, and most of all for your keen appreciation

of the enchantment involved in learning, and in life itself. It has been a privilege to learn

with you.

xxii

I extend very special thanks to the other members of my thesis committee, Prof. Robert

Desmarteau and Prof. Paul Shrivastava. You have helped me and challenged me to

understand complexity and systems theory. This was no easy feat. Thank you for your

support, advice and knowledge you so openly shared with me.

I would also like to thank professors James O’Toole, from the University of Denver Daniel

College of Business; André Beauchamp, of the Hydro-Québec/McGill Research Chair in

Ethics of the Environment; Michel Séguin, from the Chaire de coopération Guy-Bernier at

ESG-UQAM; Alain Létourneau, from the Université de Sherbrooke; Ian Mitroff, from the

University of California Berkeley and University of Southern California; and Lyse

Langlois, from the Université Laval, for their evaluation of the content validity of the items

reflecting the 30 ethical theories used to develop the scale that is the object of this thesis.

I express gratitude to the MBA students at HEC Montréal, whom I have had the privilege to

teach, for the personal stories and insights you shared with me, giving me an invaluable

understanding of how you face ethical issues and challenges.

Completing a Ph.D. is a huge time investment and I was blessed to have received multiple

fundings to carry on this endeavour. I want to thank the Chair in Ethical Management, the

Fondation HEC Montréal, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, Mr. Pierre Alajarin, Mr. Aimé

Quintal, and the BMP-Innovation Research Scholarship Program funded by FQRSC and

the CRSH. My very special thanks to the following organizations, for their collaboration

and financial contribution: Fondaction, Neuvaction, the Caisse d’économie solidaire

Desjardins, and the Centre local de développement de Québec. Furthermore, this thesis

was made possible because of the wonderful participation of the people of these four

organizations, who contributed their time and experience to give us feedback in validating

the questionnaire. Especially, I want to express my gratitude towards Mrs. Johanne Doyon

and Mr. Leopold Beaulieu, of Fondaction; Mr. Paul Ouellet, of the Caisse

xxiii

d’économie Desjardins; Mr. Richard Lapointe and Mr. Louis Bélanger-Rwemayire of

Neuvaction and Mr. Jean-Pierre Bédard of the Centre local de développement de Québec.

In particular, Mrs. Doyon personally contacted various leaders of organizations to invite

them and their employees to participate in our study by completing our one-hour long

questionnaire, in order for us to get the required number of respondents. Thank you Mrs

Doyon for your help and dedication.

Completing this thesis has been, at least intuitively if not explicitly, a dream I have had

since I was a young child. As far back as I can remember, growing up in Rancho Arriba de

Ocoa, in Dominican Republic, my biggest dream has been to go to school and become a

doctor. I want to thank some special persons who have nurtured my dreams and pushed me

to achieve them during my life. I thank my family from Dominican Republic. I am grateful

to Cola and Blanca, and my brothers and sisters for somehow managing to keep the family

united although we are spread in different families and countries throughout the world,

from Santo Domingo, Canada, the USA, Puerto Rico, Switzerland and Argentina. I am glad

to know all of you and I love you. The unique perspective your love gives me is an

essential experience I bring into this thesis.

I want to extend special thanks to my teachers and special mentors who have accompanied

me at different phases of my life. In particular, I thank my kindergarten teacher, Michelle,

who taught me to speak French when I arrived in Canada at age five. I thank my sixth grade

teacher, Miss Carol Anto, who taught me to speak and write in English, at Sherbrooke

Elementary School. I still remember the poster you had on the wall which read “Never let

go of your dreams”. I want to thank my high school history teacher, Yoland Bouchard, for

the passion you communicated to me in understanding contemporary history. Thanks to

you, I knew to cherish the special opportunity I had of meeting Lech Walesa, during the

ISBEE World Congress in Warsaw, Poland. I want to thank my track and field coaches,

Jacques Petit and Richard Crevier, who instilled in me this belief that we can

xxiv

achieve great goals and lead an exciting life. Jack, thank you for introducing me to Aristotle

and for reminding me, on the weekly training plan sheets, that “excellence is not an act, but

a habit”.

Some people open doors for us, and lead us toward new horizons. I want to thank Prof.

Yves Boisvert, who I had the chance to have as a lecturer during my undergraduate studies

at Sherbrooke University. In was during your seminar that I decided to do a Ph.D., for you

introduced me to theoretical texts which I enjoyed reading so much, even as I struggled to

understand the meanings of such words as ‘postmodernity’ and ‘hermeneutics’. Thank you

for having accepted to be a member of my master’s thesis committee and later

recommending me to Prof. Thierry Pauchant to pursue a Ph.D.

Finally, I want to thank my friends and family for their support, encouragement and prayers

that kept me going during the more difficult parts where I felt confused (which, I learned

from my thesis supervisor, is a good sign since it means I am learning!). I express special

thanks to the members of the Chair in Ethical Management, especially to my fellow Ph.D.

colleagues Joé T. Martineau, Kevin Johnson (who is now a Professor!), Fatima Lahrizi and

Virginie Lecourt. Thank you Fatima and Virginie, and also my niece Emye, for your

hospitality during the many nights I spent in your homes when I was studying in Montreal.

Many thanks also to Anne Louise Raymond, for our inspiring intellectual discussions, and

to the members of the Famille Myriam for your prayers and support.

This was an adventure I totally shared with my husband, Stéphane, and our children,

William and Maria. Stéphane and I will both have finished our thesis on the same year. I

thank Stéphane and my children for their support and especially for being interested and

seeking to understand what I was working on. Yes, even my children know about various

ethical perspectives and have helped me by their insightful questions and reflections.

xxv

Lastly but not least, I especially want to honour and thank my parents for I have been

blessed to have been raised in a loving, tightly knit and stimulating family. Dad, I miss you

and I know that you are proud and happy to see me cross this finish line. I know you will

forever be with me every step of the way. Thank you for everything you gave me, your

love, your thirst for justice and your warrior spirit for fighting for what you believe in. I

thank also my great brother, V.J., whose bright mind and general culture continue to

fascinate and inspire me. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my mother, Angèle, for you have

taught me and helped me so much. You are the one who has always helped me to move

forward whenever I have felt stumped and puzzled. Every time, you ask me to explain what

puzzles me to you, and almost magically my ideas get clearer as you listen to me. You have

a way to understand me, and help me understand myself. Thank you.

Introduction

The purpose of this thesis is to help people in organizations better understand

themselves and each other regarding their ways of perceiving and acting upon ethical

matters.

The questionnaire developed in this thesis aims to help individuals understand the basis of

the tacit knowledge that they tap into when making ethical decisions, and also understand

other people who may hold different ethical perspectives. As such, the Polyphonic Ethics

Scale is meant to be used as a pedagogical tool to enhance self-awareness and facilitate

collaborative action on ethical issues involving organizations.

Although we have favoured a quantitative methodology, by developing items for a

questionnaire and using factor analysis to distinguish between different ethical

perspectives, this research is not conducted from a positivist epistemological position, but

rather from a constructivist one. While we acknowledge that constructivist researchers

have a tradition of favouring qualitative methods such as case studies or a clinical approach

(e.g. Schein), we believe different angles and different methods of inquiry are useful to

analyze how people interpret ethical decision making in organization. We invite the reader

to consider the following chapters describing the development of our polyphonic scale, not

from a linear perspective composed of a step by step process of scientific discovery, but

rather as a circular sensemaking process of successive critical analyses.

Furthermore, in step with our constructivist approach, we stress that the validity of the scale

is not to be assessed by its predictive capacity, for example by attempting to link a person’s

ethical perspective to the probability of this person engaging in a specific behaviour, as

other scholars have proposed to do (eg. : Beekun, Westerman, & Barghouti, 2005; Fritzsche

& Becker, 1984). Differently, we hold that ethical decisions are adapted to their context,

2

therefore no scale is capable to take into account the specific context of every ethical

judgment. Rather, we hold the validity of the scale is to be measured by the its usefulness

to enhance a person’s sensemaking capacity (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).

As such, this tool is aimed to foster self and collective awareness. It is meant to be used to

help people express and reflect upon their ethical beliefs. It may also be used to stimulate

personal and collective reflection on one’s ethical aspirations and the actual behaviour that

would be compatible with them. We believe a large part of organizational ethics is about

personal responsibility, which requires to develop an introspective ability to engage in a

critical reflection about one’s ethical beliefs, as much as about one’s actual behaviour.

Moreover, we are aware that many ethical issues are systemic and cannot be resolved by

unilateral action by one stakeholder. Many ethical issues organizations face today require

collaborative action on the part of several stakeholders. This is the case of such pressing

issues as global warming, child labour, or corruption, to name a few. This tool may be used

when collaborative action is necessary to achieve any significant improvement. A large part

of organizational ethics is therefore also about building collective sensemaking, in order to

foster effective cooperation between stakeholders to resolve common challenges.

As early as 1938, Chester Barnard, considered today to be a pioneer in the field of

organizational studies, offered an extraordinary reflection on the plurality of ethical

perspectives in organizations. He declared that since the function of the executive is to

formulate purpose and objectives, “we shall consider the executive function of ‘moral

creativeness’ as the highest expression of responsibility” (Barnard, 1938, p. 261). Barnard

considered moral creativeness to be the ability to create a moral purpose that transcends all

individual differences in moral codes and inspires people to engage in cooperative action in

the organization. Moral creativeness is thus an effort of sensemaking, guiding

organizational actions that lead to both effectiveness and efficiency.

3

According to Barnard, the need for moral creativeness stems from the very polyphony of

ethics. He analyzed that not only do individual members of organizations possess a number

of personal moral codes, transmitted through their education, cultural background, religious

affiliation or professional training, but the organization itself adds several additional moral

codes of its own, which are codes of the organization (Barnard, 1938, p. 274). For Barnard,

the chief distinction between executives and lower ranks positions lies in the degree of

moral complexity they are faced with in their daily decisions (Barnard, 1938, p. 275).

Barnard explains that what characterizes the work of the executive compared to lower ranks

position is the frequency at which they are required to make non-routine decisions, where

moral implications are more likely to be of greater complexity. Leaders of organizations

also bear greater moral responsibility, by reason of the scope and range of the consequences

of the decisions they make.

It is our belief that the tool developed in this thesis will be especially useful for leaders in

organizations. While ethical introspection is necessary for everyone, we hold it is most

necessary for leaders of organizations by reason of the sheer scale of the impact of their

decisions on their own organizations, on other organizations within communities, as well as

unto society and the natural environment. As Chester Barnard stresses, the “general

executive process is not intellectual in its important aspect; it is aesthetic and moral”

(Barnard, 1938, p. 257). A leader in an organization need not only to know how to conduct

business, but also how to inspire people by providing a meaningful purpose that binds the

ethical responsibilities of the organizations and its members.

Meanwhile, research in business ethics is only starting to recognize the richness of the

many ethical perspectives that guide leaders and members. In the first chapter, we present

the challenges the polyphony of ethics poses for managers and also for scholars studying

ethical decision-making in organizations.

4

In the second chapter, we review the measurement instruments currently used to assess

ethical decision-making in the field of business ethics and compare the way the ethical

decision-making process has been conceptualized and operationalized in the business ethics

literature. We discuss a major limitation of existing ethical decision-making models and

measurements which is their failure to acknowledge or sufficiently reflect the pluralistic

nature of ethics. We offer the Polyphonic Ethics Scale (PES) presented in this thesis as a

measurement instrument to overcome these limitations.

In the third chapter, we develop a conceptual framework based on complexity and systems

theory. Echoing the method developed by Stephen Toulmin to analyze the justification

structure of everyday logical arguments, we propose a theoretical construct defining ethical

perspectives as integrated belief systems composed of basic assumptions about the nature

of reality, prescribed behaviours, and ethical ideals.

Chapter four describes the standard scale development methodology we used to build the

Polyphonic Ethics Scale. We first set out to establish an initial item pool reflecting diverse

ethical theories with which to build a polyphonic scale. We selected 30 ethical theories

from the most cited ethical theories in the business ethics literature, including 40% ethical

theories from feminine or non-Western traditions. The subsequent steps involved 1) the

operationalization of these ethical theories into item statements following the Toulmin

method, 2) the content validation of the item statements by independent experts, 3) the

construction of the questionnaire, 4) the administration of the questionnaire to a sample of

441 respondents working in organizations, 5) conducting exploratory factorial analysis and

multidimensional scaling in order to interpret the contrasting ethical perspectives

represented by the factors, 6) assessing the reliability and validity of the scale, and 7)

assessing the discriminant power of the scale to identify variations in the ethical

perspectives held by respondents.

5

The fifth chapter presents the results of our factor analysis and multidimensional scaling,

and different validity tests. In the sixth chapter, we discuss on the five ethical perspectives

forming the Polyphonic Ethics Scale. We conclude this thesis by addressing the limits of

this study, the theoretical and methodological contributions of this research, as well as the

practical implications of the Polyphonic Ethics Scale for organizations.

Chapter 1. The pluralistic nature of ethics

Many social scientists hold that we have entered a postmodern era, characterized by

a blending of cultural, moral and religious traditions (Airhart, Legge, & Redcliffe, 2002;

Dion, 2001; Giddens, 2003; T. M. Jones, Felps, & Bigley, 2007; Pauchant, Coulombe,

Gosselin, Leunens, & Martineau, 2007; Taylor, 1991). In this day and age of globalization

and multiculturalism, the existence of a diversity of ethical perspectives is felt in many

ways and is reflected in a variety of issues affecting organizations.

For example, the pluralistic nature of ethics is illustrated by the very difficulty of defining

and agreeing on what is right and wrong in our complex, rapidly changing environment. In

recent years, the clash between different ethical views has become more evident. Whereas

before, within a given society, there might have been broad agreement on the expected

ethical conduct to be adopted, some have proposed that we are entering a “pluralistic

world” (Airhart et al., 2002; Dion, 2001; Giddens, 2003; T. M. Jones et al., 2007; Pauchant

et al., 2007; Pauchant & Mitroff, 2002; Taylor, 1989). Put simply, people view the world

through different and sometimes conflicting ethical perspectives.

Second, several authors warn that the management tools and strategies taught in business

schools around the world are actually ingrained with Western values and represent a form

of Western cultural imperialism that ignores and disrupts the established cultural values and

practices of local communities (Limbs & Fort, 2000; Lutz, 2009; Ntibagirirwa, 2009;

Prinsloo, 2000). This issue is particularly sensitive with the increased internationalization

of education, and the globalization of the economy.

Third, other scholars further suggest that there are feminine and masculine ethical

perspectives (Gilligan, 1982; Kujala & Pietiläinen, 2004; McDonald & Pak, 1996;

Noddings, 2003; Roddick, 2000). These scholars come to the conclusion that current ethics

8

scales are “ derived from modern ethical theories focusing on indications of masculinities

more than femininities, [leaving] feminine decision-making dimensions invisible” (Kujala

& Pietiläinen, 2004, p. 153). While feminine or masculine ethical perspectives reflect

conceptual attributes that are not exclusive to any gender, many wonder if the increased

presence of women in managerial positions may lead to different ethical values being

promoted in the corporate world. In this chapter, we discuss the pluralistic nature of ethics

and the challenges it represents for managers and researchers.

1.1 Challenges for managers

The pluralistic nature of ethics implies concrete challenges for managers. To illustrate this,

let us consider the rise of globalization and the growing number of multi-cultural issues that

managers must now face (Giddens, 2003; Shrivastava, 1986). On the one hand, this new

reality requires managers to acquire some knowledge of other cultures in order to

understand the ethical issues and possible conflicts that may arise when doing business in

another country. For example, now that China and India have become global economic

forces, how do Western managers consider the issues involved in doing business with these

countries, given that most of them have not been exposed to Confucianism or Hinduism?

At the same time, increased international mobility means differences between the ethical

perspectives of multiple cultural traditions can also occur within a single organization. This

is the case in some international firms, where more than half of the staff have been raised in

very different cultural traditions (Brooks, 2004).

The need to recognize the pluralistic nature of ethics also increases with systemic ethical

challenges that cut across international boundaries, as with issues such as economic crises,

global warming, terrorism, child labour and poverty (Elfstrom, 1998; Habermas, 1996; Sen,

1991; Shrivastava, 1986; Somerville, 2000). These international issues require parties to

engage in common action, in spite of different vested interests, cultural backgrounds and

concrete physical conditions.

9

For example, while carbon dioxide emissions are mostly produced in industrialized

countries, the consequences are not immediate and may be felt more severely by the

populations in far away territories. Maldives’ President Mohamed Nasheed memorably

illustrated this point during the 2007 Copenhagen UN Climate Summit, when he held an

international press conference dressed in a diving suit, before holding an underwater

Cabinet meeting with his ministers (see Shenk, 2011). He wanted to draw global attention

to the fact that the 1,100 islands of the Maldives were in the process of being totally

submerged as an effect of global warming, and urged leaders of the world to come to an

agreement over the extension of the Kyoto protocol. Recently, at the 2013 Warsaw UN

Convention on climate change, we have once again witnessed the failure of the parties to

agree on effective means to limit the increase of global warming to under 2 degrees. As

Christiana Figueres, the Convention’s Executive Secretary expressed, it has been

impossible ‘to balance the urgency of the scientific boundaries’ imposed by the limited

capacity of the earth, and the slow and gradual ‘international policy evolution process’

involved in multilateral negotiations (UNFCC, 2013).

Another type of systemic ethical issue affecting organizations are financial and economic

crises. For instance, during the financial collapse and ensuing crisis that began plaguing

Argentina in the 1990 and culminated in 2001, doctors were treating dying babies and

malnourished children in this formerly prosperous country. These were the victims of

massive fraud committed by government officials and the austerity plans inflicted by the

IMF and World Bank. In an interview, doctors treating the babies and children analyzed

undernourishment isn’t solved by giving food to everyone. Citing the analysis of the

Argentinean author Juan P. Garrahan, they commented: “Undernourishment is a socio-

economic and cultural disease that can be cured by giving everyone a job” (Solanas, 2003).

In light of the recent financial crises and considering the looming financial collapse

threatening many countries in the world, this statement is a disturbing but true warning

10

of the far-ranging and dire consequences of financial crisis caused by corruption, greed, and

injustice (Pauchant et al., in press).

Other issues, such as child labour, are also complex and systemic. While there is a general

consensus that no child should be forced to work, different stakeholders nevertheless have

different views as to the corrective actions to implement. Some socially conscious

consumers request that companies end contracts with factories employing children, or even

end contracts with all factories in countries where child labour is rampant. However, from

the child’s perspective, being fired or having the factory that employs her lose the contract

does not improve her life conditions nor change the underlying causes (Kolk & Van Tulder,

2002). Others suggest giving access to education for the children while they continue to

work part time to support themselves and their family. Meanwhile, buyers sometimes

require factories to work with international union federations to secure better wages and

working conditions for adults, leading factory managers to protest that companies (and

customers) ought to accept higher prices for the goods they produce, in order for them to

pay higher wages. The recent collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh on April

24, 2013, killing 1,127 workers trapped inside the building, has raised international concern

over the more general issues concerning working conditions in poor countries serving the

global supply-chain, and question the responsibility of Western firms in preventing such

tragedies (Brender, 2013).

These examples, chosen out of many others, reflect how different solutions stem from

different ethical perspectives. Each of these issues illustrates that the pluralistic nature of

ethics is not just an abstract concept, but a reality with which managers are required to deal

with in everyday decisions. Furthermore, other scholars point out that this plurality of

ethical perspectives is also felt internally, as part of the identity of modern man, and

therefore promote better recognition and affirmation of this inner multiplicity (Lyshaug,

2004; Taylor, 1989, 1991). Several empirical studies show that people have different

11

conceptions about ethics (Carlson & Kacmar, 1997; Collins, 2000; Cottone & Claus, 2000;

O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; Reidenbach & Robin, 1988). Moreover, empirical findings

suggest that the same individual actually uses multiple ethical frameworks when making

decisions (Carlson & Kacmar, 1997; McDonald & Pak, 1996; Reidenbach & Robin, 1988).

We believe that a key requirement for better ethical clarity and purpose in management is,

first of all, to recognize the pluralistic nature of ethics. Meanwhile, research in business

ethics is only starting to recognize the diversity of ethical perspectives that guide leaders

and workers in organizations.

1.2 Challenges for the field of business ethics

The dominant approach in the business ethics literature does not support, so far, a

polyphonic view of ethics. In fact, the dominant approach in business ethics is often to take

a universalistic view of ethics, where ethics is viewed as a topic about which there can be a

general consensus over ethical criteria that serve as a common reference point. In contrast,

scholars from the polyphonic perspective define ethics as a quest to determine what is the

ethical conduct to adopt, rather than a series of specific moral prescriptions (Lecourt, 2014;

Pauchant, 1995). In parallel, prominent scholars in the field lament research on business

ethics is fragmented between theoretical and empirical research and the field has yet to be

integrated (Cavanagh, Moberg, & Velasquez, 1995; Swanson, 1999; Trevino & Weaver,

1994; Weaver & Trevino, 1994). On one side, the moral philosophers tackle the theoretical

work, and focus on the moral evaluation of organizational behaviour and judgment. On the

other side, social scientists conduct empirical studies, aiming to describe, measure, explain

and predict ethical behaviour in organizations. This distinction between the normative

theories on one side, and the descriptive theories on the other side, has led the field of

business ethics to be divided into two separate communities, with communication between

the moral philosophers, focusing on normative theories, and the social scientists, focusing

on descriptive theories, remaining scarce (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). This lack of

12

integration between theory and practice is a situation that hampers advancement in the

field, and unless these two communities come together, the integration of the field will

remain impossible (Swanson, 1999, p. 506).

We suggest that the historical dominance of the universalistic approach to business ethics,

and the lack of recognition of the polyphonic nature of ethics, is a chief factor that prevents

the integration of theoretical and empirical research in the business ethics field. We first

present the limits of the universalistic view of ethics in research, and explain how this

situation has contributed to prevent the integration of theoretical and empirical research on

business ethics. We then explain how a polyphonic approach to business ethics can

overcome these obstacles and foster the integration of theoretical groundings in empirical

research on ethical decision-making.

1.2.1 The universalistic approach to business ethics

Much of the empirical business ethics literature reflect a universalistic conception of ethics.

The universalistic approach to business ethics is a point of view that drives scholars to

discover the universal higher order ethical principles that form the basis of business ethics.

As Beauchamp and Bowie explain (Beauchamp & Bowie, 2004, pp. 33-34):

Many philosophers defend the view that there is a common morality that all

people share by virtue of communal life and this morality is ultimately the

source of all theories of morality… it is applicable to all persons in all places,

and all human conduct is rightly judged by its standards.

The universalistic approach to ethics is a normative moral stance. It is no so much in

opposition to the polyphonic view as it is with “ethical relativism” where all ethical

opinions would be considered to bear equal value. Universalism consider that some ethical

principles have greater moral value than others. In contrast, we adopt a polyphonic

13

perspective as a descriptive theory, with a focus to describe the various ethical justifications

offered by people in organizations, rather than evaluate the value of these justifications.

Amartya Sen expresses the essence of the polyphonic approach when he explains (Sen,

2009, p. x):

It is argued here that there can exist several distinct reasons of justice, each of

which survives critical scrutiny, but yields divergent conclusions. Reasonable

arguments in competing directions can emanate from people with diverse

experiences and traditions, but they can also come from within a given

society, or for that matter, even from the very same person.

The polyphonic approach to business ethics is based on the observation that people hold

different, and sometimes conflicting, conceptions of ethics. The universalistic and

polyphonic perspectives are therefore not in opposition, the first being a normative theory,

while the second is a descriptive theory.

As a normative theory, the universalistic approach to business ethics does not deny the

plurality of ethical conceptions between individuals. However, we claim logical and

conceptual problems arise when the universalistic approach is used as the basis for a

descriptive theory of ethics.

For instance, some scholars, such as Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) and Schwartz (2005)

have attempted to bridge the gap between normative and descriptive research in the field,

by empirically establishing what are the universal values on which there is a general

consensus. However, as we will see, this approach is deceptive.

For example, when Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) attempt to bridge that gap by searching

for the universal moral principles people actually rely on in the business world, they

recognize the diverse and sometimes conflicting ethical criteria and perspectives that serve

14

as ethical norms in organizations. Yet, their focus is to determine a set of universal moral

guidelines or ‘hypernorms’ that may be used to examine the “ethical validity” of

organizational and industry ethical norms. To do so, they opt to discover empirical

‘evidence’ of these hypernorms by analyzing the convergence between components of

well-known global industry standards, the actual corporate codes of ethics of organizations,

global codes of ethics promulgated by prominent nongovernmental organizations (e.g.: the

International Labour Organization), regional government organizations (e.g.: the OECD) or

voluntary international business organizations (e.g.: the Global Reporting Initiative, or the

Caux Roundtable), and the precepts of major philosophies and religions. For Donaldson

and Dunfee, hypernorms take precedence over local norms, in cases where these ethical

norms conflict.

Similarly, Schwartz (2005) attempts to establish the ‘core universal moral values’ by which

to evaluate the ‘ethicality’ of corporate codes of ethics. As empirical evidence, he uses the

convergence of three sources of standards: 1) corporate codes of ethics, 2) global codes of

ethics, and 3) the business ethics literature. While he identifies six universal moral values -

trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship- he nevertheless

recognizes that these values can be interpreted, defined and applied differently,

“particularly in those parts of the world with different understandings and meanings for

each of the six core moral values” (Schwartz, 2005, p. 41). In fact, these differences in

meanings and understandings associated with ethics are exactly what the polyphony of

ethics refers to. We claim people may articulate values - such as respect, fairness or

responsibility- along different lines of reasoning, whether they come from different parts of

the world or from the same neighbourhood. Moreover, Schwartz recognizes value

prioritization as another issue introduced by the practical complexity of relying on a set of

universal principles: “In real life situations, the six core values themselves may conflict

with each other” (Schwartz, 2005, p.41). Of course, how these values are prioritized can

lead to a great variety in ethical judgment in the face of a particular situation. This also

15

reflects the polyphony of ethics.

In his book The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen offers a major theoretical contribution to the

polyphonic approach to ethics. Sen refers to this fundamental difference between the

universalistic and polyphonic approaches to ethics as the ‘transcendal institutionalism’

versus the ‘realization-focused comparisons that focus on the advancement or retreat of

justice’ (Sen, 2009, p. 8). As Sen explains, the universalistic – or transcendental - view of

ethics has two major flaws. In addition to the problem that a real consensus on the

universal principles to apply in a given situation may not be feasable, it is also neither

necessary nor sufficient for the advancement of justice (Sen, 2009, pp. 15-16):

The problem with the transcendal approach does not arise only from the

possible plurality of competing principles that have claims to being

relevant to the assessment of justice. Important as the problem of the

non-existence of an identifiable just social arrangement is, a critically

important argument in favour of the comparative approach to the

practical reason of justice is not just the infeasability of the

transcendental theory, but its redundancy. If a theory of justice is to

guide reasoned choice of policies, strategies and institutions, then the

identification of fully just social arrangements is neither necessary nor

sufficient.

To illustrate, if we are trying to choose between a Picasso and a Dali, it

is of no help to invoke a diagnosis (even if such a transcendental

diagnosis could be made) that the ideal picture in the world is the Mona

Lisa. (…) Indeed, it is not at all necessary to talk about what may be

the greatest or most perfect picture in the world, to choose between the

two alternatives that we are facing. Nor is it sufficient, or indeed of any

particular help, to know that the Mona Lisa is the most perfect picture

in the world when the choice is actually between a Dali and a Picasso.

If universal principles and values are neither necessary nor sufficient to advance justice in

16

real life situations, why is there such a strong focus on identifying the supreme sets of

overarching universal ethical principles? There is certainly an appeal to the idea of

universal ethical principles. For one, universal ethical principles appear to give a common

definition to the concept of ethics. Since actual empirical evidence suggest that people may

agree on abstract principles but disagree in their application in real life situations, this leads

to observe an apparent universal consensus on ethics, while concealing the conflicts and

disagreement that result from the actual polyphony of ethics. In reality, universal values or

principles masks the confusion caused by the plurality of meanings associated with the

words used to designate them. Second, to claim to discover these universal principles from

empirical evidence is epistemologically problematic: to attempt to prove the ‘truth’ of a

value from factual evidence is an error in reasoning.

As Fort (2000) points out, this use of objective “evidence” to identify normative

philosophical criteria leads to commit a “naturalistic fallacy” and confuse ‘”what is” for

“what ought” : “ ‘What is’ thus has a great deal to do with ‘what ought to be’ or ‘what is’

at least points toward ‘what ought to be’ might look like” (Fort, 2000, p. 385). This Fact vs.

Value dichotomy has been the object of a great deal of discussion in the philosophical

circles (see Putnam, 2002). For example, by treating convergence towards ethical norms as

an indication of a ‘natural’ and ‘universal’ ethical ideal, we claim these scholars are

actually using science to legitimize the dominant ideology. In particular, Shrivastava (1986)

warned against the ideological function served by social science. Concealing the polyphony

of ethical aspirations and proclaiming universal ethical ideals is just one way of

legitimizing the interests of the dominant group and silencing those of other subgroups of

society. Shrivastava identified five strategies that conceal the ideological function in social

science, as an instrument for serving the interests of the dominant group: 1) the factual

under determination of action norms, 2) the denial of contradiction and conflicts, 3) the

universalization of sectional interests, 4) the normative idealization of sectional goals, and

5) the naturalization of the status quo (Shrivastava, 1986). In Table 1, we present

17

each of these strategies in detail, as they all apply to reveal the ideological approach taken

by both Schwartz and Donaldson and Dunfee, among others, in their quest to empirically

identify universal ethical norms (Shrivastava, 1986, pp. 365-367).

Table I. Five ideologies concealment strategies (Shrivastava, 1986, pp. 365-367)

When Donaldson and Dunfee, Schwartz, or others use the global convergence of ethical

norms and prescriptions to validate the universality of these norms, all five ideology

concealment strategies are at play. The concealment of the polyphony of ethics may

therefore serve not only to silence less powerful groups, but also to legitimize the interests

of the dominant groups in society. For this ideological instrumentalization of theories to

Ideology concealment

strategies

Description

1) Factual under

determination of

action norms

Misrepresenting reality by claiming that action norms or policy prescriptions are

factually determined, when in truth they have not been or cannot be factually

determined.

2) Denial of

contradiction and

conflicts

Portraying social systems as neutral, rational, and instrumental agencies, without

contradictions and conflicts is normally in the interests of the dominant groups in the

system.

3) Universalization of

sectional interests

Portraying sectional interests to be universal legitimizes narrow sets of interests to the

broader community. Appealing to the universal interests of human beings is considered

desirable and unbiased, and is the basis for legitimacy in pluralistic societies. Such

legitimization conceal the real interests of subgroups that dominate and serve to expand

the domain over which sectional interests have influence, justifying the use of more

community resources toward fulfilling these interests.

4) Normative

idealization of

sectional goals

Automatically assuming or accepting formal goals as normatively correct and to be the

only legitimate goals of social systems. Because formal goals are the goals of the ruling

elite, their idealization gives moral force and social legitimacy to the elite segments of

society and make illegitimate or wrong the goals of other segments of society.

5) Naturalization of

the status quo

Preserving existing dominance structures and arrangements and constraining change by

describing the existing order of things as the natural order.

18

be avoided, Shrivastava points towards a shift in the research focus of scholars studying

organizations (Shrivastava, 1986, p. 372):

The focus of the field should shift from studying organizations (noun) as

mechanistic instrumental systems to studying organization (verb) as the

process of continuous reproduction of material, social, and cultural life. For

organizations do not only produce material products, but also reproduce

social relations and cultural milieux.

Following Shrivastava (1986), we hold that it is of utmost importance not to conceal the

polyphony of ethical views – and the real conflicts that occur within organizations and

societies- under the veil of an allegedly universal consensus over ethical values, principles

or ideals. Rather, convergence on certain ethical values can convey a social legitimacy to

certain ethical claims, but as even the defenders of this approach recognize, ‘convergence

of hypernorms within a society does not necessarily ensure that the hypernorms themselves

are ethical’ (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999, p. 57). Rather, we believe the ethicality of any

practical decision may be best evaluated via a critical evaluation, in which the validity of

the justification of ethical views on a certain situation may permit a better appreciation of

the implications of the ethical decision from different perspectives. The diversity of ethical

views, or perspectives, have not received sufficient attention so far in the business ethics

literature. Amartya Sen shares this polyphonic view of ethics and discusses the merit of

making explicit the different meanings enfolded in people’s perspectives on ethics (Sen,

2009, p. 109):

There is some general merit in the explicitness of fully stated axioms and

carefully established derivations, which makes it easier to see what is

being assumed and what exactly they entail. Since the demands that are

linked to the pursuit of justice in public discussion, and sometimes even

in theories of justice, often leave considerable room for clearer

articulation and fuller defense, this explicitness can itself be something of

a contribution.

19

Reflecting the dominant universalistic approach, most empirical studies on ethical decision-

making rely on measurement instruments that do not recognize the pluralistic nature of

ethics. Indeed, the most widely used instruments in empirical studies on ethical decision-

making, the Defining Issue Test (DIT) and the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI), both rely

on Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory, which is founded on a universalistic

conception of ethics reflecting a Kantian view of ethics (Collins, 2000b; O’Fallon &

Butterfield, 2005). In the following section, we discuss the challenges this situation poses

for scholars in the field of business ethics.

1.2.2 Influence of Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development theory

One reason for the lack of recognition of the different ethical perspectives that guide ethical

decision-making seem to be related to the scientific literature on ethical decision-making

being greatly influenced by Kohlberg’s seminal work on cognitive moral development

(Kohlberg, 1969; 1981; 1984). Kohlberg’s theory describes how people’s ethical judgment

develops in stages toward a Kantian perspective of ethics based on universal principles.

Although Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for its lack of recognition that people may

hold other, non-Kantian ethical ideals, the two most prominent measurement instruments to

assess the ethical decision-making process, the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI) and the

Defining Issue Test (DIT), are based on this theory (Trevino, 1986).

Kohlberg’s longitudinal research suggests that, as they mature into adulthood, children and

teenagers go through distinct sequential stages in the process of developing ethical

judgment. Inspired by Piaget’s work on the cognitive development of children, Kohlberg

characterized the different stages by the cognitive structure of the ethical reasoning

displayed at each stage. Lower stages of moral development are characterized by egocentric

concrete reasoning, while the middle stages incorporate a higher cognitive capacity for

20

abstraction and the ability to think from the perspective of one’s group or society. The

highest stages of moral reasoning are characterized by a cognitive capacity for a high level

of abstraction as well as the integration of a universal perspective as the basis for evaluating

moral issues. As such, moral development does not necessarily involve changing one’s

point of view on a particular issue, but involves expanding one’s perspective to include

criteria that were not considered previously (Duska & Whelan, 1975, p. 101).

It is important to note that cognitive moral development and moral judgment are often

taken as synonymous theoretical constructs. This confusion may have been inadvertently

encouraged by Kohlberg, when he chose to identify by the name 'Moral Judgment

Interview' (MJI), his instrument designed to measure stages of cognitive moral

development. It is more appropriate to state that the MJI measure the stage of cognitive

moral development (CMD) of an individual’s moral judgment, as some scholars in the

business ethics literature have correctly taken to identify this concept (Robin, Gordon,

Jordan, & Reidenbach, 1996). As such, the stage of development of moral judgment is one

dimension of moral judgment. Moral judgment (or ethical judgment) is a component of

ethical decision-making, which can be measured in a number of ways.

We propose that Kohlberg’s cognitive moral theory is not an adequate theory from which to

derive a measurement instrument that addresses the pluralistic nature of ethics. Kohlberg

affirms that his definition of morality is rooted in a Kantian view of justice (Kohlberg,

1989), and it is no surprise, therefore, that the more mature stages in his model are

described as reliance on Kantian universal principles. Hence, a measurement instrument

derived from this theory would actually measure not only a person’s cognitive structure of

reasoning, but also how much a person’s reasoning approaches a Kantian conception of

ethics. As a result, both the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI) developed by Kohlberg, and

the Defining Issue Test (DIT), developed by one of his student, James Rest, present a

normative bias towards a Kantian ethical perspective. We present, in detail, the

21

critiques that have been made about these two instruments in relation to their inability to

convey the polyphony of ethical perspectives.

1.2.3 Critiques concerning the MJI and the DIT

The MJI is an extensive interview which makes use of vignettes presenting ethical

dilemmas to elicit respondents’ reasoning as to why they hold that an action is ethical or

unethical. This assessment tool requires trained interviewers and a time-consuming analysis

of the respondent’s responses based on a coding manual (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Rest

developed the DIT as a multiple choice closed answers questionnaire, to be a less time-

consuming method than the MJI to assess the respondent’s stage of moral development.

The DIT uses a P-score which indicates the level of moral development based on the

percentage of answers that are related to the highest stages of moral development (i.e.,

universal moral principles of justice). This actually emphasizes the measurement’s

normative reliance on Kantian ethical theory.

A look at the findings of past studies hints that a polyphonic approach to measure moral

judgment would be more appropriate. A first clue was offered in Gilligan’s (1982) critique

on Kohlberg’s stages of moral development model, when she stressed that some individuals

appeared to use ethical criteria that have nothing to do with a Kantian perspective of justice.

She indicated that the justice framework on which Kohlberg rests his moral development

theory does not correspond to everyone’s idea of ethics, since the women she interviewed

appeared to favour another line of reasoning focused on the quality of the relationship

between people, which Gilligan named the “Ethics of Care”.

This insight was noted again, in a different way, by Rest himself (Thoma, Rest & Davison,

1991). Having observed that respondents’ stage of development and their decision on an

ethical issue were not highly correlated, they developed a moderator—the U score—for the

moral judgment and action relationship, which monitored the degree to which

22

respondents use the Kantian justice framework to justify their ethical evaluation. The

higher the reliance on Kantian justice-based moral norms, the higher was the correlation

between moral judgment and behaviour. These scholars (Thoma et al., 1991, p.660)

underscore this point when they remind us that :

… moral judgment measures such as the Standard Issue Moral Judgment

Interview (MJI; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) or the Defining Issues Test

(DIT; J. R. Rest, 1979) will reflect typical moral judgment processing

only insofar as subjects use justice reasoning to arrive at a decision.

Indeed, they acknowledge people may very well rely on other ethical theories, such as

social norms or religious prescriptions, among others, to inform their moral judgment as to

what is the “ideal action choice” (Thoma et al., 1991). An important limit to Kohlberg’s

ethical reasoning model is therefore its basis on only one ethical theory without taking into

account respondents’ reliance on the ethical norms proposed by other moral theories. As

stressed by Thoma, Rest & Davison (1991, p. 659), people may also hold a repertoire of

ethical theories they consider to be valid:

It is possible, however, that the existence of justice reasoning in an

individual's decision-making repertoire does not preclude the existence of

other interpretive systems or that justice reasoning is the preferred system

used in solving moral dilemmas. For example, Turiel (1983) has argued

that social convention may inform moral decisions. Similarly, Gilligan

(1977) has argued for concepts of care as a competing interpretive system.

Furthermore, Lawrence (1979) has shown that religious prescription can

override justice concerns in solving moral dilemmas. Additionally,

personality psychologists (e.g., Forsyth, 1980) have often noted that

individuals vary in the degree to which moral principles such as justice

concerns influence moral judgments.

These studies yield support to our claim that ethical decision-making models should test

respondents’ relative reliance on a repertoire of multiple ethical theories.

Compared to the huge impact of Kohlberg’s theory in the field, polyphonic theories about

ethical decision-making are marginal. As far as cognitive developmental theories

23

about ethical judgment is concerned, William Perry’s cognitive developmental theory on

moral judgment, is an exception which acknowledges the polyphony of ethics. Perry’s

influence in the business ethics literature is however extremely limited. As a contrasting

moral development theory that openly embraces the polyphony of ethics, we now present

William Perry’s theory on intellectual and ethical development.

1.2.4 William Perry’s Intellectual and Ethical Development Theory

William Perry is a well known education psychologist who studied cognitive and ethical

development in undergraduate students and proposed a theory suggesting that people

journey through four stages of intellectual and moral development. Perry calls these four

stages 1) Dualism, 2) Multiplicity, 3) Relativism, and 4) Commitment (Perry, 1970, 1981).

Although Perry’s moral complexity theory is similar to Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive

moral development in many dimensions, it also offers some significant differences. Like

Kohlberg, Perry associates moral development with reasoning levels of increasing

complexity, from linear immediate cause and effect thinking, to a conscience of being part

of a larger system, involving ever larger circles of stakeholders. Unlike Kohlberg, however,

Perry’s theory does not posit any ethical theory as as polar star that provides a definitive

universal conception of ethics. Instead, Perry’s ethical developmental theory embraces

ethical pluralism since each stage of development reflects an individual’s sensemaking

response when faced with multiple ethical claims stemming from different sources of moral

authority. As the person transitions from one stage of development to another, this

transition involves a progressive realization of the uncertainties in ethics and of the

plurality of moral interpretations and prescriptions.

The first phase in Perry’s model is Dualism, where one’s task is to learn the right thing to

do, according to the prescription of an external moral authority. Realizing that other people

rely on other moral authorities, the reflex at this stage is to protect one’s own beliefs against

those of others, since if one’s moral authority is good, then all others are bad.

24

The second phase is called Multiplicity, and introduces the notion of uncertainty: one

comes to the progressive realization that the external moral authority doesn’t have all the

answers, and have contradictory answers to moral questions. At this point, the person may

begin to question how one finds the right answer. Common reactions at this stage is either

to rebel against authority, realizing the external source of authority does not profess any

truths but merely opinions, or, enter into playing the game and sticking by the rules,

meanwhile they try to sort things out. This stage in particular can be very stressful. The

next stage of moral development is Relativism. This is a stage of confusion. Former

assumptions about what makes a decision right or good are shattered. There is a progressive

realization that for every ‘truth’ there is an equally valid opposite ‘truth’. Finding no way

to reconcile the two positions, one is slowly introduced to the existence of paradoxes, and

the possibility that there may perhaps not exist any right solution. This stage defines the

existential crisis so well described by Sartre, Camus and others, where one’s sense of

meaning is destroyed in the face of the absurdity of life. Of all the stages, this is the most

emotionally challenging, as feelings of anxiety, loss, rage and bewilderment can threaten to

overwhelm the person. The last stage in Perry’s model is Commitment, which involves the

integration of the teachings transmitted by the moral authorities with one’s personal

experience and critical reflection. At this stage, the person freely choses to commit to an

ethical ideal and philosophy chosen by oneself, which may or may not coincide with the

path promoted by a moral authority. The personal commitment is the essential

characteristic of this phase, as it is this level of commitment to an ethical ideal that enables

the person to stand firm in the face of uncertainty, which is regarded as an essential part of

life. This stage involves a high level of autonomy and personal responsibility regarding

one’s behaviour and decisions.

However, although Perry’s theory fits well within a polyphonic approach to ethics, it has

not received much attention in the field of business ethics and remains largely unknown in

the field, compared to the popularity of Kohlberg’s theory. We claim a polyphonic

25

approach to business ethics is necessary to foster advancement in the field. Swanson (1999,

p. 509) recommend scholars to adopt such a strategy to overcome the normative vs.

descriptive separation in the field and offers three guidelines to follow: 1) focus research

on the concept of value, defined as tacit or explicit beliefs that influence behaviour; 2)

conceptualize ethics as a decision-making process; 3) build a typology of contrasting

patterns of processing values.

Several scholars in the business ethics field have adopted a polyphonic approach, and

looked to the discipline of moral philosophy to provide the theoretical basis for a pluralistic

approach to ethics. Instead of attempting to discover empirically the basis of a universal

moral theory, as Donaldson and Dunfee and Schwartz suggest, they bridge the gap by using

the theoretical groundings of different moral theories to describe contrasting patterns in the

ethical decision-making process in organizations. In the next chapter, we review the current

ethical decision-making conceptual models and analyze the few available polyphonic

measurement instruments that are inspired by moral philosophy.

Chapter 2: A review of current ethics scales

We present in this chapter a review of ethical decision-making conceptual models

and of the few measurement instruments currently available to assess the ethical decision-

making process in organizations from a pluralistic approach. We show that these

instruments cover only a small range of ethical perspectives, which are biased towards

masculine and Western ethical theories. Moreover, we observe that important contemporary

business ethics normative theories, such as corporate social responsibility, stakeholder

theory or sustainable development, are simply not represented in these measurement

instruments. We claim this situation limits advancement in the field because many voices

expressing other ethical perspectives in the business world are simply ignored, and

therefore silenced.

This chapter is organized in three sections. The first section presents two current ethical

decision-making models and their related theoretical constructs, namely Rest’s (1984) four

components model and Hunt and Vitell’s (1986) systemic model. The second section

presents how ethical theories stemming from the field of moral philosophy have been used

in empirical studies on ethical decision-making. The third section focuses on reviewing two

polyphonic validated scales for measuring ethical decision-making, namely Reidenbach and

Robin’s (1988) Multidimensional Ethics Scale and McDonald and Pak’s (1996) Cognitive

Moral Philosophies Scale.

2.1 Ethical decision-making models

In order to analyze the validity of the measurement instruments intended to describe the

ethical decision-making process, one needs first to specify clearly the theoretical constructs

they are designed to measure. We begin this chapter by comparing the theoretical

constructs involved in the model of the ethical decision-making process proposed by Rest

28

(1984), and the one proposed by Hunt and Vitell (1986). The link between theory and

measurement instruments is indeed very crucial, as poor theoretical constructs inevitably

lead to poor measurement of the concept (DeVillis, 2003). In this section, we suggest that

much confusion results from the theoretical constructs of Rest’s widely used four-

components model of the ethical decision-making process. We present these two models

and discuss why we favour Hunt and Vitell’s conceptual model of the ethical decision-

making process.

2.1.1 Rest’s four-components model of the ethical decision-making process

According to an extensive literature review conducted by O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005),

Rest’s four-components model is the most widely used in the field of business ethics for

empirical studies on the ethical decision-making process. In an effort to establish an order

in the growing literature on ethical decision-making in organizations, Rest (1984) suggested

a four-components model to enable better comparison between research results on the

ethical decision-making process. Rest explains the need for his conceptual framework to

differentiate between theoretical constructs measured in studies on ethical decision-making,

observing that “different researchers have been investigating different but complementary

aspects of morality” (Rest, 1984, p. 19). For example, in many studies, the term ethical

decision-making is used synonymously with moral judgment (e.g.: Trevino, 1986), while in

others, the focus may be on measuring moral intent or moral awareness.

According to Rest, the ethical decision-making process is composed of four interdependent

components, which are different theoretical constructs. The four theoretical constructs of

Rest’s model are 1) moral awareness, 2) moral judgment, 3) moral intent and 4) moral

action. The description of each of these components is presented in Table II (Rest, 1984, p.

20).

29

Table II. Description of Rest's four components model (Rest, 1984, p. 20)

Components Major function

Component I: Moral Awareness To interpret the situation in terms of how one’s actions affect the welfare

of others.

Component II: Moral Judgment To formulate what a moral course of action would be; to identify the

moral ideal in a specific situation.

Component III: Moral Intent To select, among competing value outcomes or ideals, the one to act upon;

to decide whether or not to try to fulfill one’s moral ideals.

Component IV: Moral Action To execute and implement what one intends to do. This involves self-

regulation and the executive skills to carry out the intention.

Although it is frequently presented by other scholars in a linear causal sequence, Rest

insists that his model of the ethical decision-making process is not a linear causal model.

Rather, it implies that each component is a distinct unitary process and that all four

components co-determine observable behaviour in a specific situation (Rest, 1984, p.20):

I do not intend to convey the impression that the four components

depict a linear sequence in real time, that is, a microanalysis would

show that first a person executes Component I, followed in turn by

Components II, III, and IV. Rather, there is clear evidence that the

components are interactive, that Components III and IV influence I

and II, as well as vice-versa. The four processes are presented in a

logical sequence as an analytical framework for depicting what must

go on for moral behaviour to occur.

Rest further explains that a “person who has great facility on one process is not necessarily

adequate on another process” and that while “the correlation of any one [of the four

components] with behaviour may not be high, … it is a mistake to conclude that the

processes have nothing to do with behaviour” (Rest, 1984, p. 19).

However, this model presents some important limitations. First, the model generates

confusion in the definition of the concepts labeled ‘moral intent’ and ‘moral judgment’. For

30

example, moral intent is described as both “ the decision to act morally or not”, and “the

evaluation of which ethical ideal to select when two or more ideals come in conflict”. We

argue that this component comprises two very different constructs, as one can very well

establish in one’s mind what would be the ethical thing to do and choose not to do it

(choose not to act ethically). Furthermore, the “evaluation of which ethical ideal to select”

describing moral intent, also appears to be very similar to the definition given to moral

judgment, “to identify the moral ideal in a specific situation”. Rest’s definition of moral

judgment is itself problematic, as it refers to both the identification of the moral ideal to be

pursued, and the evaluation if a course of action is ethical or not. This is again a double-

barrelled definition. The problem with the definition of moral judgment, however, can be

traced back to Kohlberg and the Moral Judgment Interview (Kohlberg, 1981, 1984), which

coined the word in the literature, while he himself distinguished two dimensions in the

moral judgment concept.

As we have discussed in Chapter 1, the term “moral judgment” has been strongly

associated with Kohlberg’s work on cognitive moral development. According to Kohlberg

(1984), moral judgment contains both a content (ethical/unethical, i.e. “This action is

unethical”) and a cognitive structure (why? i.e. “Because it is against the law”). In the

Moral Judgment Interview, Kohlberg designed to tap first in the content of the ethical

judgment ( i.e.: “Do you think the man in the scenario you just read acted ethically or

not?”), but mainly as a means to be able to tap into the cognitive structure of moral

judgment (why?). In the Defining Issue Test (DIT), the much less time-consuming

questionnaire developed by Rest, Rest does not differentiate between these two dimensions

of moral judgment. We hold that the content (ethical/unethical) and the structure (why?) of

the moral judgment component are two distinct theoretical constructs.

Although Rest’s conceptual model is widely used, the ambiguities with the theoretical

constructs of the moral judgment and moral intent components raise questions regarding the

31

construct validity of the four components model. Many scholars have followed Rest’s lead

and developed different measurement instruments and strategies to measure the

components but correlation between the components and behaviour has been found to be

rather low (Thoma et al, 1999). The low correlation of the different components among

themselves and with respect to behaviour may be due to the poor theoretical constructs of

the components, the inadequacy of the model itself, or the difficulty of developing adequate

measurement instruments for each of the components. However, as DeVillis points out

(DeVillis, 2003, pp. 6-7):

Different measures capturing distinct aspects of the same general

phenomena … thus may not yield convergent results …. In essence, the

measures are assessing different variables despite the use of a common

variable name in their descriptions. … Consequently, theory plays a key

role in the way we conceptualize our measurement problems.

The state of confusion regarding the meaning associated with the concept of “ethical

judgment” in particular reveals the severe practical limitations of using Rest’s model for

building measurement instruments for the field. In a recent review of articles using the

Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES), a widely used scale designed to measure ethical

judgment which we will present in detail later in this chapter, Mudrack and Mason (2013)

found three dozens different terminologies to refer to what that scale was actually

measuring. In some studies, the construct measured by this scale was labeled with the

names associated with other components of Rest’s four components model, such as “moral

awareness” and “ethical sensitivity” or “ethical perceptions” (Ellis and Griffith, 2001;

Shawver and Sennetti, 2009). Other terminologies of the concept measured by this same

scale include “ethical evaluation” (Henderson and Kaplan, 2005), “ethical orientation”

(Hudson, 2007), “ethical perspective” (Beekun et al., 2008), “moral philosophy” (Beekun et

al., 2005), “ethical theories” (Loo, 2009), “moral attitude” (Shaw, 2003), “ethical

reasoning” (Schmidt et al., 2009) or “individual moral value frameworks” (Schwepker et

al., 1997). This multiplicity of terminology is also indicative of a pre-paradigmatic field

(Kuhn, 1962), as scholars attempt to develop clear and stable concepts and build a

32

consensus over their meaning. Meanwhile, an alternative model of the ethical decision-

making process has been developed by Hunt and Vitell (1986), in the field of marketing.

2.1.2 Hunt and Vitell’s model

Hunt and Vitell’s offer a systemic model that is more elaborate than Rest’s model. It

comprises five main components: 1) perception of reality, such as perceived ethical

problem, perceived alternatives, perceived consequences; 2) ethical evaluation, including a

deontological evaluation and teleological evaluation; 3) ethical judgment; 4) ethical

intentions; 5) behaviour. The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1 (Hunt & Vitell,

1986, p. 8).

Cultural environment

a. Religion

b. Legal system

c. Political system

Professional

environment

a. Informal norms

b. Formal codes

c. Code enforcement

Industry environment a. Informal norms

b. Formal codes

c. Code enforcement

Organizational

environment

a. Informal norms

b. Formal codes c. Code enforcement

Personal

characteristics

a. Religion

b. Value system c. Belief system

d. Strength of moral

character

e. Cognitive moral

development

f. Ethical sensitivity

Figure 1. Hunt and Vitell's ethical decision-making model (Hunt & Vitell, 1986, p.8)

Perceived consequences

Perceived ethical problem

Perceived alternatives

Behavior

Deontological evaluation

Ethical judgments

Intentions

Teleological evaluation

Action control

Actual consequences

Deontological norms

Desirability of consequences

Importance of stakeholders

Probabilities of

consequences

33

34

According to this model, the ethical decision-making process is set within a systemic

feedback loop, and begins when an individual perceives a situation as having an ethical

dimension. As a first step, the individual thinks of a set of alternative actions that might

resolve the ethical problem. Belief systems shape how people perceive their reality and

frame what information will be found to be relevant for ethical decision-making and what

information is not. These beliefs influence how individuals perceive whether a situation

poses an ethical problem and what alternatives they will think of to solve that problem, as

well as their evaluation of what the probable consequences will be.

The individual then conducts an ethical evaluation of each perceived alternative action to

resolve the ethical problem. Hunt and Vitell describe the ethical evaluation as comprising

both an deontological and a teleological dimension, that take place simultaneously and in

parallel. The deontological evaluation involves the use of ethical norms and principles to

evaluate whether a proposed action in itself is ethical or not. The norms, rules and

principles used to evaluate the goodness or badness can take the form of statements such as

“to be ethical, one must . . .” or “must never . . .”. During the teleological evaluation, the

goodness or badness of the alternative actions is evaluated according to the probability and

desirability of their perceived consequences. They are also evaluated according to the

perceived importance of the stakeholders, as the consequences affect the stakeholders

differently. The result of the teleological evaluation depends on ethical beliefs as to the

desirability of perceived consequences. People may strive for different finalities which are

considered as ethical ideals. For example, some people may see equality as an ethical end

to achieve, while other may hold the maximization of individual liberty as a desirable

ethical end.

Next, the ethical judgment is defined in this model as the selection of a particular course of

action to be the most ethical alternative. According to this model, ethical judgment is the

result of a combination of both the deontological and teleological ethical evaluations. Hunt

35

and Vitell (2006, p. 145) hold that people are not strict deontologists or strict teleologists,

but use both lines of reasoning during the ethical decision-making process :

It is possible that some individuals in some situations will be strict

(e.g., Kantian) deontologists and, therefore, will completely ignore the

consequences of alternative actions (i.e., TE = zero). However, the

theory maintains that it is unlikely that such a result would be found

across many individuals and different situations.

Finally, having established what course of action is required to act morally, the next

decision in this model is the moral intent, or whether the person decides to engage in the

moral action or rather chooses to act immorally. For this step, the person weighs the

desirability of the anticipated positive and negative consequences of the ethical course of

actions and his desire to be ethical. Finally, the actual behaviour is the actual enactment of

the moral intent, which may be successfully implemented or not. The behaviour will lead to

real consequences, which will contribute to a learning feedback loop, influencing the

consequences the person, and the other witnesses within the organization, will anticipate in

the future when faced with a similar situation. Furthermore, if the person has decided to act

unethically, one of the consequences may be a feeling of guilt or the use of rationalizations

tactics, which will have an effect on the personal characteristics of the person, the

organizational culture and the beliefs systems shared within the larger society.

This model presents several advantages over Rest’s four components model. First, this

model is systemic, as it recognizes how the past decisions and actual behaviours of an

individual influence the ethical decision-making process of that individual, as well as other

people within the organizations and the society in the future.

Second, by its distinction between the “ethical evaluation” and the “ethical judgment”, this

model differentiates between the content and structure of moral judgment. Indeed, Hunt and

Vitell’s theoretical constructs of deontological and teleological “evaluation” reflect the

36

structure (why?), while the construct labeled “ethical judgment” reflects the content

(ethical/unethical).

Most interestingly, this model identifies four sources of variance in ethical judgment: 1)

difference in perceptions of factual reality; 2) ethical beliefs in teleological evaluation

(ethical desirability of the consequences, taking into account the probability of these

consequences and the relative importance of each stakeholder); 3) ethical beliefs in

deontological evaluation (choice of deontological rules, resolution when two or more rules

conflict); and 4) how people combine their deontological evaluation with their teleological

evaluation (Hunt & Vitell, 1986, p. 13). Since the aim of this research is to identify and

measure the differences in ethical perspectives between people, these sources of variance of

ethical judgment are very useful insights.

Furthermore, Hunt and Vitell’s conceptual framework has been used by different scholars

in a number of empirical studies on ethical decision-making with the concepts’ meaning

remaining consistent over different studies (Barnett & Vaicys, 2000; Corey, 2000;

Henderson & Kaplan, 2005; Singhapakdi, 2000; Sirgy, Dennis, & Bird, 2000). The model’s

conceptual distinction between ethical judgment and ethical evaluation brings theoretical

clarity that is helpful, and necessary, to conduct research. Hunt and Vitell’s model has also

received positive empirical validation by path analysis and structural equation modeling

with experiential data (Hunt & Vitell, 2006, p. 148):

The results showed that goodness-of-fit indices were extremely high

(.999 and .994), the squared multiple correlations for both ethical

judgments and intervention were large (.691 and .657, respectively),

the total coefficient of determination for structural equations was

impressive (.717), the signs of all of the parameters were in their

expected direction, and all hypothesized paths were statistically

significant. In short, the study found the model to fit the data ‘like a

glove’.

37

However, to reduce the polyphony of ethical evaluation to deontology and teleology is very

restricting. Although the deontological and teleological (also often referred to as

‘utilitarian’) categorization is often made, many other ethical theories have been suggested

in the business ethics literature.

In the following section, we describe how several scholars from the field of business ethics

have described the polyphony of ethics by turning to the different ethical theories

developed in the field of moral philosophy.

2.2 Moral philosophy and ethical decision-making

Several scholars have turned to the field of moral philosophy to describe the ethical criteria

used during the ethical decision-making process (Cavanagh, Moberg, & Velasquez, 1981;

Forsyth, 1980; Fritzsche & Becker, 1984; Hunt & Vitell, 1986; Reidenbach & Robin, 1988;

Robertson & Crittenden, 2003).

Since to interpret what is ethical/unethical is the object of moral philosophy, moral

philosophy offers well established moral theories on which to find sound criteria to guide

ethical evaluation. Different moral theories suggest different lines of reasoning and

“provide the background, explicit or implicit, for our moral judgments, intuitions or

reactions” (Taylor, 1989, p. 26). While many articles approach business ethics through the

lenses of one ethical theory or another, few approach it through a polyphonic perspective

comparing the ethical decision-making process of a diversity of ethical theories. For

example, ethical decision-making in organizations has been studied through a wide variety

of individual moral philosophies, ranging from Machiavellism (e.g.: Schepers, 2003), to the

stakeholder theory (e.g.: Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1994), the ethics of care

(e.g.: Simola, 2005; Spiller, Erakovic, Henare, & Pio, 2011), or the Guanxi moral principles

stemming from Confucianism (e.g.: Au & Wong, 2000), to name a few. In the small

number of studies that do compare ethical theories, the majority of articles consider no

38

more than two or three ethical theories as contrasting sources of criteria to guide ethical

decision-making. The majority focus on teleology vs. deontology (e.g.: Forsyth, 1980; Hunt

& Vitell, 1986), while business ethics manuals often present a third tradition, Aristotelian

virtue ethics ( e.g. Beauchamp & Bowie, 2004). Meanwhile, various scholars offer their

own combinations of three theories through which to study ethical decision-making in

organizations. Some boldly affirm that all normative ethics during the last century have

evolved from utilitarian theories, theories of rights, and theories of justice (Cavanagh et al.,

1981, p. 365; Cavanagh, Moberg, & Velasquez, 1995). Langlois and Starett elected to study

organizational ethics through the ethics of justice, care and critics (Langlois, 2008; Starratt,

1991). Differently, Bauman (2011) selected to focus on ethics of care, ethics of justice and

virtue ethics. This variety is to be expected as the field of moral philosophy comprises

hundreds of moral theories. However, as we show later in this chapter, very few empirical

studies consider more than three ethical theories at once when studying ethical decision-

making in organizations.

This lack of polyphony in empirical studies on the ethical decision-making in organizations

is mainly due to two factors. First, as we have mentioned in chapter 1, the universal

approach, with its appealing universal conception of ethics on which to evaluate the

ethicality of behaviours in organizations, actually conceals the polyphony of ethics.

Second, the historical divide of the field between the moral philosophers, on one side, and

the social scientists, on the other side, has not encouraged the integration of formal ethical

theories into descriptive empirical research.

2.2.1 Lack of polyphony in studies on organizational ethics

The use of formal ethical theories in descriptive studies on ethical decision-making in

organization is still marginal. While many prominent researchers in the field lament that the

field of organizational ethics is divided in two camps, between the moral philosophers and

the social scientists, and has yet to be integrated (Cavanagh et al., 1995; Swanson, 1999;

Trevino & Weaver, 1994; Weaver & Trevino, 1994), it appears that the idea of referring to

39

moral theories to describe the lines of reasoning used in the actual ethical decision-making

process of individuals in organization is still a very marginal approach in the field

(Swanson, 1999).

Some social scientists, such as Trevino, maintain that ethical theories are not useful

constructs with which to describe the actual decision-making process of managers. For her,

the idea of managers thinking in terms of formal moral theories just lacks face validity. As

she stated (Trevino, 1986, p. 604): “Few managers are likely to think of their day-to-day

decision making as following normative ethical theories of utilitarianism, justice or rights”.

However, scholars who compare ethical criteria guiding the decision-making process in

organizations with the variety of criteria provided by ethical theories developed in the field

of moral philosophy, do not believe that managers take on an analytical intellectual process

based on normative theories each time they face an ethical issue. Rather, the rational for

using moral philosophy is rather the belief that individuals “knowingly or unknowingly use

a set of philosophical assumptions as a basis for making ethical decisions” (Reidenbach &

Robin, 1988, p. 872). Trevino herself bases her ethical decision making model on

Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development model “which provides the construct definition,

measurement tools, and theory base to guide future business ethics research” (Trevino,

1986, p. 604). In this sense, even Trevino could be said to unknowingly use a set of

philosophical assumptions to guide her normative evaluation, in this case Kant’s

deontological ethical theory, which guided Kohlberg’s work. In accordance with Kantian

ethics in which an action is considered ethical or unethical in itself, independent of context,

Trevino and her colleagues measure the perceived frequency of organizational behaviours

that are illegal or a priori labeled as ‘unethical’, such as stealing material from the company

and lying to customers (Trevino, Weaver, Gibson, & Toffler, 1999). It is interesting to note

that a famous vignette used by Kohlberg to measure moral judgment precisely involves the

morality of stealing in a particular context, that is, if it is moral for Mr. Heinz to steal a

medication from a pharmacy if doing so is the only way to save his wife’s life (Colby &

40

Kohlberg, 1987). This suggests the difficulty of analyzing ethical decision-making without

reference to the context in which the decision is made, as well as how implicit assumptions

about normative ethics also guide the work of scholars who claim to be purely descriptive.

A very small number of authors have taken up the challenge of building polyphonic

measurement instruments of the ethical decision-making process by including various

moral theories developed in the field of moral philosophy (O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).

By nature, these studies embrace the pluralistic view of ethics. Two major approaches are

currently used to measure the ethical decision-making process in organizations from a

polyphonic perspective. The first approach use conceptual categories of ethical theories,

where individual theories from the field of moral philosophy are grouped together, along

some general classification convention. The second approach is to discover empirical

categories of ethical theories. In the next section, we will present these two approaches in

the business ethics literature. Finally, we focus on two scales that have addressed the

plurality of ethical perspectives in organizations through five ethical theories or more. We

describe the two most polyphonic validated scales currently available (McDonald & Pak,

1996; Reidenbach & Robin, 1988, 1990) and conclude that these scales may actually

silence the ethical perspectives of entire groups of society, as they rely solely on western

classical moral philosophy, which ignores feminine and non-Western ethical traditions.

Moreover, these scales entirely ignore the ideas proposed in contemporary business ethics

theories, such as corporate social responsibility, stakeholders theory or sustainable

development. We claim that further theory development is needed to address the

complexity of ethics and the polyphony of ethical perspectives in organizations.

2.2.2 Conceptual categories of ethical theories

Several scholars study the plurality of ethics by grouping ethical theories into a few broad

categories. Table III presents how some ethical theories have been classified into

conceptual categories in three studies, along with the scholars’ justifications for grouping

41

the ethical theories into these specific categories (Cavanagh et al., 1981; Hunt & Vitell,

1986; Victor & Cullen, 1988).

Table III. Three conceptual classifications of ethical theories

( Source: Cavanagh et al., 1981; Hunt & Vitell, 1986; Victor & Cullen, 1988)

Justifications

Classification of ethical theories

“As Murphy and Laczniak have pointed out, almost all normative ethical

theories in moral philosophy can be classified as either deontological or

teleological.” (Hunt & Vitell, 1986, p. 6)

Deontological theories: Sidwick

Teleological theories: Hobbes,

Nietzsche, Mill, Moore.

“Work in the field of normative ethics during this last century has evolved

from three basic kinds of moral theories: utilitarian theories . . . , theories of

rights . . . , and theories of justice . . . .” (Cavanagh et al., 1981, p. 365)

Utilitarian theories: Bentham, Mill,

Ricardo, Smith

Theories of rights: Kant, Locke, Hobbes

Theories of justice: Aristotle, Plato,

Rawls

“While complex and intricate in details, much of moral philosophy can be

organized under three major classes of ethical theories: egoism,

benevolence and deontology” (Victor & Cullen, 1988, p. 104)

Egoism: utilitarian theories; Kohlberg’s

pre-conventional level of moral

development

Benevolence: theories of rights;

Kohlberg’s conventional level of moral

development

Deontology or principle: theories of

justice; Kohlberg’s post-conventional

level of moral development

We observe that there is no agreement as to which ethical category different ethical theories

belong in. For example, we find Kant, Hobbes, Locke and Nozick grouped together in the

“rights theories” (Cavanagh et al., 1981, p. 365). As we have seen, Kohlberg interpreted

Kantian ethics as a theory of “justice” based on universal principles. In Cavanagh et al.’s

(1981) categorization, however, theories of “justice” are associated with Aristotle, Plato

and Rawls. We hold that such broad categories are meaningless as long as no explicit

rational is given to establish how they represent common constructs.

42

Instead, in all cases, the choice of categories is justified by some broad statement

suggesting that these categories represent some generally accepted convention: for

example, Cavanagh et al. (1981) claim that “Work in the field of normative ethics during

this last century has evolved from three basic kinds of moral theories: utilitarian theories …

, theories of rights … , and theories of justice ….”. Of course, the diversity of categories in

the examples presented in Table III suggest there is no generally accepted convention in

this domain. Nevertheless, several measurement instruments have been developed based on

such categories: e.g. Forsyth Ethics Positioning Questionnaire based on the idealism and

relativism scales measuring ideas of deontology and utilitarianism (Forsyth, 1980),

Fritzsche and Becker’s qualitative questionnaire measures respondents’ reliance on theories

of rights, justice or utilitarianism (Fritzsche & Becker, 1984), or Monty and Premeaux

closed ended version of Fritzsche and Becker’s questionnaire (Premeaux, 2004, 2009;

Premeaux & Mondy, 1993).

Rather than conceptually reduce the variety of ethical theories into a few very general

categories, other scholars create statements that characterize the particularities of different

moral theories and use statistical methods such as factor analysis to form empirically based

categories of ethical decision-making frameworks.

2.2.3 Empirical categories of ethical theories

In order to construct categories of ethical theories in an empirical fashion, one has to select

a pool of ethical theories to analyze and describe. Since the field of moral philosophy has

produced literally hundreds of ethical theories (see Canto-Sperber, 2005, for a dictionary

with over 300 entrances), a sensible starting point would be to focus on the ethical theories

most relevant for organizations. As argued by Robertson and Crittenden (2003, p. 388):

“Although numerous moral philosophies have been developed, business ethics scholars

have focused on the philosophies deemed most relevant to managerial practice.”

43

However, whereas for Robertson and Crittenden (2003) these relevant ethical theories are

egoism, utilitarianism, formalism, virtue ethics and moral relativism, the evaluation of

which ethical theories are relevant to business ethics is different for each scholar. Scholars

rarely propose more than four ethical theories as relevant to the field of business ethics and

we have reviewed only seven that do (Arthur, 1984; Hinman, 1998; Hornett & Fredericks,

2005; T. M. Jones et al., 2007; McDonald & Pak, 1996; Reidenbach & Robin, 1988;

Robertson & Crittenden, 2003; Thomson, 2010). Taken together, these seven studies

mention 32 different ethical theories as relevant for business ethics. Table IV presents the

ethical theories considered as most relevant for business ethics in each of these sources.

44

Table IV. Comparison of most relevant ethical theories in seven sources

Source

Ethical theories/frameworks

1. Arthur, H.B. (1984)

1)Hedonism 2) Utilitarianism

3) Pragmatism

4) Salvation 1( do good for redemption) 5) Salvation 2 (prayer and meditation)

6) Golden Rule

7) Divine right (leadership hierarchy) 8) Egalitarianism

9) Paternalism

10) Physiocrats

2. Hinman, L.M. (1998) 1) Relativism/absolutism/pluralism

2) Religion and ethics

3) Psychological and ethical egoism

4) Utilitarianism 5) Kant, duty and respect

6) Rights theories

7) Theories against theories 8) Virtue ethics

9) Gender and ethics 10) Race, ethnicity and ethics

3. Hornett, A. and S. Fredericks (2005) 1) Moral development (Kohlberg, Rest, Gilligan)

2) Virtue ethics (Aristotle)

3) Value clarification (Rokeach) 4) Act utilitarianism (Hobbes)

5) Rule utilitarianism (Friedman)

6) Categorical imperative (Kant) 7) Divine command

8) Servant leadership

9) Social contract

10) Principle of justice (Rawls)

11) Situational values

4. Jones, Felps and Bigley (2007) 1) Utilitarian ethics (act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism) 2) Kantian ethics

3) Rawlsian ethics

4) Rights ethics 5) Ethics of care

6) Virtue ethics

7) Integrated social contract theory (ISCT)

5. McDonald and Pak (1996) 1) Self-interest 2) Utilitarianism

3) Duty

4) Justice 5) Neutralization (rationalizations)

6) Religious/philosophical convictions

7) Light of day.

6. Reidenbach and Robin (1988) 1) Justice

2) Relativism

3) Egoism

4) Utilitarianism

5) Deontology

7. Robertson and Crittenden (2003) 1) Egoism 2) Utilitarianism

2) Formalism

4) Virtue ethics 5) Moral relativism

45

The ethical theories most frequently mentioned in these seven sources are utilitarianism (7),

religion and spirituality (7), Kant’s categorical imperative (4), ethical egoism (4), virtue

ethics (4), Rawl’s principles of justice (4), moral relativism (3), social conformity (2),

ethics of care (2), discourse ethics (2), affirmative action (2), rights ethics (2), moral

development (2), value clarification / situational values (2) and integrated social contract

theory (2). The other ethical theories, such as hedonism, paternalism, egalitarianism,

neoliberalism or pragmatism, are mentioned only once. Beyond utilitarianism and religion

and spirituality, one is left with no clear consensus on the relevant ethical theories to

consider.

However, only two out of these seven authors have actually developped measurement

instruments with which to empirically assess what people in organization consider to be the

most relevant ethical theories for business ethics. These instruments are Reidenbach &

Robin’s Multidimensional Ethics Scale (1988,1990), which was originally based on five

ethical theories, and McDonald and Pak’s Cognitive Philosophies Scale (1996), which

comprises eight ethical theories. We present these two measurement instruments in detail.

2.2.3.1 The Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES)

Table V presents the original ethical theories that were used by Reidenbach and Robin

(1988, 1990, 1996) to develop the Multidimensional Ethics Scale. The Multidimensional

Ethics Scale (MES), was originally constructed with five moral theories (utilitarianism,

justice, egoism, deontology and relativism). The authors later empirically reduced the

number of constructs to three, using factor analysis.

46

Table V. Reidenbach and Robin's MES (Reidenbach & Robin, 1988)

Strategy Responded are presented with 3 vignettes:

A. Auto scenario (car retailer omits completing repairs in order to charge full price once the warranty on the

car is over) B. Sales scenario (Not disciplining an eager salesman who concludes more sales by withholding relevant

information about the product)

C. Retail scenario ( grocery owner increases prices on the day the welfare checks are received)

Question

1) Indicate whether the action proposition presented in the vignette is ethical or unethical

2) Please give your beliefs to the action described in the scenario by placing a check (✓) between each of the

opposites that follow. (Seven-points bipolar scale on the items reflecting the following ethical theories)

Original

measurement items

(utilitarianism scale)

Efficient / Not efficient

OK / Not OK if actions can be justified by their consequences

Compromises / Does not compromise an important rule by which I live

On balance, tends to be good/bad

Produces the greatest utility / the least utility

Maximizes/Minimizes benefits while minimizes/maximizes harm

Leads to the greatest/least good for the greatest number

Results in a positive/negative cost-benefit ratio

Maximizes/minimizes pleasure

(deontological scale)

Does not violate an unwritten contract / Violates an unwritten contract

Does not violate an unspoken promise / Violates an unspoken promise

Morally right / Not morally right

Obligated / Not obligated to act this way

Does not violate/ Violates my ideas of fairness

(justice scale)

Fair/Unfair

Just/Unjust

Results / Does not result in an equal distribution of good and bad

(ethical egoism scale)

Self-promoting / Not self-promoting

Selfish / Not selfish

Self-sacrificing / Not self-sacrificing

Prudent / Not prudent

Under no moral obligation / Morally obligated to act otherwise

Personally satisfying / Not personally satisfying

In the best interest of the company / Not in the best interest of the company

(relativist scale)

Culturally acceptable / Culturally unacceptable

Individually acceptable/unacceptable

Acceptable/Unacceptable to people I most admire

Traditionally acceptable / Traditionally unacceptable

Acceptable to my family / Unacceptable to my family

Number of

respondents

Stage 1: Pre-test with 218 business students for scenarios

Stage 2: Exploratory factor analysis with 108 retail managers and owners

Stage 3: Scale refinement with 105 small business owners Stage 4: Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale with 152 managers from a different business association

Analysis Principal component analysis utilizing varimax rotation Multitrait-multicontext analysis

Cronbach alphas respectively of 0,71; 0,80; and 0,92 for the final three factors scale composed of 8 items.

47

The item statements used to measure the original ethical theories are presented in Table V.

Like Kohlberg, these researchers use a questionnaire and a vignette strategy. Respondents

are asked to evaluate three scenarios and, once again like Kohlberg, they are asked to

determine whether the action proposition presented in each vignette is ethical or unethical.

Next, they are asked to answer why they think the action is ethical or unethical by choosing

from the standard items list characterizing each of the ethical theories.

A three factors ethical judgment construct, comprising a total of 8 items, was derived

empirically by factor analysis from Reidenbach and Robin’s initial 29 items reflecting five

ethical theories. This factor structure is presented in Table VI and forms the current version

of the Multidimensional Ethics Scale (Reidenbach and Robin, 1990, p. 643).

Table VI. Factor structure of the MES (Reidenbach & Robin, 1990)

Factors Items

Moral equity Fair/Unfair (justice scale)

Just/Unjust (justice scale)

Morally right / Not morally right (deontology scale)

Acceptable / Not acceptable to my family (relativism scale)

Relativism Traditionally acceptable/unacceptable (relativism scale)

Culturally acceptable/unacceptable (relativism scale)

Contractualism Violates / Does not violate an unspoken promise (deontology scale)

Violates / Does not violate an unwritten contract (deontology scale)

The three factors are labeled “moral equity”, “relativism” and “contractualism”. Moral

equity is a broad-based universal concept which captures much of what individuals mean

by ethical/unethical. The other two dimensions became more or less important depending

on the situation described in the scenario (Reidenbach & Robin, 1990). This three factors

structure was obtained by principal components analysis using varimax rotation. The factor

loading for the three factors are consistent over the three scenarios and were very good,

48

ranging between a low of 0,72 and a high of 0,93. Cross loadings between factors are all

under 0,4. Moreover, the internal consistency of the factors is very high, as measured by

coefficients of reliability ranging from 0,71 to 0,92. These are well within the 0,70 to 0,95

standards of acceptability suggested by Nunnally (1967, 1976) for established validated

scale.

Interestingly, Reidenbach and Robin do not find an empirical construct relating to

utilitarianism, or Kantian deontology, which are the dominant categories proposed by

scholars who use conceptual categories of ethical theories. Rather, Reidenbach and Robin

present “moral equity” as a concept that encompasses all of the “fair and just approaches

for interpersonal relations” recommended by the “generally accepted moral philosophies”

such as utilitarianism and deontology, as well as some items which Reidenbach and Robin

had associated with the relativism perspective (Robin et al., 1996, p. 498).

Reidenbach and Robin conducted a study proposing that the MES is significantly superior

to Cognitive Moral Development (CMD) for predicting intended behaviour (Robin et al.,

1996): “In this way, the moral equity dimension becomes a surrogate measure for CMD

ethical judgment”. According to these authors, one advantage the MES has over the CMD

is that it does not rely on a specific moral philosophy. Rather, the MES is dominated by a

broad-based moral equity dimension that operates at a higher level of abstraction than any

of the moral philosophies, which are attempts to describe specific approaches for

establishing equity. However, such a general framework is hardly useful for understanding

the ethical basis of respondents’ decision-making. In this respect, McDonald and Pak offer

a validated scale that distinguishes between eight ethical perspectives, or “cognitive moral

philosophies”, as they choose to call this concept. Although this ethics scale has not

received much attention from scholars, and has not been used in other studies, to the best of

our knowledge it is the most polyphonic scale to date.

49

2.2.3.2 The Cognitive Philosophies Scale

McDonald and Pak offer a validated scale which measures eight ethical frameworks by 32

statements (four statements per ethical framework), using 14 vignettes. The content of this

scale is presented in Table VII.

The authors report eight factors established through factor analysis, with all but one of the

32 items loading on the expected factor, although the article does not provide the

covariance matrix or the item loadings on the individual factors (McDonald & Pak, 1996, p.

981). This is undoubtedly the most comprehensive study on ethical decision-making to

date, in terms of the number of ethical frameworks measured (8), the number of

respondents (N= 4044) and the number of vignettes used (14). However, the complexity of

analysing data provided by this questionnaire is perhaps the main reason why this

measurement instrument is not retained by other scholars for use in their own studies.

Indeed, compared to the eight-items and three scenarios required in the MES, the 14

scenarios and 32 items forming the Cognitive Philosophies Scale make it enormously time

consuming, both for the respondents and the scholars who must analyze the data.

To develop this scale, the authors have chosen to “place heavy reliance on existing

philosophical themes which could be the dominant mechanism utilized in the decision

makers cognitive process’’ (McDonald and Pak, 1996, p. 981). Six of the eight frameworks

are based on philosophical themes (self-interest, utilitarianism, categorical imperative, duty

ethics, justice, religious/philosophical conviction) but the authors have also chosen to add

two frameworks that are not moral philosophies (neutralization, light of day).

50

Table VII. McDonald and Pak’s Cognitive Philosophies scale (McDonald & Pak, 1996)

Strategy Responded are presented with 14 vignettes concerning 1) deceptive gaining of competition information; 2) exposure of

personal error; 3) deceptive advertising; 4) exploitation of employees; 5) deceptive pricing; 6) manipulation of expenses;

7) consumer welfare; 8) international bribery; 9) whistle blowing; 10) nepotism; 11) insider trading; 12) sexual equality; 13) bribery third party; and 14) protection of dishonest employees.

Question

1) Five-points Likert scale anchored with ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ with the action presented in the 14

scenarios. 2) “When making a decision on each of the cases just presented, what factors did you generally take in to

consideration? Review the statements below and place a tick beside the statement(s) that you thought about when

you were deciding on the cases. When deciding on the cases I generally considered . . .” (the 32 statements of the 8 frameworks is presented)

Original measurement

items

(Utilitarianism)

That sacrifices are often needed in order to secure the greatest good for the greatest number.

Whether the outcome of my decision produces the greatest net value to all parties involved.

Whether any inherent harm in an action is outweighed by the good.

That (sic) as long as the consequences of the decision affect the majority in a positive way.

(Categorical imperative)

Not to treat people as means to an end.

Some things in life are inherently right or wrong regardless of the consequences of the decision.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is important that discriminatory practices be avoided.

(Justice)

That it is important that justice is seen to be done.

How would I feel if someone did that to me.

That people must be treated fairly.

What would be the most equitable decision.

(Self-interest)

(I generally considered) what was best either for myself or my company.

In today’s business world one must look after oneself and one’s interests.

What effect the action might have on my personal reputation and career.

That one cannot be expected to be responsible for everyone and everything.

(Light of day)

I would feel embarrassed if people found out what I had decided to do.

What would be the reaction I would get from my family and friends if the details relating to this action were revealed.

Would I lose face if my involvement in this decision was publicized.

I would not want knowledge of my actions to be known by others.

(Duty)

That as a manager my first responsibility and ultimate duty is to my company and its shareholders.

My first priority and duty should be fulfilling my company obligations.

What would be the most efficient and effective outcome in the long run.

That ultimately one should ask whether actions are consistent with organizational goals and do what is good for the

organization.

(Neutralization)

As long as no one gets hurt, an action is ok.

That an unethical action is ok if it is directed at some individual or organization that also acts unethically.

That many actions that are described as unethical are in reality common business practices.

It is wasted energy worrying about the effect that an action may have, one should just get on with what one has to do.

That one can’t be expected to be responsible for everyone and everything. Number of

respondents

Stage 1: Pre-test with 23 Chinese and Occidentals. Stage 2: 4,044 respondents (part time MBA students and members of business associations from Hong Kong, Malaysia,

New Zealand and Canada)

Analysis Report of a factor analysis, but factorial solution not presented. Cronbach alpha of 0,787 reported for the scale.

51

In our opinion, the “neutralization” framework actually measures the presence of defense

mechanisms that respondents may use to downplay the negativity of engaging in an

unethical action (Bandura, 1999). The “light of day” framework is presented as a ‘practical’

framework which measures how comfortable the respondent would feel if his or her

decision became publicly known. We find it to be presented much like a social desirability

test in this study, although these criteria can also be found in some moral theories which

prescribe conforming with socially acceptable conduct as an ethical norm (i.e. Emile

Durkheim social norms theory).

However, this scale presents several advantages over the MES. First, the items are

presented as declarative statements. These declarative statements offer much more subtlety,

compared with the bipolar semantic differential scale in Reidenbach and Robin’s MES.

Indeed, the items in McDonald and Pak’s scale (e.g. “sacrifices are often needed in order to

secure the greatest good for the greatest number”) contain much more discriminating

information than the bipolar semantic differential scales used by Reidenbach and Robin

(e.g. “Efficient/Not efficient”). It is interesting to note that we can link all five of

Reidenbach and Robin’s theories included in the original scale construct to theories or

frameworks found in McDonald and Pak’s scale. While the items in Reidenbach and

Robin’s MES are unable to statistically discriminate between the utilitarian, deontology and

moral relativism constructs, this differentiation is achieved with the items chosen to

represent these same theories in McDonald and Pak’s scale. The discriminating power of a

scale is directly linked to the quality of the items chosen to represent the constructs

(DeVillis, 2003), these results suggest that the items in McDonald and Pak’s scale are of

better quality than the ones used in Reidenbach and Robin’s study.

In fact, the statements Reidenbach and Robin (1988) use to typify the ethical theories have

a tendency to oversimplify their subtle ethical reasoning, as when they use such bipolar

scales as “Fair/Unfair” and “Just/Unjust” to measure what appears to be a Rawlsian

conception of the “justice” framework. On the contrary, we believe different ethical

52

frameworks provide different criteria of justice and fairness; i.e., the utilitarian framework

promotes what brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people as “just”, while the

neoliberal framework promotes as “fair” that which is the result of a free market

transaction. According to the justice framework promoted by Rawls, on the other hand,

criteria for a fair decision would be that the decision is made by a neutral person and that it

doesn’t harm those who are most vulnerable. From the perspective of a researcher seeking

to understand the ethical reasoning of respondents, a polyphonic scale must help identify

what the respondent considers fair or just.

However, we recognize that, for practical use in empirical studies, McDonald and Pak’s

questionnaire is very long and cumbersome due to the use of fourteen vignettes. Usually,

vignettes are used as a research strategy to elicit an ethical judgment and implies that the

response to a particular scenario is in some way generalizable to other situations and

characteristic of the person’s general ethical decision-making pattern. However, since the

authors recognize that respondents’ answers are situation-specific and that another scenario

would possibly elicit another response pattern, McDonald and Pak attempt to generate

maximum variety by including fourteen different vignettes. This extensive strategy, on the

other hand, generates an “analytical profusion” of data (McDonald & Pak, 1996, p. 983).

To be able to analyze their own data, McDonald and Pak resort to factor analyze the

scenarios themselves, and group the fourteen scenarios within three factors, involving 1)

disadvantaging others (6 vignettes), 2) deceptive practices (6 vignettes) and 3) sexual

equality (3 vignettes). In the end, they focus their analysis on the scenarios of the second

factor, concerning deceptive practices, and drop the other scenarios from their analysis.

This type of research design leads O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) to caution “researchers

should carefully consider the purpose of their study and only use scenarios when

appropriate” (p. 404). This criticism has been made many times, but the use of vignettes

remains the favourite methodology of researchers on ethical decision-making and there is a

lack of consensus as to the appropriate measurement technique (Collins, 2000; O'Fallon &

Butterfield, 2005). We hold that a vignette strategy is inadequate to reflect the complexity

53

of ethics and should be abandoned, unless the objective is to investigate people’s response

to a specific ethical issue. Ethical decision-making is heavily dependent on context, and

even a small difference in a scenario can generate a totally different ethical evaluation.

2.3 Limitations of current measurement instruments

More than two decades ago, Reidenbach and Robin pointed out two problems in the way

research on ethics in marketing was conducted: “These two problems have to do with the

pluralistic nature of moral philosophy and the single global measures which marketers tend

to use in obtaining evaluation of marketing activities’’ (Reidenbach & Robin, 1988, pp.

871-871).

While the polyphonic scales reviewed in this chapter are great improvements upon scales

grounded in a single ethical perspective, these scales nevertheless present a very restricted

view of the polyphony of ethics. Each of the following problems hampers the capacity of

existing measuring instruments to assess the ethical decision-making process in a way that

reflects the plurality of ethical perspectives in our globalized world.

2.3.1 Masculine and Western biases

First, these conceptual frameworks incorporate mainly classical moral theories, with the

result that feminine and non-Western moral theories are glaringly absent. Many researchers

have denounced the cultural and gender bias in the ethical philosophies most often

considered in the field of business ethics (Canto-Sperber, 2004; Pauchant, 2010; Shanahan

and Wang, 2003).

A growing number of philosophers are going beyond moral philosophy in order to hear the

“polyphony” of different ethical voices. These scholars, such as the French moral

philosopher Monique Canto-Sperber (2004) are adding the voices of women, non-Western

54

philosophers as well as thinkers outside the philosophical profession who have contributed

to the moral fabric of our world.

2.3.2 Absence of contemporary ethical theories

The field of business ethics has also developed its own normative theories regarding the

ethical responsibilities of organizations. Although such well known ethical theories such as

corporate social responsibility (CSR), stakeholder ethics or sustainable development greatly

influence the business world, we find no trace of them in current ethics scale. Considering

the impact of such contemporary business ethics theories in driving current ethical practices

such as CSR reports, stakeholder management , or sustainability reports, we deem it of

great importance to include these theories into ethics scales designed for organizations

(Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Frederiksen, 2010; Freeman, 1994; Gibson, 2000; Gladwin,

Kennelly, & Krause, 1995; Hopwood, Mellor, & O'Brien, 2005; Thomas M. Jones &

Wicks, 1999; Steurer, Langer, Konrad, & Martinuzzi, 2005; van Marrewijk, 2003;

Wanderley, Lucian, Farache, & de Sousa Filho, 2008).

2.3.4 Lack of theoretical grounding for the scales

We also question the lack of theoretical grounding for the items representing the ethical

theories. First, we have seen that the grouping of ethical theories into conceptual categories

appears to be purely arbitrary, with no strong conceptual nor empirical grounding. Second,

even when scholars regroup theories with empirical methods, such as factor analysis, the

oversimplified form of the statements often denatures the ethical reasoning promoted by the

ethical theories.

Furthermore, neither Reidenbach and Robin nor McDonald and Pak offer a theoretical

grounding on which to define and operationalize the ethical theories they use for their

scales. The statements appear to have been generated without regard to a theoretical

55

construct of the latent variable, i.e. the structure of the ethical theories they aim to reflect.

As such, lack of clarity of the latent variable to be measured may also lead to poor

measurement (DeVillis, 2003).

In this respect, McDonald and Pak (1996) appear to have done a better job at producing

more accurate and discriminating scale items, since their factor analysis confirm their eight

ethical frameworks, while the Reidenbach and Robin’s MES identifies only three.

However, we are critical of the use of idiosyncratic frameworks, such as “light of day” and

“neutralization”, which are of a different nature than ethical theory. While it might be

argued that the “light of day” framework is related to ethical theories based on social

acceptability, we find that defense mechanisms such as the ones exemplified in the

“neutralization” framework must be treated as a distinct theoretical construct, and not

confused with the actual ethical evaluation itself, described with normative theories.

2.4 Research agenda

The goal of this research is to develop a polyphonic questionnaire to overcome the

limitations and biases of current instruments. Two constraints influence our approach. The

choice of ethical theories must 1) be relevant to organizational ethics; and 2) provide the

cultural diversity representative of our pluralistic world (i.e., include ethical theories

developed by women and non-Western thinkers).

The most polyphonic validated instruments to date are Reidenbach and Robin’s

Multidimensional Ethics Scale, which includes five ethical theories, and McDonald and

Pak’s scale of cognitive philosophies, comprising eight ethical frameworks. We claim that

in order to reflect the true diversity of ethical decision-making patterns in organizations,

ethical decision-making measurement tools must reflect the diversity of ethical traditions

by including feminine and non-Western ethical theories.

56

Furthermore, the instrument should measure clear theoretical constructs, as lack of clarity

in concept definition results in poor measurement or in the measurement of other

theoretical constructs than the one intended. For example, in McDonald and Pak’s study,

of the eight ethical frameworks that are measured, only seven qualify as ethical

frameworks. Indeed, the ‘neutralization’ framework appears to measure another construct,

namely the presence of a defense mechanism.

The instrument should also have high content validity and adequately describe the

subtleties of each ethical theory. Accordingly, we suggest that a measurement tool designed

to assess a broader range of the polyphony in ethics carefully operationalize the ethical

theories into refined and precise statements. Otherwise, it will not have enough

discriminating power to distinguish between distinct ethical theories, as was the case with

the moral equity factor of the MES.

In conclusion, if we are to measure the ethical decision-making process implied by different

ethical theories, there is a need for a more streamlined approach to 1) define what is an

ethical framework and 2) describe the ethical decision-making process implied by such a

framework.

In the next chapter, we present complexity and systems theory as a useful way to

understand the ethical decision-making process in organizations. We will also present a

conceptual framework for operationalizing ethical theories into measurable items in the

form of declarative statements.

Chapter 3: Conceptual framework

Our approach in this research is grounded in systems theory and complexity.

Following authors such as Chester Barnard, we describe organizations and the environment

in which they evolve as complex systems. As a result, we also hold that the contexts in

which ethical judgment are made are often complex, such as a small difference in the

context can lead the decision-making process to very different outcomes. For this reason,

we choose not to try to simplify ethical contexts through the use of vignettes. Rather, our

goal is to investigate questions of meanings and justifications and attempt to identify

patterns of beliefs about ethics which guide individual and collective ethical decision-

making process in organizations.

In this chapter, we begin by presenting how complexity theory differs from the dominant

positivist paradigm. We identify key implications of the epistemological position of

complexity theory for conducting research. Next, we illustrate how other scholars have

studied organizations, and organizational ethics through the lenses of systems and

complexity theory.

More specifically, we explore how authors such as Edgar Schein conceptualize

organizational ethical value systems as patterns of basic assumptions. We then explore

ethical value systems have been linked to basic assumptions in other studies from the field

of sociology. Finally, we present how ethical theories can be conceptualized as systemic

patterns of basic assumptions using Stephen Toulmin’s analytical method of identifying the

structure of any type of argument as a system composed of claims, data, warrants and

backings.

58

3.1 Complexity and systems theory

Complexity theory is not merely another theory but represents a paradigm shift from the

established positivist epistemology of science. The significance of this paradigmatic shift

is recalled, for example, by Ilya Prigogine, a chemistry Noble Prize recipient, in his book

The End of Certainties.

Prigogine (2001) explains how new developments in science, particularly in quantum

physics and chemistry, bring us to a new turning point in the epistemology of science. The

dominant scientific paradigm known as positivism is a deterministic scientific method that

dates back to the 17th

century, which permitted superstitions to be challenged and

conquered by the power of the scientific method. Ever since René Descartes’ published

Discourse on the Method, the dominant idea in science has been that science has the

potential to make everything explicable and predictable: if one could know the exact

conditions at the origin of the universe, it would be theoretically possible to predict

everything. The positivist epistemology of science has been very successful to predict,

control and enhance human life, to the point that science has been endowed with the

sacredness of certainty. Some have called this the “disenchantment” of the world, since any

matter that cannot be captured by reason, such as beauty, poetry, emotion, or spirituality

has tended to be ignored from “scientific” reality.

However, Prigogine affirms that new development in science in the last decades challenge

the deterministic and predictable view of the world proclaimed in the positivist

epistemology. Theories in quantum physics and thermodynamic of non equilibrium systems

now present the workings of the physical world as intrinsically unpredictable, dynamic and

defined only in terms of probabilities. Moreover, new experiments suggest that new orders

sometimes spontaneously occur in unstable systems. In systems far from equilibrium,

matter gains new properties where fluctuations and instabilities play an essential role: these

fluctuations introduce forks in the road where choices between several possibilities are

made. The idea of “choice” means that “nothing in the macroscopic description permits to

59

favour one solution above the others” (translation, Prigogine, 1996, p. 81). For Prigogine,

these discoveries represent a turning point for the epistemology of science. First of all,

uncertainty and unpredictability are introduced as an inescapable part of science. This is the

essence of complexity. In a non-deterministic world, alternative futures are possible and at

certain points, the choices that are made can change the outcome of the world in a radical

way.

Edgar Morin presents complexity as a characteristic of certain types of systems.

Complexity is therefore embedded in systems theory. Systems theory present elements as

parts of an interconnected network of influence. Systems are viewed as both simple

andcomplex. An important characteristic of complex systems, is the emergence of new

properties when the components are connected together and organized into a structured

system. Because of this phenomenon of emergent properties, the sum of the parts does not

represent the whole. To illustrate this, Morin uses the example of water: the H2O molecule

has properties that the hydrogen or oxygen atoms and molecules do not, just as these

elements have properties that water does not have. This is also true of all living systems and

social systems.

Systems theory involves some differences in the way of approaching scientific inquiry,

compared to the mainstream positivist view in science. Jean-Louis Le Moigne and Edgar

Morin (2007), Jay Forrester (2009), Robert Desmarteau (2012) and Peter Senge (2006)

offer some guidance in the way of studying complex phenomena.

While the traditional scientific method teaches us to study each component in isolation,

systems theory invites to study the relations between the components and the system. It

focuses on the need to associate, link and bring together concepts, components and

phenomena. For instance, instead of studying a phenomenon within one level of

organization (e.g. the individual), systems theory invites to analyze the interactions between

different levels of organization (e.g. the cell, the organ, the body; the individual, the

60

organization, the society). Here, what is important is to distinguish but not separate the

components of a system. What we are looking for are patterns, cycles, and evolutions, but

also moments of collisions, instabilities and even apparent contradictions, in the form of

paradoxes.

An interesting example for business schools is given by Desmarteau and Maguiraga (2012),

with the idea of “glocalization” or “global localization”. This concept renders the notion

that globalization cannot be understood unless one takes into account the effects on the

local economy. Desmarteau and Maguiragua therefore underscore the importance for

business schools to prepare students to navigate in a globalized economy by interlocking

these two apparently opposite dimensions into their programs. For example, they suggest

having students work on the national and international dimensions of a local business case,

be it in their home country or in a foreign country, through a student exchange program for

instance. This systemic perspective enables business students to understand the links

between these different levels of analysis and see the network of relationships brought on

by the globalization of the economy.

Moreover, Morin argues for integrating also a subjective level of analysis and explains that

traditional science, in its quest for objectivity, has sought to eliminate subjectivity, and

anything personal to the observer that is constructing the knowledge. Differently,

complexity theory is set within the constructivist paradigm and recognizes that the observer

is inseparable from the object of study. It also requires that the researcher be put back into

the equation, as part of the system that is studied.

Systems Diagrams

A basic aspect of systems theory is the practice of drawing diagrams and representing

systems with feedback loops. Jay Forrester, a pioneer in systems dynamics and the science

61

of cybernetics, introduced a certain way of using diagrams where linear models of causes

and effects are replaced with systems represented with feedback loops. Feedback loops are

a way to represent the invisible links that link everything we experience (Forrester, 2009,

p.8):

We live in a complex of nested feedback loops. Every action, every change

in nature, is set within a network of feedback loops. Feedback loops are the

structures within which all changes occur.

This practice of presenting events with feedback loops permits to understand amplifying

effects or regulating effects, delay between causes and effects, or effects being perceived in

non-adjacent parts of the system. Components of a system are thus presented as both cause

and effect, or in the language of systems theory, they are embedded in a ”co-evolutionnary

pattern” (Senge, 2006, p. 75):

The key to seeing reality systemically is seeing circles of influence rather

than straight lines. This is the first step to breaking out of the reactive

mindset that comes inevitably from ‘linear’ thinking. Every circle tells a

story. By tracing the flows of influence, you can see the patterns that repeat

themselves, time after time, making situations better or worse.

While it possible to represent a model of how the elements of a system are interconnected

by drawing feedback loops, it remains impossible for a human mind to predict the

behaviour of a complex, nonlinear, dynamic system simply by looking at its representation

on a diagram. However, by using computer simulation, one can establish the underlying

equations of a specified system and anticipate the behaviour of the system (Forrester,

2009). This is the domain of cybernetics, which was pioneered by systems dynamic expert

Jay Forrester, from the MIT.

Cybernetics

Cybernetics is the science of creating computer models to represent complex systems, with

62

their interconnected feedback loops, in order to predict the behaviour of the system. This is

particularly useful to predict the impact of slow incremental changes in a system, which can

in certain cases cause a crisis. For example, in the landmark book Limits to Growth (1972),

Jay Forrester uses computer simulation to model the interaction effects of five variables:

the world’s population growth, consumption rate, industrial production rate, world food

production, pollution, and overuse of natural resources. As a result, the authors expressed a

dire warning of an impending apocalyptic future for humankind within 70 years, if the rates

were to be maintained.

Actually, systems dynamics and complexity theory have historically been closely

associated with the concept that is now known as sustainable development. Gro Harlem

Brundtland, the former Norway Prime Minister who chaired the UN World Commission on

Development and coined the word “sustainable development”, expresses a systemic

worldview when she notes in the report (WCED, 1987, p. 4):

Until recently, the planet was a large world in which human activities and

their effects were neatly compartmentalized within nations, within sectors

(energy, agriculture, trade), and within broad areas of concern

(environmental, economic, social). These compartments have begun to

dissolve. This applies in particular to the various global ‘crises’ that have

seized public concern, particularly over the past decade. These are not

separate crises: an environmental crisis, a development crisis, an energy

crisis. They are all one. (WCED, 1987, p.4)

Systems theory is useful to represent natural, economical or social phenomena, even mental

models. In a sense, all systemic diagrams represent mental models, since they serve to

express a state of understanding about the relations that exist between elements. Indeed,

organizational mental models are also systems of shared assumptions which members of

organizations use to select, organize and act upon information (Shrivastava & Schneider,

1984). According to Shrivastava and Schneider, members of organizations use collective

mental models, which they refer to as “organizational frames of reference” which provide

63

tacit assumptions about the organization and its environment (Shrivastava & Schneider,

1984, p. 796):

These assumptions are not just held by individual decision-makers, but

represent ‘logically integrated clusters of beliefs’ (Starbuck, 1982) which

evolve from dynamic interactions among strategic decision-makers, their

interactions with a larger subset of organizational managers, and their

interactions with other organizational and environmental parameters.

Thus, systemic diagrams appear to be equally useful to represent mental models, such as

the “clusters of beliefs” associated with an ethical perspective, for example. Werhane

(2008) shares this point of view, when she suggests that systems thinking can help

members of organizations gain a greater understanding on a situation and its probable

consequences, by sharing the multiple perspectives through which members view a

particular situation (Werhane, 2008, p. 468):

While it is probably never possible to take account all the networks of

relationships involved in a particular system, and surely never so given these

systems interact over time, a multiple perspectives approach forces us to

think more broadly, and to look at particular systems or problems from

different points of view.

This idea of people sharing multiple perspectives on a situation as a sensemaking

experience echoes Jay Forrester’s experience with computer simulation to gain appreciation

of the probable evolution of a system, which would be impossible to do by the human

mind only. In this case, Werhane appears to suggest that people sharing multiple

perspectives on a complex situation gain an understanding of the system and its evolution

that would be impossible to attain by one person alone.

Other scholars from related fields, such as Chester Barnard (organizational leadership),

Anthony Giddens (sociology), Peter Senge (organizational learning), Thierry Pauchant &

64

Ian Mitroff (crisis management and business ethics), and William Frederick (business

ethics) shed different lights on the complexity approach for conducting scientific inquiry

and understanding our world.

Chester Barnard (1936) analyzes The Functions of the Executive through a systemic

approach. Being himself an accomplished executive, Barnard’s analysis offers a

practitioner’s reflective thinking, in the sense given by philosopher John Dewey (Dewey,

2007) on the workings of organizations and the role of executives. Barnard presents

organizations as cooperative systems (Barnard, 1938, pp. 73-74):

It is the central hypothesis of this book that the most useful concept for the

analysis of experience of cooperative systems is embodied in the definition

of a formal organization as a system of consciously coordinated activities or

forces of two or more persons. In any concrete situation in which there is

cooperation, several systems will be components. Some of them will be

physical, some biological, some psychological, etc.., but the element

common to all which binds all these other systems into the total concrete

cooperative situation is that of the organization as defined. If this hypothesis

proves satisfactory it will be because (1) an organization, as defined, is a

concept valid through a wide range of concrete situations with relatively few

variables, which can be effectively investigated; (2) the relations between

this conceptual scheme and other systems can be effectively and usefully

formulated. The final test of this conceptual scheme is whether its use will

make possible a more effective conscious promotion and manipulation of

cooperation among men; that is, whether in practice it can increase the

predictive capacity of competent men in this field.

This quote offers two useful insights for an understanding of an epistemology of

complexity in organizational studies. Both have to do with the criteria by which the validity

of a theory is to be evaluated. They differ significantly from the test of refutability and

predictive validity of positivist epistemology. The first test is that the concept, as an

abstraction describing the relationships between concrete phenomena, is deemed valid only

insofar as it can explain a wide range of concrete situations, and not just particular

65

situations. The other test is the usefulness of the concept in helping practitioners increase

their predictive capacity. Here, predictive validity is clearly understood as the increased

sensemaking capacity of the decision-maker, enabling him or her to better anticipate the

outcomes of certain actions. This way of locating predictive capacity within the mind of the

decision maker is what allows for complex thinking to occur, such as learning – an

emergent property-, which cannot be reduced to the verification of a cause and effect

equation. Barnard’s view on the adequate validity tests to be performed on theories of

organizations recalls the pragmatist approach promoted by Alfred North Whitehead, John

Dewey and William James, with its focus on concrete situation, where the practical

consequences of the theory is what is being tested.

This sensemaking ability is especially needed in the actual postmodern age of globalization.

In Runaway World, sociologist Anthony Giddens (2003) describes how the global

environment in which organizations operate is intrinsically complex. Giddens gives an

account of the dizzying speed at which globalisation and the risks associated with the

destruction of the natural environment are transforming the way we view ourselves, our

organizations and our societies. At the scientific and technical level, there is a growing

realization that the problems humankind is now facing are now so complex that no single

solution will be effective to escape disaster. At the social and cultural level, traditional

points of references are disappearing. Giddens describes a combination of social,

environmental and economical crises. The turbulence and transformations occurring in our

world are viewed by Giddens as a paradigmatic shift, where people are searching for

meaning, and perhaps a polar star to guide them. During this radical transition where

different worldviews collide, traditional beliefs are questioned and former certainties are

lost. Former social homogeneity on values erode, making the polyphony of ethics a

characteristic of postmodern societies. This period of transformation also brings visible

changes in the ways our societies, institutions and organizations operate.

66

At the organizational level, this feeling of dread is also perceptible, described by Thierry

Pauchant as a “search of meaning”, in an existential sense (Pauchant, 1995). Members of

organizations are feeling – and sometimes attempting to resist- the numbness that

accompanies the “fragmentation” that is occurring in the workplace, which too often tend to

cut off the meaning of work from the other aspects of human life, such as the sense of

belonging in a family, community and natural environment. Moreover, Pauchant and

Mitroff (1995) link this sense of disconnection, or “fragmentation”, to a type of managers

that are prone to provoke crisis. They further point to these managers’ inability to see their

organization as operating within larger systems, as well as their blindness to paradoxes, as

the cause of their incapacity to manage the destructive effects of their organization’s

production. Of course, the responsibility to prevent and manage crises is a major issue of

business ethics. For Pauchant and Mitroff, systems thinking enables managers to get

beyond faulty, as well as dangerous, linear mental models at the root of such issues.

Peter Senge offers a fresh perspective on how to deal with complexity in organizations

through collective learning and sensemaking. Recognizing that traditional problem solving

methods are not effective to solve complex problems, Senge and his colleagues propose a

new approach to achieve multilevel, collaborative actions that address systemic problems.

In the book, The Necessary Revolution- How individuals and Organizations Are Working

Together to Create a Sustainable World, Senge and his colleagues (Senge, Smith,

Kruschwitz, Laur, & Schley, 2008) suggest a process to achieve new thinking and new

choices, which they call “collaborative inquiry”. This process requires stakeholders to work

together to: 1) see the big picture, such as the interdependencies within systems, 2)

collaborate across boundaries, in order to 3) create the desired futures. In other words, they

claim nothing more than a radical shift in the way of viewing and understanding the world

is required to be able to create an alternative future. Senge challenges managers to see

organizations as composed of processes and systems. The basis of a learning organization –

one that is innovative, taps into the talents, creativity of its members and permits them to

give meaning to their work- is the capacity to see the systemic processes, and feedback

67

loops, that invisibly link the organization to its community, its members, other

organizations, as well as the natural environment, in constructive and destructive ways.

A key aspect of this collaborative inquiry process associated with a learning organization is

an ability referred to as “sensing” (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2005). Sensing

is a very important dimension of this process, as a form of knowing that is different from

the intellectual reasoning we are accustomed to in the workplace. Sensing requires other

skills, such as a quality of presence and openness. In this way, Senge gives value and

credential to other forms of knowing, for instance, intuition and empathetic connexions to

others. Another aspect that is emphasized in this process is the acceptance, recognition and

willingness to welcome disagreement in the opinions and worldviews of individuals, as the

group seeks to see a larger vision of their system. From this comes the realization of the

futility of arguing over who is right and the desire to focus upon the part of the vision that

is common in order to coordinate effective change. Desmarteau et al. (2005) also supports

this view of organizational learning, and point out that shared vision is facilitated when

members are able to communicate explicit and tacit knowledge within an organization

(Saives, Ebrahimi, Desmarteau, & Garnier, 2005). For this sharing of explicit and tacit

knowledge to occur, however, they warn the organization must first put the individual

members back at the center of organizational concerns.

For her part, Patricia Werhane, echoing Chester Barnard’s idea of moral creativeness, uses

the concept of “moral imagination” to convey that ethical decision-making is complex and

requires the ability to gain a systemic understanding of a situation in order to make a wise

decision (Werhane, 1998, p. 760):

We argue that the role of moral imagination in this process would be

essential: to develop and apply moral principles, managers need first to reach

an appropriate understanding of the complex circumstances of reality that

they are facing.

68

Meanwhile, William Frederick (2004) proposes that it is precisely the organization value

system that is responsible for its ability to adapt to its environment. Frederick (2004) has

put forward an evolutionary theory of the role ethical value systems play in an

organization’s ability to adapt to its environment. Drawing from Adam Smith and Charles

Darwin’s evolution theory to the domain of social ideas, this scholar in the field of

organizational studies and business ethics presents organizations as complex adaptive

systems which must adjust to their social and natural environments, which are themselves

higher-order complex adaptive systems. Frederick presents value systems as problem-

solving and sensemaking procedures. In this sense, the ethical decision-making process in

an organization involves a variation, a selection and a reproduction of an ethical guideline

in order to adapt to the environment of the organization. As the environment changes or

gets more complex, an organization with a more complex value system, one that presents a

more diverse repertoire of patterns of ethical response, will adapt by selecting proper

strategies that fit with the environment—and fare better than others.

In today’s rapidly changing environment, this adaptation skill seems more crucial than ever.

Some authors have suggested that companies will not survive in the long run unless they

create social as well as economic value. On the one hand, people are angry about the greed

and blatant lack of ethics in business, while on the other hand research has shown that good

people may act in uncharacteristically unethical fashion when they are in organizations or

groups (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2011, p. 60):

The world needs leaders who will make judgments knowing that

everything is contextual, make decisions knowing that everything is

changing, and take actions knowing that everything depends on doing so

in a timely fashion. They will have to see what is good, right, and just for

society while being grounded in the details of the ever-changing front

line. Thus they must pair micromanagement with big-picture aspirations

about the future.

We share the view that ethical value systems are socially constructed and institutionalized

in society and within organizations, taking the form of sometimes explicit, but primarily

69

tacit, knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2011; Saives et al., 2005). This implies that people

are often unable to explain their ethical reasoning in a straightforward way, although they

may express deep emotions in defending their views on ethical matters. This also implies

that ethical value systems may be transmitted by social structures and influence people’s

ethical decision-making process, without their knowledge of any formal ethical theories.

This conceptualization of ethical beliefs being tacitly transmitted by social structures is

reminiscent of Schein’s three-level model of organizational culture (Schein, 2010). In the

next section, we present this influential model developed by Edgar Schein describing how

value systems are tacitly transmitted in organizations through shared basic underlying

assumptions. We propose that ethical beliefs are also a form of tacit, basic assumptions that

are shared and transmitted in organizations.

3.2 Schein’s three-level model of organizational culture

Schein suggests the idea that the cultural foundation of organizational practices and

behaviour is based on shared values and taken-for-granted assumptions about how the

world works, which he calls “basic assumptions”. Figure 2 presents Schein’s three-levels

model of organizational culture (Schein, 2010, p. 24).

70

Figure 2. Schein's three levels of organizational culture (Schein, 2010)

According to Schein (2010), organizational culture can be understood on a superficial level

via the organization’s artefacts, which are directly observable, such as behaviour, products,

services and explicit policies. The culture can be understood at a deeper level through the

shared values which inform how one ought to behave, comprising ideals, goals and

aspirations. However, Schein stresses that it is often misleading and confusing to rely on

what people say they value (espoused values). Rather, to explain the actual behaviour of

people in organizations and really understand the effective values that guide people’s

behaviour, one has to discover the shared, basic assumptions that are taken for granted in

that organization. Basic assumptions are the deepest level of organizational culture, and are

shared, taken-for-granted concepts of reality, human nature and how the world “works”

(Schein, 2010). Schein suggests a variety of domains of basic assumptions. Among others,

Schein gives examples of basic assumption concerning the nature of reality and truth (e.g.

is what is “real” determined by the scientific method, rational and legal principles, wisdom,

whatever works, through a process of conflict and debate, context?); of human nature (e.g.

are people altruistic or selfish?); of the relationship of humanity to the natural environment

(e.g. does humanity dominate or need to harmonize with the natural environment?); of time

Artefact

ss

Espoused Beliefs and

Values

Basic Underlying Assumptions

71

(e.g. is time considered as linear or circular? Is the conception of time oriented to the

immediate or distant future?); of human activity (e.g. is human activity oriented to task and

efficiency or to self-development and discovery?); and on the nature of human

relationships (are social relationships based on hierarchy, tradition, cooperation, equality,

family, coercion?).

The importance of basic assumptions as the foundation of values and beliefs has been noted

by many authors. Schneider and Shrivastava links these organizational basic assumptions—

the shared systems of meaning that give significance to events—to organizational frames of

reference that influence strategy formulation and decision-making (Schneider &

Shrivastava, 1988; Shrivastava, 1985a, 1985b). Furthermore, these authors suggest that

since they are taken for granted and rarely questioned, these basic assumptions must be

brought to the surface in order to help organizations interpret and plan their adaptive

strategies more effectively (Schein, 2010).

For Shrivastava, Mitroff and Alvesson (1987), organizational frames of reference “consist

of cognitive elements, cognitive maps and reality tests, and are characterized by the degree

to which they are articulated and codified and by the domain of inquiry that they

legitimize” (Shrivastava et al., 1987, p. 90). The idea of organizational frames of reference

developed by these authors lead us to consider ethical frames of reference, too, as being

grounded in basic assumptions. If ethical beliefs are culturally transmitted, then it holds that

the ethical evaluation process of members of organizations may present patterns of basic

assumptions about ethics.

A few other business ethics scholars have also described ethical perspectives similarly, as

belief systems comprising existential beliefs about the nature of reality, and prescriptive

beliefs about how one ought to behave (Narasimhan, Bhaskar, & Prakhya, 2010).

Research from the field of sociology also links cultural values to basic assumptions. For

instance, the possible patterns or combinations of basic assumptions regarding ethics may

72

be anticipated based on a body of international research on cultural value types conducted

by Shalom Schwartz (2005; 1994, 1999). Boltanski and Thevenot also claim that different

qualities are valued when different types of evidence are perceived as the focal aspects of

reality. We briefly Schwartz’s theory, followed by Boltanski and Thevenot’s theory on

justifications, and discuss the insights it provides us for the development of a research

strategy to identify a diversity of ethical perspectives involved in ethical evaluation.

3.2.1 Schwartz’s model of culture-level value types

Schwartz shares the view that people draw on culturally transmitted values to “select the

appropriate social behaviour in a given situation and to justify their behavioural choices to

others” (S. H. Schwartz, 1999), and developed a theory predicting how cultures can be

compared on the basis of seven types of value types, namely: conservatism, harmony,

egalitarianism, autonomy, mastery, and hierarchy. These seven value types are obtained by

multidimensional scaling analysis of 45 values, such as wealth, equality, or family security,

to name a few. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each value ‘as a guiding

principle in my life’, along a scale ranging from 7= supreme importance, 3= important, 0=

not important and -1= opposes my values ( S.H. Schwartz, 1999, p.30).

Of course, other scholars such as Hofstede (1980) have theorized about cultural value

types. What is interesting about Schwartz’s theory is that, like Schein, this author grounds

values on basic assumptions. According to Schwartz, the seven value types are structured in

space on the basis of the compatibilities among them based on shared or conflicting basic

assumptions about reality (S. H. Schwartz, 1999, p. 25). The seven value types and their

structure in space are presented in Figure 3. Next, Table VIII presents a description of each

value type and their underlying basic assumptions (Schwartz, 1999, p. 27-28).

The validity of the structure of Schwartz’s theory is empirically supported by

multidimensional scaling analysis of data from over 35,000 respondents from 122 samples

in 49 nations (S. H. Schwartz, 1994, 1999). The international validation of the value types

73

is of great relevance for our research that seeks to integrate ethical perspectives

representative of the world’s diversity.

74

Figure 3. Multidimensional scaling of Schwartz's seven culture-level value types

(Schwartz, 1999)

Conservatism Mastery

Affective

Autonomy

Intellectual

Autonomy Egalitarianism

Hierarchy

Harmony

75

Table VIII. Description of Schwartz’s seven cultural value types (Schwartz, 1999)

Value Type Values (examples)

Description Underlying basic

assumptions

Conservatism

Family security, respect

for tradition, social

order, wisdom

A cultural emphasis on the maintenance of

the status quo, propriety, and restraint of

actions or inclinations that might disrupt

the solidarity group or the traditional order

(social order, respect for tradition, family

security, wisdom).

It is necessary to have an

unequal allocation of power

and resources in society; It

is necessary to foster

continuity, fit in and try to

avoid change.

Harmony

Unity with nature,

protect the environment,

world of beauty

A cultural emphasis on fitting

harmoniously into the environment (unity

with nature, protecting the environment,

world of beauty).

It is necessary to foster

continuity, fit in and try to

avoid change; Cooperative

relations are necessary

Egalitarianism

World of peace, social

justice, equality,

responsible, helpful

A cultural emphasis on transcendence of

selfish interests in favour of voluntary

commitment to promoting the welfare of

others (equality, social justice, freedom,

responsibility, honesty).

Cooperative relations are

necessary; Social actors are

autonomous decision-

makers

Autonomy

Creativity,

broadmindedness,

Curious

/

varied life experience,

pleasure, exciting life,

enjoying life

Intellectual Autonomy: A cultural emphasis

on the desirability of individuals

independently pursuing their own ideas and

intellectual directions (curiosity,

broadmindedness, creativity).

Affective Autonomy: A cultural emphasis on

the desirability of individuals

independently pursuing affectively positive

experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied

life).

Social actors are

autonomous decision-

makers; one must engage in

stimulating activities chosen

by oneself

Mastery

Capable, ambitious,

successful, independent,

daring, choosing own

goals

A cultural emphasis on getting ahead

through active self-assertion (ambition,

success, daring, competence).

One must engage in

stimulating activities chosen

by oneself; One must

prioritize one’s personal

goals over those of others

Hierarchy

Authority, humble*,

influential, wealth,

social power

A cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of

unequal distribution of power, roles and

resources (social power, authority,

humility, wealth).

One must prioritize one’s

personal goals over those of

others; It is necessary to

have an unequal allocation

of power and resources in

society

*humility is a value associated with those who are in an inferior position in a hierarchical society and who value this

manner of organizing society by accepting their inferior position with humility.

76

The theory suggests a structure in space between the seven value types, which is defined by

three bipolar dimensions. These bipolar dimensions represent the ways cultures respond to

three issues that confront all societies, which are incidentally reflect three domains of basic

assumptions. The first issue is the nature of the relation between the individual and the

group and whether the individual is perceived as a member of a group or as an autonomous

person (conservatism and autonomy). The second issue that confronts all societies is how to

ensure responsible behaviour that will preserve the social fabric and whether this

responsibility is best performed when it is attributed to a select group within a society, or

when it is shared in an egalitarian manner by all members of society (hierarchy and

egalitarianism). The third issue is the relation of humankind to the natural and social world

and whether human beings are perceived to dominate over nature or to blend in harmony

with nature (mastery and harmony).

In Figure 3, opposing pairs of value types are placed across from each other, illustrating

that they are oriented in opposite directions. Compatible pairs are located next to each

other. Schwartz suggests that values are compatible because they share basic assumptions.

Alternatively, values that are located in opposites direction have conflicting basic

assumptions.

This logic suggests why Harmony and Egalitarianism are situated next to each other, since

the two value types share a common basic assumption that cooperative relations are

necessary. Egalitarianism and Intellectual Autonomy value types are compatible because

they share the basic assumption that social actors as autonomous decision-makers, capable

of taking on social responsibilities and voluntarily entering into social contracts. Affective

Autonomy is close to Mastery since they both share the basic assumption that one must

engage in stimulating activities chosen by oneself. Mastery is closely related with

Hierarchy because both share the basic assumption that one must prioritize one’s personal

goals over those of others. The Hierarchy value-type is located near the Conservatism

value-type because both share the basic assumption that it is necessary to have an unequal

77

allocation of power and resources in society. Finally, Conservatism is close to Harmony

because they both share the basic assumption of the necessity of continuity, fitting in and

trying to avoid change.

What is most interesting about Schwartz’s culture-level value types model is not so much

the values themselves, but the idea that basic assumptions are the most basic components

that discriminate between different value systems. While values may be understood in a

number of ways and are prone to be applied differently by different people, basic

assumptions refer to more straightforward elemental beliefs. The results of Schwartz’s

research lead us to consider the possibility of developing a systematic approach to describe

ethical theories according to basic assumptions, which serve to justify certain values over

others. The justification of values is precisely the theme of Boltanski and Thevenot’s

(2006) theory, which we now present.

3.2.2 Boltanski and Thevenot’s theory on the justification of values

Boltanski and Thevenot are French sociologists who advance the idea that different

contexts justify distinct qualities to be valued. They suggest that in everyday life, different

degrees of worthiness are attributed to specific qualities depending on how the actors frame

the context, or “world”, in which they are operating. In a sense, this theory recalls Erving

Goffman’s frame analysis, where different cues inform the actors how to ‘frame’, and

ascribe meaning to a situation (Goffman, 1974). The same situation can thus be understood

differently, depending on how it is framed.

Although they do not claim their list to be exhaustive, Boltanski and Thevenot (2006)

originally identified six “common worlds”, which frame how people ascribe values.

“Common worlds” are types of common place situations, or contexts of action, which

involve specific “economies of worth”. The different criteria of worth are presented in

Table IX, along with the typical people who operate in these worlds, and the forms of

78

evidence that serve to establish worth (Boltanski & Thevenot, 2006, p. 159-211)

Table IX. Boltanski and Thevenot's common worlds (Boltanski & Thevenot, 2006)

Common

worlds

Philosophical

Sources

Worth Common place subjects Forms of

evidence

Inspired Saint Augustine

(City of God)

Total acceptance of God’s

grace and compassion,

Sainthood,

Charity and humility,

Detachment from earthly bonds

and opinion of others

Artists

Poets

Children

Intuition

Domestic Bossuet (Politics) Hierarchical position

Rank

Status in the family

Subordination to power figure

Responsibility to take care of

those under one’s protection

Superiors: boss, father, elders

Inferiors: employees, children,

foreigners

Title

Fame Hobbes (The

Leviathan)

Opinion of others

Being honoured by the greatest

number of people

Visibility

Famous personalities, stars Notoriety

Civic Rousseau (Social

Contract)

Will of the people

Common good

Leaders of collective

organisations (political parties,

trade unions, civic associations)

Legal text

Market Adam Smith (The

Wealth of Nations)

Wealth

Trade and exchange of goods

that reflect the particular

interests of the participants

A done deal

Business people, salespeople,

customers

The price

(market value)

Industrial Saint-Simon

(Du système

industriel)

Satisfaction of needs

Scientific discovery and

coordination of means to

improve life

Professionals, managers,

experts and operators

Effective and

functioning

As presented in Table IX, these worlds are labelled the “Inspired”, “Domestic”, “Civic”

“Fame”, “Market” and “Industrial” worlds and describe Boltanski’s and Thevenot’s

analysis of major works in political philosophy, namely from Saint Augustine, Jacques-

Bénigne Bossuet, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith and Henri Saint-

Simon. Different “worlds” call for different “economies of worth”, reflecting the fact that a

person must invest and sacrifice other opportunities in order to acquire mastery in one

world. These authors define worth as “the way in which one expresses, embodies,

79

understands, or represents other people” (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006, p. 132). Worth

reflects a filter through which reality is perceived. Each world has a certain set of beliefs

that filter how reality is perceived and what is appropriate to value in a certain context,

while another situation will call for another criterion of worth, which is more appropriate.

This filter is constructed by the categories, or basic assumptions, through which people

qualify what they see through relationships of equivalence. It is these relationships of

equivalence that establish forms of generalities, giving rise to social conventions on which

agreement within members are based. However, what is valued in one world may not be

valued in another, and agreement and conflicts arise depending if the people who enter in

relationship are operating from the same “world” or not.

We suggest that the relationship between forms of evidence and economies of worth is

similar to Schein’s model linking basic assumptions and values. As such, this theory offers

support to the systemic concept that ethical evaluation is dependent on contexts, perhaps

more so than on the individuals or societies. It would therefore make sense to identify from

which “worlds”, or systems of basic assumptions, a person usually operates from when

framing his ethical evaluation.

In the next section, we investigate the idea that basic assumptions justify the values that are

deemed as valid or superior to others. We present the theoretical framework developed by

Stephen Toulmin, with his model describing the structure of a logical argument to justify

any type of claim. We suggest that ethical theories present distinctive patterns of basic

assumptions that serve to justify ethical claims.

3.3 Toulmin’s model of the structure of a logical argument

In order to construct a polyphonic scale, we wanted to provide a theoretical grounding to

guide the choice of items describing each ethical theory. The work of Stephen Toulmin,

80

with his landmark book, The Uses of Argument (1999), offers a systemic method to

generate the items to reflect ethical theories.

Stephen Toulmin is an influential British-American philosopher, whose work on the

practical arguments that serve to provide sound justification for decisions in everyday life.

Initially shunned by his colleagues in the field of philosophy, by reason of his departure

from formal Aristotelian syllogism toward the development of a more practical model of

argumentation that reflects everyday communication, his work is well received by the field

of communication studies, especially in the study of rhetoric. His body of work provides

scholars in management and organizational science- and especially in ethics- a wealth of

insights on the structure of justification and evaluate what makes a convincing and valid

argument in everyday and organizational life ( e.g. Pauchant, 1995; Pauchant & Mitroff,

1990). Moreover, from his early work on An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics

(1950) which stems from his doctoral thesis, to his publication in 1958 of his influential

book, The Uses of Argument, where he present the “Toulmin Model of Argument”, to his

later reflections shared in Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (1990), Toulmin

has expressed a keen interest in the subject of ethics throughout his life.

Having explored in depth what makes for a good and valid argument in everyday

conversations, Toulmin offers a method to analyze any argument from any field of

knowledge, including ethics (Toulmin, 1999). We present Toulmin’s model of

argumentation and propose to apply it in a novel way to identify the structure of the key

arguments that sustain ethical theories. While the application we make of Toulmin’s model

is novel, it is certainly in line with Toulmin’s past attempts to illustrate the structure of

justification involved in claims pertaining to the field of ethics (Toulmin, 1960).

81

3.3.1 The Toulmin Model of Argument

According to Toulmin, a logical argument – one that is concerned with the soundness of the

claims being made- is constructed by using four main categories of information: the claim,

the data, the warrant and the backing. These concepts developed by Toulmin constitute the

“basic pattern of analysis (. . .) suitable for application to arguments of all types and in all

fields.” (Toulmin,1978, p. v). The definitions of these concepts are presented in Table X

(Toulmin et al., 1984, p.63).

Table X. Definitions of the concepts in Toulmin's model (Toulmin, 1984)

Toulmin offers this system of analysis as a break from the theoretical study of logic, based

on the Aristotelian tradition. Contrary to the traditional theoretical orientation of

philosophers, Toulmin is chiefly concerned with the practical applications of logic in

everyday life. As a matter of fact, Toulmin’s method was first embraced by scholars in

communication, while being initially shunned by his colleagues from the field of

philosophy. Recalling his rejection from the philosophy crowd, having even caused the

Elements of a logical

argument

Definition

Claim

The proposition that is defended in the argument

Data The reasons invoked to support the claim.

Warrant The warrant indicates how the facts on which we agree are connected to the claim

that is being defended. The warrant determines what is the rule of the game, what are

to be considered as worthy and relevant arguments to support the claim at hand. The

warrant authorizes a mode of reasoning; it establishes that the argument used is

trustworthy and produces all the support needed to accept the claim.

Backing The backing is used when it is necessary to “spell out the underlying theories and

hypotheses on which (the) warrants rely for their deeper foundations.” A backing is

a body of pre-existing knowledge and is more general than a warrant, which is more

case-specific: many warrants can be based on the same backing (Toulmin et al.,

1984, p. 65). It can take the form of a body of scientific evidence, a corpus of laws, a

set of supporting records, etc. A backing will establish that the warrant itself is

trustworthy and also relevant to the present claim.

82

grief of his thesis director, he mentions in the preface of the updated 2003 edition of his

highly successful book, The Uses of Argument, his delight to having been compared to

David Hume, who had also been shunned in his own time, and thus that he is “in good

company” (Toulmin, 2003, p. v).

Toulmin recommends to analyze the soundness of any argument by establishing the claim,

data, warrant and backing of the given argument (Toulmin et al., 1984):

1. Start by identifying the claim: What is the idea defended in this text?

2. Identify the data: What are the reasons invoked to justify the claim?

3. Identify the warrant: Suppose all the reasons invoked are true. How are these

reasons linked to the claim? What is the criterion used to justify the use of these

reasons?

4. Identify the backing: What general theory or body of knowledge supports the use of

this kind of criterion?

It is important to notice that these elements are linked together in a systemic fashion. Data,

warrants, claims and backing are structural elements and the difference between them is a

functional difference (Toulmin et al., 1984, p. 47). For example, the warrants of an

argument can themselves be questioned and conceived as claims that need to be supported.

In this sense, all of these elements form a coherent system of beliefs.

In the next section, we suggest a procedure to apply the Toulmin model to identify the key

logical arguments in ethical theories, in a way that permits to generate statements that can

be used in a measurement instrument.

3.3.2 Ethical theories as claims, data, warrants and backings

In this research, we propose that the core of any ethical theory is composed of a pattern of

basic assumptions, which can be analyzed as data, claims, and warrants, backed by the

83

body of work provided by philosophers. As such, an ethical theory is based on a certain

perception of reality (data), which supports a particular ethical prescription about how one

should behave (claim), in the name of an ethical ideal to be pursued (warrant). Thus, the

ethical criterion promoted by an ethical theory is a “claim” stating that “this is the right

thing to do, the right way to analyze the problem, the right rule to apply to situations.” This

in turn refers to a range of perceptions that we use to construct what we consider to be a

fact, that which constitutes the data. Finally, we consider the warrant as being the Higher

Good, or the ethical ideal, that is pursued in the name of ethics. The fourth element in

Toulmin’s model is the backing, which in this case is found in the works of the authors that

establish the ethical theory.

For instance, any ethical theory can be deconstructed, by analyzing the key work of a

representative thinker associated with that particular ethical theory, and identifying basic

assumptions about perception of reality through the filter of that ethical theory (data), a key

ethical prescription of that theory (claim), and the ethical ideal that is valued as utmost

important in this theory (warrant). As an example, the ethical theory known as

“utilitarianism” could be deconstructed as follows: 1) since it is possible to calculate, in an

objective manner, the positive and negative consequences of any policy (data), 2) to be

ethical, a decision must be based on an objective calculation of its consequences (claim), 3)

because the ethical ideal to be pursued is that the well-being of the greatest number of

people be maximized (warrant), 4) These ideas are fully developed in John Stuart Mill’s

work titled “Utilitarianism” (backing).

Table XI presents other examples of core ideas of several ethical theories, deconstructed as

data, claims, warrants, and backing.

84

Table XI. Examples of the application of Toulmin's method to ethical theories

Ethical theories Statements

Survival ethics (Hobbes ) Data: By nature, people are violent and dangerous.

Claim: An organization or a society must give itself a central authority that

watches closely and punishes people in an exemplary way.

Warrant: The most important ethical considerations are people’s survival and

the protection of their possessions.

Backing: Hobbes, Thomas (1651). The Leviathan

Stakeholder ethics (Freeman) Data: An organization cannot survive in the long term by taking into

consideration only the interests of its investors.

Claim: An organization must respond to the interests of all its stakeholders.

Warrant: An organization must care for all its stakeholders because they are all

affected by its activities.

Backing: Freeman, Edward (1985). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach

Utilitarianism (Mill) Data: One can calculate, in an objective manner, the positive and negative

consequences of any policy.

Claim: To be ethical, a decision must be based on an objective calculation of its

consequences.

Warrant: To be ethical, the well-being of the greatest number of people must be

maximized.

Backing: Mill, John Stuart (1863). Utilitarianism.

Deontology (Kant) Data: Ethical judgment requires rational thinking that is not biased by emotions.

Claim: To be ethical, each person must restrain his/her own behaviour by

following rational principles that apply to everyone.

Warrant: Rational principles must be followed in order to guarantee an absolute

respect towards each human being, regardless of the circumstances.

Backing: Kant, Immanuel (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

Neoliberalism (Friedman) Data: Thanks to market mechanisms, any activity that benefits the interest of

one actor will also be beneficial for the common interest.

Claim: The only responsibility of an organization is to maximize the interests of

its investors, while following the rules of the game.

Warrant: Only a market that is free from all intervention by the State gives

everyone a chance to increase their wealth.

Backing: Friedman, Milton (1980). Free to Choose.

85

By using Toulmin’s model of argument, we do not mean to imply that each ethical theory

has a unique claim, warrant, or data, nor that it is grounded in a single backing. Of course,

ethical theories are more complex and many authors have often contributed to the creation

and codification of a particular ethical theory. Moreover, we are fully aware that every

scholar borrows concepts from other thinkers who have gone before. Rather, we use

Toulmin’s model with a pedagogical intent to provide material for those who want to know

more about the central ideas of a particular ethical theory. This theoretical construct may be

used to operationalize the essence of any ethical theory into three simple statements

reflecting core beliefs. We suggest this method can be used to operationalize a large

number of ethical theories, in a way that captures both their essence and some of their

subtleties. Of course, we do not claim that these statements have the capacity to capture all

the subtleties of each specific ethical theory. Rather, we suggest to use this method as a way

to capture some very specific element in each theory, that is both central and unique to this

theory. In any case, it offers a systemic approach to render the ethical beliefs defended by

different ethical theories, which is not found in the items forming existing scales such as the

MES or Cognitive Philosophies Scale.

Additionally, we want to underscore that this theoretical model does not imply that we

consider people to use a conscious rational approach when making ethical decisions.

Differently, we believe that emotions are involved, and different people may at different

times rely on reason, on their gut feeling, think long and deep, or be very spontaneous.

This view is shared by Toulmin, who views that logic is not so much concerned about the

manner or technique of inference, but rather about the arguments one can put afterwards, in

retrospect, to justify our decision (Toulmin, 1958, p. 6):

Often enough we draw our conclusions in an instant, without any of

the intermediate stages essential to a rule-governed performance -

no taking of the plunge, no keeping of the rules in mind or

scrupulous following of them, no triumphant reaching of the end of

the road or completion of the inferring performance. Inferring, in a

phrase, does not always involve calculating, and the canons of

86

sound arguments can be applied alike whether we have reached our

conclusions by way of computation or by a simple leap.

Indeed, in keeping with ethical argument being composed of basic assumptions (Schein,

2010), the ethical rules of inference are taken for granted and not necessarily conscious.

However, if they are truly taken for granted, a person should recognize the truth of a

proposition reflecting her basic assumptions, and exclaim ‘Of course!’ when asked if the

rule of inference is true. On the other hand, that same person may be perplexed by a rule of

inference that is not part of her repertoire of basic assumptions.

In this chapter, we have presented an innovative way of operationalizing ethical theories

according to basic assumptions concerning perception of reality and how the world works,

ethical prescriptions and ethical ideals. These three elements are linked together in systemic

relation, and form a “logically integrated cluster of beliefs”, to take an expression used by

Shrivastava & Schneider (1984). Although one element or other of this system have been

operationalized before in other contexts, this is the first time, to our knowledge, that the

three types of beliefs are used simultaneously to describe ethical theories in a systematic

and systemic fashion. In the next chapter, we present the methodology to construct and

validate a polyphonic scale based on this theoretical framework.

Chapter 4: Methodology

Based on the observation that current scales exclude feminine and non-Western

ethical theories, as well as contemporary business ethics theories, we claim that the current

ethics scale used in the field of business ethics may silence influential ethical perspectives

held by people in organizations. Our research proposition is that a more polyphonic ethics

scale will reveal that additional ethical perspectives stemming from a diversity of traditions,

not just Western moral philosophies, actually guide the ethical decision-making process of

people in organizations.

In order to evaluate this proposition, we need a measurement instrument capable of

assessing a wide range of ethical perspectives from diverse traditions. The objective of this

research is therefore to develop a polyphonic ethics scale. The measurement instrument that

we develop in this research aims to discriminate between the belief patterns of contrasting

ethical theories, reflecting the diversity of ethical traditions in the world. To overcome the

biases and lack of diversity noted in the business ethics literature, this instrument includes

ethical perspectives stemming from feminine and non-Western traditions, as well as

contemporary business ethics theories.

The object of this thesis being the development of a validated scale, the focus of this

research is on the psychometric properties of the measurement instrument, in particular the

internal consistency of the scales identifying the individual ethical perspectives and the

discriminant validity of the perspectives. The criterion-based validity of the measurement

instruments is also tested using multidimensional scaling, and by evaluating the

discriminating power of the scale in relation with other variables collected in the study.

Namely, we examine if the scale detects differences in ethical perspectives between

respondents working in different types of organisation such as private, cooperative, public

organizations, which some scholars claim operate on very different ethical value systems.

88

Also, we examine if the scale detects differences in the ethical perspectives held by

executives compared to those held by administrative staff members. Indeed, as Chester

Barnard (1938) and others have suggested, higher level executive are required to take non-

routine decisions, which are more bound to have ethical implications, than lower ranks

personnel. Of course, failure to detect any significant difference between those groups of

respondents on those two issues does not imply that the scale has low discriminant validity.

However, success in detecting differences between groups yields support to the

discriminant validity, and the practical usefulness, of the scale.

In this regard, we want to stress that despite our use of statistical methods to evaluate the

validity of the scale, the methodological approach that guides this research must not be

confused with a positivist epistemological position of refutation. This research is conducted

from a constructivist position grounded in systems and complexity theory. As such, the use

of statistical methods is to be understood within a sensemaking process, much like

computer simulation is used by Jay Forrester. Exploratory factor analysis, multidimensional

scaling and other advanced statistical methods such as structural equation modelling, are, in

fact, computer simulation tools. As stressed in statistics manuals (Tabachnick & Fidell,

2007), the most important quality of a model is its interpretability and coherence with the

theory on which it is grounded. The reader must keep in mind that the purpose of this thesis

is mainly exploratory, as it concerns the first step of a scale development procedure. In this

first step, we evaluate the usefulness of our theoretical framework to build a polyphonic

ethics scale. In a subsequent step, outside the scope of this thesis, further refinement are to

be expected and the factor structure of the scale will need to be validated with a different

sample of respondents from other organizations. Finally, the practical usefulness of the

scale will need to be tested in a pilot experience in an organization to evaluate the scale’s

contribution to augmenting the users’ individual and collective sensemaking capacity and

problem-solving creativity in adressing a real-life ethical issue.

89

4.1 Scale development procedure

The most important property of a measurement instrument is its capacity to measure

correctly the latent variable that corresponds to the phenomenon being evaluated.

Psychometric scales are designed to measure social and psychological phenomena, using a

theoretically grounded approach. Psychometric scales are those whose reliability and

validity have been estimated using the rationale and methods of scale development

(DeVillis, 2003).

Our methodology followed the usual recommended steps for scale development (DeVillis,

2003).

Step 1. Precisely determine the theoretical construct of the latent variable to be

measured.

Step 2. Generate the item pool.

Step 3. Determine the format for measurement.

Step 4. Pre-test on a sample of the intended population.

Step 5. Consider inclusion of validation items.

Step 6. Administer items to a development sample.

Step 7. Evaluate the items.

Step 8. Optimize scale length

We present the different steps we have taken in order to develop a reliable and valid

polyphonic ethics scale and conclude this chapter with some ethical considerations for the

data collection procedure.

4.1.1 Determining the theoretical construct of the latent variable

The first step to develop the scale was to select which ethical theories to include in the

measurement instrument. We selected 30 ethical theories to be included, which is a much

higher number than the eight ethical theories included in the initial item pool of both

Reidenbach and Robin’s MES (1988) and McDonald and Pak’s Cognitive philosophies

90

ethics scale (1996). The choice of these 30 ethical theories was based on our objective of

including ethical theories stemming from classical moral philosophy, but also from women

and non-Western philosophers, as well as contemporary ethical theories from the field of

business ethics. Our aim was for 40% of the ethical theories in our measurement

instrument to stem from feminine and non-Western ethical traditions. With this objective

in mind, we established a wide-ranging list of ethical theories, from different traditions, by

conducting a content and frequency analysis of the articles published in the business ethics

literature.

This wide-ranging list was established by conducting a qualitative and a quantitative review

of the ethical theories in the business ethics literature. The qualitative review involved

identifying the ethical theories that are mentioned in the abstracts of the articles published

in the Journal of Business Ethics, a top journal in the field, over a ten years period, from

2000 to 2010. The quantitative review involved creating keywords for each of the ethical

theories identified in the abstracts, and conducting a keywords search in the ProQuest

database to find the number of publications, including academic as well as professional

journals, magazines and newspapers, that mentioned each ethical theory, in the same ten

year period. This strategy enabled us to rank the ethical theories by their frequency in the

literature, and establish a wide-ranging list from which to select 40% (in this case 12 out of

30) theories of non-Western and feminine traditions. The result of the qualitative and

quantitative review is presented in Table XII.

91

Table XII. Results of the qualitative and quantitative reviews of the literature

Ranking Ethical Theories

Key words for database

Search

Frequency

in JBE

Frequency

in all

Proquest

1 E. Freeman- Stakeholder Ethics Stakeholder* + ethic* 398 1090

2 J. Bentham- Legalistic Deontology Legislation + ethic* 46 500

3 A. Carroll- Corporate Social Responsibility CSR + ethic* 264 476

4 H. Kung- global ethics (oecumenical) Religion* + ethic* 65 327

5 G.H. Brundtland- Sustainable Development

Sustainable development +

ethic* 58 307

6 Eleanor Roosevelt- Human Rights Charter "human rights" + ethic* 59 304

7 J.S. Mill-Utilitarianism Utilitaria* + ethic* 57 227

8 I. Kant- Personal Deontology Kant* + ethic* 26 147

9 UCIRI/ Van der Hoff- Fair Trade Ethics fair trade + ethic* 48 121

10 L. Kohlberg- Moral Development moral development + ethic* 43 106

11 E. Durkheim- Social Norms "social norms" + ethic* 13 104

12 Confucius- Mutual Moral Obligations Confuci* + ethic* 40 96

13 A. Rand- Ethical Egoïsm Ego* + Ethic* 35 86

14 J. Rawls- Distributive Justice Rawls* + ethic* 17 79

15 M. Friedman- Neoliberalism free market + ethic* 19 75

16

Donaldson and Dunfee- integrative social contracts

theory

"integrative social contracts

theory" + ethic* 32 53

17 N. Machiavelli- Political Realism Machiavelli* + ethic* 17 51

18 A. Smith- Evolutionary ethics Adam Smith + ethic* 10 51

19 H. Ford- Corporate Paternalism paternal* + ethic* 10 46

20 C. Gilligan- Ethics of Care "Ethics of Care" 8 46

21 J. Habermas- Ethics of Discussion discourse ethic* 9 43

22 S. de Beauvoir- Existential Ethics existentia* + Ethic* 5 40

23 K. Marx- Egalitarianism Marx* + Ethic* 5 39

24 A. Sen- Ethics of Capabilities Capabilities approach OR Amartya Sen + ethic* 4 38

25 P. Ricoeur- Narrative ethics narrative ethic* OR Ricoeur 1 30

26 C. Jung- Moral Archetypes Jung + ethic* 6 25

27 Plato- the Beautiful, the Good and the True Plato* + Ethic* 6 24

28 T. Hobbes- Survival ethics Hobbes + totalitari* Ethic* 6 24

29 Aristotle- Virtue Ethics Virtue ethic* + Aristo* 7 21

30 J. Darwin- Darwinism Darwin* + ethic* 3 21

31 Rochdale Society- Co-operative Ethics

co-operatives OR Robert

Owen + ethic* 6 18

32 H. Arendt- Anti-Totalitarianism Arendt + ethic* 1 13

33 M. Gandhi - non-violence ethics

Gandhi OR non-violence +

ethic* 1 12

34 F. Nietzches- Superman Ethics Nietzsche + ethic* 2 8

35 R. Carson- Ecocentric Ethics ecocentric* + ethic* 1 8

36 J. Dewey- pragmatism John Dewey + ethic* 1 7

92

37 H. Jonas- Precautionary Principle Hans Jonas + ethic* 1 6

38 W. Maathaï -Ubuntu ethics Ubuntu* + ethic* 3 5

39 Lao-Tzu- the Natural Way Lao-tzu OR Daoi* + ethic* 1 5

40 R. Tagore- Upanishads Tagore + ethic* 1 1

In the qualitative analysis, we reviewed the articles published between 1 January 2000 and

31 December 2010 in the Journal of Business Ethics. This first step involved a qualitative

content analysis of the abstracts of a total of 2828 articles. Half of this ten-year review was

performed by a graduate student as part of her research for her Master’s thesis (Mourot,

2009). The same person was hired as an assistant for this research and asked to complete

the review for the remaining years of the ten-year period, using the same methodology.

This work was supervised and validated by the Ph.D. candidate. Out of these articles, some

1438 abstracts, representing 50.8% of the total of 2828 articles, could not be linked to any

ethical theory. For instance, many articles analyzed ethical issues, without reference to any

ethical theory. We did not consider as ethical theories descriptive theories which do not

have a normative core, and we opted to group all religious ethical theories under one group.

Table XII presents the 40 ethical theories that we have identified in the qualitative review

of the abstracts, along with the names of the authors to which we refer for these theories. In

some cases, the names of the authors were mentioned in the abstracts, in other cases, only

the name of the theory was mentioned. Hence, the name of the author associated with each

theory is a methodological choice that we made, which does not necessarily stem from the

empirical data. This methodological choice was made to avoid the confusion that results

when comparing studies where the same name is given to different theories, which we

discussed in Chapter 2. Since many authors are often associated with the same theory, we

strove to link the ethical theories with authors that are representative of the theory, while

giving preference to women philosophers or thinkers.

In this qualitative review of abstracts of articles published in the Journal of Business ethics,

we identified 40 different ethical theories. This review revealed that while classical moral

93

theories are well represented, business ethics theories such as stakeholder ethics, corporate

social responsibility and sustainable development come on top of the list. Also, we see that

ethical traditions stemming from Africa (Ubuntu ethics), Asia (Confucius, Lao Tzu), India

(Amartya Sen’s capabilities ethics, Rabinadrath Tagore and the Upanishads), and Latin

America (Fair Trade ethics, an idea that was first developed in a coffee cooperative in

Mexico) are now being published in this journal.

As a second step, we performed a content analysis in the ProQuest database, using

keywords corresponding to each of the 40 ethical theories identified in the first step. The

corresponding keywords and the frequency for the ethical theories of this review of the

literature is presented in Table XII. The goal was to determine the relative importance of

each theory in the general business literature, including professional journals and

newspapers.

From this list, we selected 25 ethical theories among the most frequently cited to ensure the

ability to compare our results with other studies. Since two important ethical theories from

classical moral philosophy, namely Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Plato’s theory of the Good,

The Beautiful and the True, didn’t rank in the top 25, we took the liberty to include them in

our scale. As a final step, we strived to obtain our objective of a 40% ratio of theories

stemming from feminine and non-Western traditions by selecting from the remaining list

the theories that correspond to these criteria, for a total of 12 feminine and non-Western

theories out of the 30 ethical theories. The list of the 30 ethical theories selected for the

initial item pool is presented in Table XIII.

94

Table XIII. Selected ethical theories for the item pool

# Author Theory Represented by a woman and/or

Non-Western thinker

1 ARISTOTLE Virtue Ethics

2 Jeremy BENTHAM Legalistic deontology

3 Gro Harlem BRUNDTLAND Sustainable development * Woman

4 Archie CARROLL Corporate social responsibility

5 CONFUCIUS Mutual moral obligations * Non-Western (China)

6 Simone DE BEAUVOIR Existential ethics * Woman

7 Émile DURKHEIM Social Ethics

8 Henri FORD Paternalistic ethics

9 Edward FREEMAN Stakeholder theory

10 Milton FRIEDMAN Neoliberal ethics

11 Carol GILLIGAN Ethics of Care * Woman

12 Jürgen HABERMAS Ethics of discussion

13 Thomas HOBBES Survival ethics

14 Immanuel KANT Personal Deontology

15 Lawrence KOHLBERG Moral development

16 Hans KÜNG Global ethics/ World religions * Non-Western (global)

17 LAO-TZU The Natural Way* Non-Western (China)

18 Wangari MAATHAÏ Ubuntu ethics* Woman/ Non-Western (Kenya)

19 Niccolo MACHIAVELLI Political Realism

20 Karl MARX Egalitarianism

21 John Stuart MILL Utilitarianism

22 PLATO

The Good, the True and the

Beautiful

23 Ayn RAND Ethical egoism* Woman

24 John RAWLS Fair justice

25 ROCHDALE PIONEERS Co-operative Ethics

26 Eleanor ROOSEVELT Human Rights* Woman

27 Amartya SEN Capabilities approach* Non-Western (India)

28 Adam SMITH Evolutionary ethics

29 Rabinadrath TAGORE Artistic development * Non-Western (India)

30

Fran VAN DER HOFF and

UCIRI Fair trade ethics*

Non-Western (Mexico)

95

4.1.2 Generating the item pool

The items representing each ethical theory were generated following the Toulmin method

presented in Chapter 3. The 30 ethical theories along with the final version of their

corresponding items, that were generated using the Toulmin method, are presented in

Appendix 1. Generating the item pool required a collective effort by a team of eight

scholars affiliated with the HEC Montréal Chair in Ethical Management, who met regularly

over the course of a year and a half, from August 2010 to December 2011, to comment on

the items for each ethical theory.

The members of the team comprised the thesis director, six Ph.D. candidates conducting

research in the field of business ethics or philosophy, and one assistant who had completed

a Master’s thesis on ethical traditions and conducted the content analysis on the abstracts

from the Journal of Business Ethics as part of her Master’s thesis. Most of the scales

underwent between five and ten adjustments, as a balance was sought between the ability of

the items to tap into the essence of each theory and their length, clarity and overall

simplicity. The team also relied on the work of current and former members of the Chair in

Ethical Management who had written chapters and summaries on specific authors and

social actors associated with particular ethical theories, such as Jeremy Bentham, Carol

Gilligan, Plato, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Niccolò Machiavelli, Adam Smith and Simone de

Beauvoir, to name a few. Appendix 2 presents an example of such a chapter, about the Fair

Trade Ethics proposed by Frans Van der Hoff. These chapters and summaries focused not

only on the ethical theory itself, but also on the biography of the author that was chosen to

represent it, and on the historical context in which it developed. This larger context helped

in identifying the relevant assumptions for each theory and designing the items.

Content validity

The content validity of the items representing each ethical theory was evaluated by six

independent experts (Jim O’Toole, Denver University; André Beauchamp, McGill Ethics

Research Center; Michel Séguin, UQAM; Alain Létourneau, Université de Sherbrooke; Ian

96

Mitroff, University of California Berkeley; Lyse Langlois, Université Laval). These experts

hold Ph.D., with a vast knowledge of ethical theories, and are professors and researchers

teaching ethics or philosophy at other universities in Canada, France and the United States.

The experts were asked to evaluate if the statements reflecting each ethical theory correctly

expressed 1) a central idea of the theory, and 2) a specific idea that differentiates the theory

from others. The experts were invited to comment on the ethical theories they felt

comfortable and knowledgeable enough to evaluate.

We compiled all the comments received from the six reviewers in a single document and

observed that the comments covered four main themes: the experts’ lack of knowledge of

some theories, the oversimplification of statements, the choice of authors chosen to reflect

the theories, and the issue of whether the statements should be constructed in relation to the

organizational, individual, or society level of analysis.

A first observation is that the experts gave more critical feedback on the statements

reflecting ethical theories from classical moral philosophy. Non-Western ethical theories

received vague comments such as “ sounds ok” or “ I guess. It’s been a long time since

I’ve read Lao-Tzu’. One of the experts commented: “I am not familiar with about half of

these theories.” However, although non-Western ethical theories received less comments,

the content validity of the statements relating to each ethical theory was evaluated and

commented by at least one expert.

Concerning the content validity of the statements, generally the experts agreed that the

statements reflected the theories. Some experts suggested ways of rewording some

statements in a way that made it better reflect a central idea of the theory or be clearer and

easier to understand. For example, an expert suggested to change a statement reflecting

Rawls’ distributive justice, that read “A just and fair society or organization does not make

decisions that run counter to the interests of the poor” to the following: “An ethical

organization or society seeks to maximize the interests of the poorest”, which has the

97

advantages of being a positive sentence and better express Rawls’ maximin concept. In the

cases where experts contested the content validity of the statement, it was mostly for one of

two reasons: 1) because, according to them, the statement was a simplification of the

thought of the author representing the theory; or 2) because they disagreed with our choice

of author to represent the theory.

The oversimplification issue is a limit that is inherent to our methodological approach,

which we accept. However, we observed that while one expert considered a statement to

be an oversimplification (e.g., about Machiavelli: “Usual oversimplification. I recommend

you read the more advanced works on Machiavelli), another expert commented “Yes. This

statement is very typical of Machiavelli’s thoughts, whose own personal conviction was

that of a democrat.” Still, another expert was concerned that the statements were too

complex for managers and people in organizations to understand. However, this latter issue

was the object of a pre-test with 15 professionals, which we describe later in this chapter.

Some experts questioned our choices of author to represent theories. Examples of

comments received in this regard include “I would have thought you would cite Bentham

instead for utilitarianism” and “I don’t think of Bentham in this context” in reference to our

choice of associating Jeremy Bentham with Legalistic deontology. For us, although

Bentham is certainly a key author of utilitarianism, his emphasis on the role of the legal

system is the source of a legalistic deontologist approach that is very present in

organizations, in the reliance of deontology codes and laws and regulation. Although this

term is often associated with Kant, we have decided to associate Bentham with Legalistic

Deontology, because he was the first, and not Kant, to introduce the notion of

“deontology”, as the art by which to design laws that make it man’s best interest to act

morally, in a book published in 1834, titled “ Deontology, or the Science of Morality”. In a

similar fashion, another expert questioned our choice of associating the Human Rights

ethics with Eleanor Roosevelt, arguing that “The notion of universal rights goes back to

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau”. As mentioned earlier, the choice to associate an author to a

98

particular theory was a methodological choice. We agree that many authors have

contributed to the development of ethical theories, giving their particular color or

emphasizing certain elements of existing theories. In our choice of authors to represent the

ethical theories, it is our goal of integrating contemporary theories, and the voices of

feminine and non-Western traditions. In this case, our selection of Eleanor Roosevelt

recalls the key role this woman played in the creation of the UN Declaration of Human

Rights, and our intention to see more theories through the eyes of a woman. The same

intention guided our selection of Simone de Beauvoir for existentialism, or Wangari

Maathai for Ubuntu ethics. However, for Rabinadrath Tagore, our initial intention was to

present the artistic ethics of this famous Indian poet, deeply inspired by the Upanishads

tradition. However, as noted by one of the independent expert, the statements we finally

retained to represent the ethical view of this author did not present so much an ‘artistic’

ethics, but is better captures under the name of ‘World Citizen’ ethics.

Finally, several experts questioned the fact that the statements of the theories did not refer

to the same level of analysis: some theories refer to the individual (i.e. Aristotle Virtue

ethics, Kant’s Personal deontology), others to the organization (i.e. Corporate social

responsibility), and still others to society (i.e. Durkheim Social norms; Adam Smith

Evolutionary ethics). One expert suggested it would be more appropriate for the purpose of

the research to make all statements refer to the organization level. Another disagreed,

arguing that Aristotle, for example, never mentioned organizations and to do so would be

an anachronism. We decided to keep the statements to the level of analysis that was

covered by each author, and include the organizational level whenever the theory permitted.

We maintain that the mixing of the different levels of analysis implied by the ethical

theories is a relevant dimension to be measured by the questionnaire. Indeed, this reflects

the complexity of ethics, as the relationships between different levels of analysis is a key

feature of systems and complexity theory.

99

4.1.3 Determining the format for measurement

The questionnaire includes four sections. The first section consists of two open ended

questions, asking respondents to identify a person and an organization that they consider to

be models in terms of ethics and write a short explanation for their choice. The second

section is directly related to the object of this thesis and contains the items reflecting the

different ethical theories. The third section is related to the thesis of a Ph.D. colleague and

contains questions about the perceived effectiveness of different organizational practices to

enhance ethics and related. The fourth section contains sociodemographic questions.

Since the construct being tested is in the realm of basic assumptions, we decided to evaluate

respondent’s level of agreement with the beliefs described in the statements reflecting the

different ethical theories (conceptions of reality, ethical prescription, and ethical ideals).

The question asked was: “For each statement, indicate your degree of agreement or

disagreement by checking a box”. The range of possible answers was contained in a 5

points Likert scale ranging from “1= I completely disagree” , “2= I mostly disagree”, “3= I

do not agree nor disagree”, “4= I mostly agree”, to 5= “I completely agree”. We decided on

a scale with a middle point (“I do not agree nor disagree”) because we want to evaluate

which beliefs have the strongest influence on the individual’s ethical decision-making

process. Items which are scored around the middle point do not constitute the most relevant

ethical beliefs for that person. The content of the full questionnaire which was presented to

the respondents is presented in Appendix 1.

4.1.4 Pre-testing

A pre-test was conducted in November 2011 with the participation of 15 professionals

occupying different functions in three organizations. The objective of the pre-test was to

evaluate the clarity and wording of the items, the measurement format and the questions.

The pre-test took place during a four-hour workshop with the participants. First, the goal

of the research and the purpose of the pre-test were presented. Next, they were given one

100

hour to answer the paper version of the questionnaire, and asked to note all items that were

unclear or confusing. All the questions and items of the questionnaire were then reviewed

one by one and the comments of the participants were recorded on tape. The participants of

the workshop identified 36 items as presenting difficulties, either because the statements

were too long, badly worded, confusing or hard to understand.

Out of the 90 items, 32 items were modified for better wording, removing double-barrelled

questions, pronoun confusions and overly abstract vocabulary. One interesting finding was

that some items that appeared confusing to some respondents, appeared very clear to others

who agreed strongly with the statement. For example, a participant expressed that a

statement referring to the Taoist tradition (Lao Tzu’s Natural Way) was impossible to

understand and questioned its place in the questionnaire. This statement in particular read

“The spontaneous processes of nature generate wisdom, which is something above and

beyond factual knowledge”. However, another participant exclaimed “No, this statement is

very clear. It really expresses my view”. During the exchange that followed, a member of

the research team explained that the wording of this statement was intentionally poetic to

reflect an Asian ethical tradition associated with Lao Tzu. To this, the participant who

strongly agreed with this statement shared that although she did not know Lao Tzu, one of

her friends had lately told her that she had a very Asian way of thinking. This anecdote can

be explained through our theory of ethical beliefs as being basic assumptions, or taken-for-

granted tacit knowledge. Indeed, our theory implies that respondents will easily recognize

their own ethical assumptions, but will be confused by basic assumptions that are not part

of their repertoire. Moreover, this incident during the pretest shows that respondents do not

need to formally know an ethical theory, in order to share its basic assumptions.

Finally, with the help of a Ph.D. colleague with a background in psychology and experience

in developing psychometric tests, we reviewed all the items once again for double-barreled

questions, sentence clarity, and also decided to make some statements more radical, in

order to elicit more variance in the response.

101

4.1.5 Considering inclusion of validation items

We considered including validation items to test for social desirability biases but have

opted not to include them. In part, this is because our definition of ethical theory is a

culture-level construct, and we believe that social desirability will tap into the ethical

theories that promote social conformity. Also, we are measuring beliefs about what ought

to be, not actual behaviour. Consequently, we believe the questionnaire is less prone to

under or over-reporting of actual beliefs.

Another consideration is respondent fatigue, since the questionnaire contains many items

and required about one hour to complete. To control for that source of variance, we

considered including phony items which would require respondents to answer “completely

disagree” unless they have not read the item and are answering randomly. However, the

cost in terms of loss of face validity of the questionnaire made us drop this idea. On the

other hand, the 90 statements reflecting the theories have been randomly distributed and the

order of the items in the questionnaire is the same for all respondents. We assume that

respondent fatigue for the latter items will be comparable for all respondents in the sample.

4.1.6 Administering the questionnaire to a development sample

The content of the online questionnaire administered to the development sample is

presented in Appendix 3. The population for which this measurement instrument is

designed consists of people working in organizations. The development sample for this

questionnaire is made up of 441 respondents working in different organizations from

various sectors of activity, who completed the questionnaire between January 24 and

December 17, 2012. The average time to complete the questionnaire was 64 minutes 47

seconds.

A consortium comprising two investment funds (Fondaction, Neuvaction), a credit union

(Caisse d’économie solidaire Desjardins), and a research centre (Centre de recherche et de

102

développement solidaire) has collaborated and contributed financial support for this

research project. The members of the consortium invited their employees and other

organizations to answer the online questionnaire. Seeking maximum diversity in terms of

activity sectors (lawyer firm, retail, energy, education, health, etc.), number of employees

(SMEs, large organizations), and types of organizations (private, public and cooperative

sectors), we have asked other organizations to participate in the survey. We have also

invited graduate students, with substantial work experience, to complete the questionnaire

as part of their Ethics course. Table XIV presents the sociodemographic data of the

respondents and Table XV presents the data about the organizations where the respondents

work.

103

Table XIV. Sociodemographic data

Frequency Percent

Gender

Women 227 51,5

Men 214 48,5

Total 441 100

Age

18-29 67 15,2

30-39 120 27,2

40-49 109 24,7

50-59 105 23,8

60-69 37 8,4

70 and above 3 0,7

Total 441 100

Country/ Region Canada 365 82,8

USA 3 0,7

North Africa 3 0,7

Central Africa 8 1,8

Latin America 7 1,6

Europe 30 6,8

Asia 8 1,8

India 9 2,0

Middle East 8 1,8

Total 441 100

Education level

High school 16 3,6

Post secondary 65 14,7

Undergraduate 172 39,0

Master’s and above 188 42,6

Total 441 100

Position Executive 47 10,7

Manager 140 31,7

Supervisor 13 2,9

Professional 149 33,8

Technical personnel/trade 16 3,6

Commercialization or sales 10 2,3

Office and administration personnel 47 10,7

Production worker 1 0,2

Other 18 4,1

Total 441 100

104

Table XV. Organizational data

Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent

Number of Less than 10 18 4,1 4,1

employees 11-29 22 5,0 9,1

30-49 50 11,3 20,4

50-99 129 29,3 49,7

100-499 67 15,2 64,9

500-999 10 2,3 67,1

1000-9999 58 13,2 80,3

10 000 and more 87 19,7 100

Total 441 100

Type Private 168 38,1 38,1

Public 98 22,2 60,3

Para-governmental 74 16,8 77,1

Cooperative or mutual 66 15,0 92,1

Non-governmental organization 12 2,7 94,8

Non-profit Organization 23 5,2 100

Total 441 100

Sector of Finance and insurance 127 28,8 28,8

activity Professional, scientific and technical services 62 14,1 42,9

Retail 52 11,8 54,7

Public administration 27 6,1 60,8

Educational services 13 2,9 63,7

Healthcare and social assistance 11 2,5 66,2

Manufacturing 10 2,3 68,5

Transportation and storage 10 2,3 70,8

Arts and entertainment 10 2,3 73,1

Construction 9 2,0 75,1

Management of corporations and businesses 6 1,4 76,5

Wholesale 5 1,1 77,6

Media and culture 5 1,1 78,7

Administrative services, support services 5 1,1 79,8

Legal 4 0,9 80,7

Mining and petroleum/gas extraction 3 0,7 81,4

Lodging and restaurants 3 0,7 82,1

Real estate 2 0,5 82,6

Agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing 0 0 82,6

Other services 77 17,5 100

Total

441 100 100

105

The gender distribution of the sample presents a ratio of 51,5% women and 48,5 % men.

The median age group of the respondents is between 40 and 49 years old, while the sample

age range covers all the age groups, from 18 to 70 and above. Close to 83% of the

respondents have identified Canada as their home country (whether they were born in

Canada or not), while the remaining 17% identified with countries covering all the regions

of the world. Our sample of respondents is highly educated, with 81,6% of the respondents

having completed a university degree and 42,6% have completed a master’s level or above.

This percentage is far higher than the general Canadian population, where 16,4% of the

population have a university degree (Statistics Canada, 2006). Regarding the position

occupied in their organization, 45,3% of the respondents from our sample are responsible to

oversee the work of other employees, as they occupy either executive, management or

supervisor positions. Of the remainder, 33,8% are professionals, while all levels of

responsibility are represented in our sample.

At the organizational level, the majority of the respondents work in organizations with 50

or more employees. The respondents come from varied types of organizations as 38% work

for privately held companies, 39% work for governmental or para-governmental

organizations, and 15% work for co-operatives. Workers from all sectors of activity, except

for agriculture and fishery, are represented in our sample, with the financial and insurance

sector being the most represented (28,8% of respondents), followed by professional,

scientific and technical services (14,1%) and retail (11,8%).

106

4.1.7 Evaluating the items

Prior to the analysis of the data, we checked for missing data and possible outliers.

Missing data

We indicated to our respondents that only completed questionnaires would be used for our

research, and that they could stop responding at any time, in which case their data would

not be used. Accordingly, we simply deleted incomplete questionnaire from our data base.

Moreover, we had set the online questionnaire to require respondents to answer all

questions and items relating to the ethical theories and organizational practices (sections 2

and 3), in order to go to the next page. As a result, we retained a total of 441 completed

questionnaires, with no missing data.

Outliers

The 90 items relating to ethical theories were measured by a five-point Likert scale, ranging

from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Since the possible answers where set to

this five-point scale, an outlier would be a case where the value on an item would be

beyond the range of the scale, indicating a coding error. As expected, a frequency check for

all the items revealed a maximum of 5 and a minimum of 1, indicating no outliers.

Normality and linearity

Most statistical methods are based on assumptions of normality and linearity of data.

Although several statistical tests are robust to violation of these assumptions in the data, it

is preferable to use data with a normal distribution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). We

analyzed the histograms and linearity plots for all the 90 variables, as well as the skewness

and kurtosis indicators. All variables except four presented acceptable normal distribution.

While Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommend to transform non normal variables, namely

by taking the square root or the natural log of the values, we decided against transforming

them because it would infer with our ability to interpret the data (comparing the values on

107

the 1 to 5 scale with square roots or log would be meaningless). Considering the small

number of items that violated the assumption of normality, we included all the items for the

factor analysis.

Factor analysis and multidimensional scaling

To determine what items to retain for the scale, we conducted exploratory factor analysis,

and multidimensional scaling. Factor analysis is useful to identify the underlying structure

of the correlations between the variables, in order to reduce a large number of variables to a

few dimensions- or factors- that are more easily interpretable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &

Black, 1998). In this case, we want to reduce the 90 items of the questionnaire to a smaller

number of ethical perspectives (factors) that reflect what these items have in common.

As an independent method to group the variables into smaller groups, we also use

multidimensional scaling. Multidimensional scaling is a perceptual mapping technique,

based on the respondents’ perception of similarities and dissimilarities between the items

(Hair et al., 1998). The similarities between items are represented in terms of smaller

distances on the perceptual map representing multidimensional space. Like factor analysis,

the nature of the dimensions is to be interpreted by the researcher. The comparison of

results obtained by these two methods help us evaluate the robustness of the solution, by

way of convergent validity.

Reliability

We estimated the reliability of the scale by calculating the Cronbach alpha of each factor.

Cronbach alpha measures the internal consistency of the scale, or the extent that its items

are highly correlated together. Highly correlated items indicate that the items are measuring

the same concept (latent variable). In our case, we are constructing a multidimensional

scale, or a family of related scales, each measuring a different ethical perspective. Each

factor, reflecting an ethical perspective, is therefore a scale in its own right, for which a

Cronbach alpha is computed. Computing alpha separates the proportion of variance across

108

individuals that is caused by the latent variable, or “true measure”, and the proportion that

is caused by other causes, referred to as “error” or “noise”. The alpha is the proportion of

variance that is caused by the latent variable, while 1-alpha is the proportion of variance

that is caused by error or noise. For established scales, Nunnally (1976) recommends a

minimal threshold of 0,7 as an acceptable alpha. However, for the first stages of scale

development, as is the case with this thesis, Nunnally lowers this threshold to an alpha

between 0,5 and 0,6 (Nunnally, 1967, p. 226).

Criterion validity

We also explored the validity of the scale that we retained by conducting criterion validity

tests on some variables for which there is theoretical ground to predict a difference on the

ethical perspectives between groups of respondents. We make hypothesis regarding the

existence of between-groups difference based on the type of organization for which the

respondents work, and the hierarchical position they occupy in the organization.

In order to establish if there exists a significant difference between the scores obtained by

different groups of respondents, we have conducted a multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA). When there are more than one dependent variables, as is our case since the

different ethical perspectives are the dependent variables, it is preferable to perform a

MANOVA rather than conduct a series of ANOVAs in order to reduce the risk of

performing a type I error (Field, 2000, p. 376). Performing a MANOVA permits to verify if

there is any significant difference between the independent variables and all the dependent

variables in only one test, thus keeping the Type 1 error probability to 5%. If a significant

difference is noted, then it is warranted to conduct post-hoc tests, to investigate which

relationships present a significant difference.

109

Impact of the type of organization

Many authors suggest that cooperatives are a unique form of enterprises, possessing a

different ethical view on business. Indeed, cooperatives are often presented as a “third

way”, or the “third segment”, in opposition with socialist state intervention in the economy

and the neoliberal free market economy (Etzioni, 2000; Haugh & Kitson, 2007). It is not

uncommon to contrast the goals of cooperatives in opposition with the dominant neoliberal

economical philosophy. For example, Borgaza et al. (2011) argue that the mainstream

economic assumptions, derived from neoliberal economic theory, are inadequate to

describe the logics of cooperatives.

Our sample is composed of a substantial number of respondents who work in cooperatives

or mutuals (N=66), which is sufficient to conduct multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) to detect if there is a significant difference in preferences in ethical

perspectives based on the type of organization for which the respondents work

(cooperative, public or private organization). This hypothesis is stated such as :

H0 : Scores on ethical perspectives COOP = Scores on ethical perspectives PUBLIC = Scores

on ethical perspectives PRIVATE

H1 : Scores on ethical perspectives COOP ≠ Scores on ethical perspectives PUBLIC

Scores on ethical perspectives COOP ≠ Scores on ethical perspectives PRIVATE

Impact of the hierarchical position in the organization

Furthermore, as we have noted in the introduction, Chester Barnard (1938) claims that

‘moral creativeness’ is the most important distinction between the tasks of executives and

lower ranks positions, since it befalls on executives and higher management to make non

routine decisions, where ethical implications must be evaluated and resolved. These non

routine decisions must reflect a coherent ethical orientation to the organization, in order to

guide and inspire the organizations members. As a result, we would expect executives to

develop strong ethical orientations, reflecting stronger opinions than the regular office

110

staff. We therefore performed a MANOVA, as a criterion validity test, to see if we can

detect a significant difference in the ethical perspectives preferences according to the

hierarchical position of the respondents in their organization (executives vs. office staff).

The hypothesis related to this are:

H0: Scores on ethical perspectives EXECUTIVES = Scores on ethical perspectives OFFICE STAFF

H1: Scores on ethical perspectives EXECUTIVES ≠ Scores on ethical perspectives OFFICE STAFF

Cluster Analysis

The purpose of constructing this scale is to provide a tool for managers and workers in

organization to better communicate and understand each other regarding their ways of

perceiving and acting upon ethical matters. In this respect, it is useful to provide the user

with an ethical profile. This ethical profile should not only provide users with information

about their scores on each ethical perspective, but also, and perhaps more importantly, how

their combination of scores on the ethical perspectives compares to others respondents.

Cluster analysis is a method that provides the means to compare these different

combinations of ethical perspectives within the tested population, by reducing the entire

sample of respondents into a small number of ‘segments’, represented by respondents who

gravitate around distinct cluster centers. Indeed, cluster analysis is a method that allows

for the production of profiles through the development of taxonomies, or groups suggested

by empirical data, and typologies, or groups derived from theoretical grounds (Hair et al.,

1998, p. 473-474). However, as Hair et al. (1998) warn, exploratory cluster analysis “can

be characterized as descriptive, atheoretical and inferential” (Hair et al., 1998, p. 474) since

it provides no statistical basis for inferring results of a sample to a population. Furthermore,

it befalls on the researcher’s judgment to identify the optimal cluster solution. For these

reasons, Hair et al. (1998, p. 501) strongly recommend to test the retained cluster solution

with other samples, or to establish some form of predictive or criterion validity.

111

We therefore conducted exploratory cluster analysis, and provide a cluster solution which

can be used as a theoretical basis to future research. We validated the retained solution with

the same hypothesis for criterion validity as we did with the MANOVA, concerning the

impact of the type of organization where the respondents work, and the hierarchical

position of the respondents in the organization, on their cluster membership. Being a

separate method, the cluster solution also acts as a form of convergent validity test with the

MANOVA. The hypotheses for criterion validity on the type of organization are stated as

follows :

H0 : Cluster membership COOP = Cluster membership PUBLIC = Cluster membership

PRIVATE

H1 : Cluster membership COOP ≠ Cluster membership PUBLIC

H2: Cluster membership COOP ≠ Cluster membership PRIVATE

The hypotheses for criterion validity on the function of the respondents within the

organization are stated as follows :

H0: Cluster membership EXECUTIVES = Cluster membership OFFICE STAFF

H1: Cluster membership EXECUTIVES ≠ Cluster membership OFFICE STAFF

4.1.8 Optimizing scale length

This thesis focuses on the first stage of scale development. At this stage, we first aim to

explore the explanatory power of the theoretical framework presented in Chapter 3 to

identify ethical perspectives that are possibly silenced in existing scales. In a future

research, this scale development process is to be continued by using the results from this

112

thesis to guide hypotheses about the ethical perspectives that are measured. In order to

improve some of the factors internal reliability coefficient, some items will need to be

reviewed and others might be added. This will serve to optimize scale length while

conserving maximum discriminating power. Parsimony while retaining the interpretability,

reliability and validity are the main criteria to determine the adequate number of items to

retain in the final solution (DeVillis, 2003). Since it is not within the scope of this thesis to

construct a refined version of the scale, we only make recommendations about which

perspectives will need to be refined with added or reworded items.

4.2 Ethical considerations

For the collection of the data, we proceeded in a manner that ensures the anonymity and

confidentiality of respondents. The managers of the organizations which agreed to

participate in this survey were required to sign consent forms. The consent form indicates

management’s authorization for the collection of data in their organization for this research

project and the ethical procedures to ensure the protection of the respondents.

The invitation to participate in this survey was sent by the organizations to all their

employees. The invitation letter informed the respondents that participation is not

mandatory and that they may stop answering at any time, in which case their data will not

be used in the study. Moreover, it explained that the participation of respondents is

anonymous and the confidentiality of the data is guaranteed. The only people who have

access to the data are the members of the research team (thesis supervisor, the Ph.D.

candidate, and a fellow Ph.D. candidate who is using the same data). Only the aggregated

results of the survey will be made public.

An organization was able to obtain the aggregated results of its employees only when the

number of respondents was higher than 30, in order to ensure that the participants could not

be identified based on their answers. Two organizations asked to have aggregated results

113

for groups of less than 30 employees. In these particular cases, the employees who were

invited to participate in the research were informed by the researcher that their results

would be aggregated within a small group with less than 30 participants and made available

to their company. Those that agreed to participate were required to sign a free and

informed consent form prior to participating in the survey.

Since the questionnaire required an important investment of time on the part of the

respondents, we offered them the opportunity to receive their “ethical profile”, informing

them of their most preferred ethical theories and the ones they most dislike. In order for the

respondents to obtain their profile while ensuring their anonymity, they were be asked to

create a personal code and a password. This code and password served to identify their

ethical profile, which they were able to later retrieve from a secured website.

Chapter 5: Results

In this chapter, we begin by presenting some preliminary results obtained from the

questionnaire, and follow with a presentation of the results of the exploratory factor

analysis and the multidimensional scaling analysis used for developing the Polyphonic

Ethics Scale. Next, we present the results of the internal validity and reliability, as well as

criterion validity tests for the scale. We conclude this chapter by presenting some

exploratory results where the scale is used for empirical research on organizational ethics,

and to develop a practical tool providing ethical profiles.

5.1 Preliminary results

In Table XVI, we present the average score of the degree of agreement or disagreement of

the respondents with the 30 ethical theories we selected. As mentioned in the previous

chapter, each ethical theory was represented by three statements (fact, ethical prescription,

ethical ideal), and these statements were measured by a question asking the respondents to

indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1

indicating complete disagreement and 5 indicating complete agreement. The score for each

ethical theory was computed by summing the scores for the three statements representing

the theory, generating a maximum score of 15 and a minimum score of 3.

We see that the top five theories the respondents from our sample mostly agreed with are 1)

Human Rights (represented by Eleanor’s Roosevelt’s work), 2) Sustainable development

(Gro Harlem Brundtland), 3) Stakeholders ethics (Edward Freeman), 4) Moral development

(Lawrence Kohlberg), and 5) Ubuntu ethics (Wangari Maathaï).

116

Table XVI. Ranking of the ethical theories by average score

Rank Ethical theories

Minimum

Score

Maximum

score

Mean

score* Std. Deviation

1 Roosevelt- Human rights 6,00 15,00 13,42 1,82

2 Brundtland- Sustainable development 7,00 15,00 12,73 1,75

3 Freeman- Stakeholders ethics 5,00 15,00 12,38 1,85

4 Kohlberg- Moral development 6,00 15,00 11,99 1,81

5 Maathai- Ubuntu ethics 3,00 15,00 11,83 2,07

6 Confucius- Mutual moral obligations 4,00 15,00 11,59 2,08

7 Tagore- World citizen ethics 5,00 15,00 11,43 2,01

8 Smith- Evolutionary ethics 4,00 15,00 11,41 1,60

9 Sen- Capability approach 5,00 15,00 11,40 1,70

10 Habermas- Ethics of discussion 4,00 15,00 11,33 1,93

11 Van der Hoff- Fair trade ethics 4,00 15,00 11,13 1,98

12 Aristotle- Virtue ethics 5,00 15,00 11,08 1,72

13 Rawls- Distributive justice 3,00 15,00 11,00 2,18

14 Rochdale Society- Cooperative ethics 4,00 15,00 10,95 2,03

15 Carroll- Corporate social responsibility 3,00 15,00 10,71 2,03

16 Durkheim- Social norms 5,00 15,00 10,63 2,01

17 de Beauvoir- Existential ethics 3,00 15,00 10,61 2,42

18 Gilligan- Ethics of Care 3,00 15,00 10,45 2,13

19 Kant- Personal deontology 3,00 15,00 10,18 2,43

20 Plato- The True, the Good, the Beautiful 3,00 15,00 10,00 1,96

21 Mill- Utilitarianism 3,00 15,00 9,76 2,29

22 Marx- Egalitarianism 3,00 14,00 8,56 2,07

23 Ford- Paternalistic ethics 3,00 15,00 8,45 2,35

24 Lao-Tzu- The natural way 3,00 15,00 8,39 2,17

25 Bentham- Legalistic ethics 3,00 14,00 7,28 2,50

26 Hobbes- Survival ethics 3,00 13,00 6,98 2,08

27 Kung- Ecumenistic ethics 3,00 15,00 6,95 1,98

28 Machiavelli- Political realism 3,00 13,00 6,51 2,39

29 Friedman- Neoliberal ethics 3,00 15,00 6,03 2,22

30 Rand- Ethical egoism 3,00 13,00 5,36 1,91

Average 3,83 14,73 10,02 2,05

N= 441

*Ethical theories scores are the added scores of three items (fact, prescription, ideal) rated with the following scale:

1= I completely disagree 2= I mostly disagree 3= I do not agree nor disagree 4= I mostly agree 5= I completely

agree

117

On the other hand, our sample of respondents most disagree with the following five ethical

theories: 1) Ethical egoism (represented by the work of Ayn Rand), 2) Neoliberal ethics

(Milton Friedman), 3) Political realism (Nicollo Machiavelli), 4) Religious ecumenism

(Hans Küng), and 5) Survival ethics (Thomas Hobbes).

The average score for degree of agreement with an ethical theory is 10,02, which is

reasonably close to the neutral point of the scale, which would be a score of 9,00. The

average standard deviation is 2,05.

However these results are based on conceptual representations of the ethical theories. It is

important to remember that the respondents may not perceive the ethical theories as we

have theoretically defined them. The purpose of this research is to identify the structure of

the ethical perspectives of the respondents, by analysing the patterns of relationships

between the statements as perceived by the respondents. These patterns of relationships

may or may not coincide with pure ethical theories. We now present the exploratory factor

analysis results.

5.2 Exploratory factor analysis results

Principal component analysis, using varimax rotation, was conducted with all the 90 items,

using SPSS 19.0. The original solution indicated 29 factors with eigenvalues over 1. As

recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), we analyzed the scree plot for breaks in

eigenvalues, and identified a drop in eigenvalue after the 13th factor. We constrained the

factor analysis to 13 factors and deleted items with loadings under 0,4 in successive

iterations. In these successive iterations, we also deleted solitary items that loaded on

distinct factors, as well as items that strongly cross loaded on two factors. Finally, we

retained 25 items that load on five factors, without constraints. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

measure of sampling adequacy was a very good 0.826, indicating there is enough

correlation between the variables for a Principal component analysis to be successfully

118

conducted (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Table XVI presents the eigenvalue for this 25

items solution and Table XVII present the five factors principal component solution.

Table XVII. Eigenvalue of the 25 items

Component Initial eigenvalues

1 4,077

2 3,566

3 1,557

4 1,279

5 1,160

6 0,966

7 0,946

8 0,902

9 0,861

10 0,800

11 0,789

12 0,763

13 0,735

14 0,685

15 0,671

16 0,633

17 0,619

18 0,600

19 0,573

20 0,548

21 0,490

22 0,476

23 0,454

24 0,430

25 0,420

119

Table XVIII. Five factors EFA solution (principal components extraction with varimax rotation)

Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Cronbach alpha .719 .716 .665 .594 .618

1. It is essential that customers become more aware of how they can consume responsibly in ways that are fair for small producers who have little

power.

.694

2. An action is ethical when it favours harmony in the social, ecological and spiritual realms. .633

3. In order to become world citizens, children must be provided artistic and multicultural education at a very early age. .626

4. Openness to different cultures and to art stimulates feelings of sympathy and of mutual aid throughout the world. .574

5. Respect of the natural and spiritual forces of the world is essential for ethical communities. .567

6. Organizations must invest significantly in the transformation of their activities to minimize their environmental impact. .544

7. To be ethical, an organization must be based on cooperation. .699

8. To be ethical consists of preserving one’s freedom and that of others by fighting oppression. .649

9. Every ethical decision requires one to be empathetic with regard to how other people are experiencing a given situation. .638

10. An ethical organization or society seeks to maximize the interests of the poorest. .577

11. To be ethical, the well-being of the greatest number of people must be maximized. .527

12. Members of an organization should own a part of its capital, elect its leaders and have a sense of solidarity to one another. .504

13. Thanks to the ‘’invisible hand’’ of the market, any activity that benefits the interest of one individual will also be beneficial to the common

interest.

.688

14. It is possible to discourage all forms of behaviour that are detrimental to others through the use of legal sanctions. .653

15. Laws, codes and rules are the only means of ensuring the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. .644

16. Only a market that is free from all state intervention gives everyone a chance to increase their wealth. .519

17. To be ethical, one has only to follow the laws and the deontological rules of one’s profession or organization. .466

18. Ethical judgment requires rational thinking that is not biased by emotions. .661

19. One can objectively calculate the positive and negative consequences of any policy. .621

20. Rational principles must be followed in order to guarantee the absolute respect of each human being, regardless of the circumstances. .607

21. In order for a decision to be ethical, it must be made by people who set aside their personal interests. .579

22. Ethical considerations are often a utopian fantasy in a world that is characterized by merciless competition. .733

23. All possible means must be used to protect and ensure the long term survival of an organization. .686

24. The only responsibility of an organization is to maximize the interests of its investors while respecting the rules of the game. .464 .533

25. The maximization of one’s own interests is the only possible way for each person to be able to survive and realize his/her projects. .433 .485

120

We present the descriptive statistics obtained for each of the ethical perspectives in Table

XIX. The means, median and modes are relatively similar.

Table XIX. Descriptive statistics of the five factors solution

F1

Ecosocial

Harmony

F2

Cooperative

Egalitarianism

F3

Neoliberal Law

and Order

F4

Scientific

Rationalism

F5

Machiavellian

Cynicism

N 441 441 441 441 441

Mean 3,98 3,43 2,28 3,31 2,04

Median 4,00 3,50 2,20 3,25 2,00

Mode 4,17 3,50 2,20 3,00 2,00

Minimum 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

Maximum 5,00 5,00 4,20 5,00 4,50

Std. Deviation 0,58 0,70 0,72 0,75 0,73

Furthermore, we verified the histograms of the distribution frequency for the five factors,

which was satisfactory, with no noticeable departure from normality.

5.3 Reliability

Cronbach alpha is a measure of the internal consistency of scales. As presented in table

XVII, the internal consistency coefficients ranges from a high of 0.719 for Factor 1-

Ecosocial Harmony, to a low of 0.594 for Factor 4- Rational Objectivity. This is well

within the 0.5 to 0.6 standard of acceptability suggested for early stages of scale

development (Nunnally, 1967, p. 226). We note that Factor 1- Ecosocial Harmony and

Factor 2- Cooperative Egalitarianism present Cronbach alphas over 0.7, which is the

minimum threshold suggested by Nunnally for established scales. In the next stage of scale

development, further refinements of the scale may be reached by including additional items

121

for Factors 3 through 5, and aim to attain a minimum coefficient of internal consistency of

0.7 for all five factors.

5.4 Interpretation of the factors

Albeit different statistical tests are important to estimate a scale’s validity and reliability,

the most important validity criteria is the interpretability of the factors and their meaning

relating to the conceptual theories. We now present our interpretation of the ethical

perspectives reflected by the five factors.

Table XX. Factor 1- Ecosocial Harmony

Items Ethical theories Type of

statement

(Toulmin)

It is essential that customers become more aware of how they can consume

responsibly in ways that are fair for small producers who have little power.

Fair trade ethics

(Van der Hoff

and UCIRI)

Ethical ideal

An action is ethical when it favours harmony in the social, ecological and

spiritual realms.

Ubuntu ethics

(Maathaï)

Ethical

prescription

In order to become world citizens, children must be provided artistic and

multicultural education at a very early age.

World Citizen

ethics (Tagore)

Ethical

prescription

Openness to different cultures and to art stimulates feelings of sympathy and of

mutual aid throughout the world.

World Citizen

ethics (Tagore)

Perception of

reality

Respect of the natural and spiritual forces of the world is essential for ethical

communities.

Ubuntu ethics

(Maathaï)

Ethical ideal

Organizations must invest significantly in the transformation of their activities to

minimize their environmental impact.

Sustainable

Development

(Brundtland)

Ethical

prescription

The ‘Ecosocial Harmony’ ethical perspective combines ideas found in Ubuntu ethics

(Wangari Maathaï), with the World citizen ethics (Rabinadrath Tagore), Fair trade ethics

(Fran Van der Hoff and the members of the Mexican co-operative peasant association

called Union de communidades indigenas de la region del Istmu), as well as Sustainable

Development (Gro Harlem Brundtland). The convergence of these ethical theories makes

sense from a pluralistic point of view.

122

This ethical perspective clearly represents non-occidental ethical traditions, whose presence

is silenced in other scales, which are bases only on classical moral philosophy. Indeed,

Wangari Maathaï brings a Kenyan perspective, expressing the African ethical tradition of

Ubuntu, Rabinadrath Tagore is renowned Indian poet, versed in the artistry of the Veda and

Upanishad traditions, while Fran Van der Hoff idea od fair trade expresses the traditional

beliefs of the indigenous farmers from the Istmu region in Mexico, who formed the Union

de communidades indigenas de la region del Istmu cooperative. Lastly, although

European, Gro Harlem Brundtland’s view of sustainable development is global, with

particular attention to include all humanity, especially the participation and ideas of the

less powerful groups of the international community, in all the works of the UN

Commission on the Environment and Development, which lasted from 1984 to 1987.

The ‘Ecosocial Harmony’ perspective considers the natural environment to have deeper

meaning and value than the economic resources it provides. It reflects a strong sense of

belonging to a community, perceived as composed not only of the living members, but

including also the ancestors and the elements of nature from the physical environment in

which the community members are rooted. People are viewed firstly as members of

humanity, while at the same time this holistic identity recognizes communities as having

deep connexion to a particular culture and territory.

Table XXI. Factor 2 – Cooperative Egalitarianism

Items Ethical theories Type of

statement

(Toulmin)

To be ethical, an organization must be based on cooperation.

Cooperative ethics

(Rochdale Pioneers)

Ethical ideal

To be ethical consists of preserving one’s freedom and that of others by

fighting oppression.

Existentialism (de

Beauvoir)

Ethical ideal

Every ethical decision requires one to be empathetic with regard to how

other people are experiencing a given situation. Ethics of Care (Gilligan)

Ethical

prescription

An ethical organization or society seeks to maximize the interests of the

poorest.

Distributive justice

(Rawls)

Ethical ideal

To be ethical, the well-being of the greatest number of people must be

maximized. Utilitarianism (Mill)

Ethical ideal

Members of an organization should own a part of its capital, elect its leaders

and have a sense of solidarity to one another. Cooperative ethics

(Rochdale Pioneers)

Ethical

prescription

123

The ‘Cooperative Egalitarianism’ ethical perspective combines beliefs found in co-

operative ethics (Rochdale Pioneers), existentialist ethics (Simone de Beauvoir), ethics of

care (Carroll Gilligan), as well as some beliefs associated with distributive justice (John

Rawls), and the general utilitarian maxim of seeking the well-being of the greatest number

of people (John Stuart Mill).

This ethical perspective emphasizes equality and good life conditions for all in society. It

favours an attitude of personal responsibility and autonomy, at the individual and collective

level, where people are inclined to voluntarily help a person in need and believe they can

trust others to do the same for them.

Table XXII. Factor 3 – Neoliberal Law and Order

Items Ethical theories Type of

statement

(Toulmin)

Thanks to the ‘’invisible hand’’ of the market, any activity that benefits the

interest of one individual will also be beneficial to the common interest.

Neoliberalism

(Friedman)

Perception

of reality

It is possible to discourage all forms of behaviour that are detrimental to

others through the use of legal sanctions.

Legalistic Deontology

(Bentham)

Perception

of reality

Laws, codes and rules are the only means of ensuring the greatest amount of

good for the greatest number of people.

Legalistic Deontology

(Bentham)

Ethical ideal

Only a market that is free from all state intervention gives everyone a chance

to increase their wealth.

Neoliberalism

(Friedman)

Ethical ideal

To be ethical, one has only to follow the laws and the deontological rules of

one’s profession or organization.

Legalistic Deontology

(Bentham)

Ethical

prescription

The ‘Neoliberal Law and Order’ ethical perspective combines beliefs associated with

neoliberal free-market ethics (Milton Friedman), and a legalistic conception of ethics

(Jeremy Bentham).

This ethical perspective promotes economic liberalism, compliant with a laissez-faire

economy characterized by limited governmental intervention and social programs. At the

same time, this ethical perspective puts a strong emphasis on law and order, which is

coherent with the principle of protecting private ownership of property by the means of

minimal laws. These laws serve mainly to enforce the terms of contracts agreed upon by

124

free individuals. This perspective reflects a belief that laws, sanctions and controls are

necessary to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud.

Table XXIII. Factor 4 – Rational Objectivity

Items Ethical theories Type of

statement

(Toulmin)

Ethical judgment requires rational thinking that is not biased by emotions.

Personal Deontology

(Kant)

Perception

of reality

One can objectively calculate the positive and negative consequences of any

policy. Utilitarianism (Mill)

Perception

of reality

Rational principles must be followed in order to guarantee the absolute

respect of each human being, regardless of the circumstances.

Personal Deontology

(Kant)

Ethical ideal

In order for a decision to be ethical, it must be made by people who set aside

their personal interests.

Distributive Justice

(Rawls)

Ethical

prescription

The ‘Rational Objectivity’ ethical perspective combines the beliefs of Immanuel Kant’s

theory on personal deontology, with ideas found in utilitarianism ( John Stuart Mill) and

distributive justice (John Rawls) concerning the importance of objectivity and impartiality

for ethical decision-making.

This ethical perspective puts a strong emphasis on intellectual and logical arguments.

Because objectivity and impartiality are considered the main characteristic of an ethical

decision, it seeks to evacuate subjectivity and favours universal solutions that may be

applied to all, in all contexts. Objective rules are felt to be necessary to restrict the

subjectivity of emotions, and people are encouraged to generally distrust their own

emotions, which are believed to be irrational and unreliable.

125

Table XXIV. Factor 5 - Machiavellian Cynicism

Items Ethical theories Type of

statement

(Toulmin)

Ethical considerations are often a utopian fantasy in a world that is

characterized by merciless competition.

Political Realism

(Machiavelli)

Perception

of reality

All possible means must be used to protect and ensure the long term survival

of an organization.

Political Realism

(Machiavelli)

Ethical ideal

The only responsibility of an organization is to maximize the interests of its

investors while respecting the rules of the game.

Neoliberalism

(Friedman)

Ethical

prescription

The maximization of one’s own interests is the only possible way for each

person to be able to survive and realize his/her projects. Ethical Egoism (Rand)

Ethical ideal

The Machiavellian Cynicism ethical perspective links ideas of Political realism promoted

by Niccolo Machiavelli, along neoliberalism (Milton Friedman) and ethical egoism (Ayn

Rand).

Two characteristics describe this ethical perspective. First, it values being resourceful and

proactive, in order to achieve one’s goals. Second, this perspective also holds a cynical

view of humans as moral agents: in this highly competitive world, one must not believe the

ethical discourse and not trust others to act morally, but assume they are only acting in their

own self-interest. In consequence, one must protect oneself and only rely on oneself in

order to survive.

The five factors suggested by the exploratory factor analysis all present a very coherent

content that is easily interpretable. These factors are distinct ethical perspectives, although

our factorial results indicate a moderate multicollinearity on two items between Factor 3-

Neoliberal Law and Order, and Factor 5- Machiavellian Cynicism. On a theoretical basis,

these two factors are indeed conceptually linked, as these two perspectives both relate to

underlying basic assumptions of Milton’s Friedman neoliberal theory. Moreover, the

Machiavellian Cynicism perspective reflects basic assumptions of Ayn Rand’s theory,

which Milton Friedman recognizes has greatly contributed to spread the ideas of free

markets on which he grounds his own neoliberal theory (Friedman, 1991).

126

5.5 Criterion validity

In chapter 4, we explained the grounds on which we developed two hypothesis for

evaluating criterion validity. The first hypothesis is about the impact of the type of

organization on respondents’ score on ethical perspectives. The second hypothesis is about

the impact of the function occupied by the respondents on the scores on ethical

perspectives. Based on the literature, we made the following hypothesis:

H1: Scores on ethical perspectives COOP ≠ Scores on ethical perspectives PUBLIC

H2: Scores on ethical perspectives COOP ≠ Scores on ethical perspectives PRIVATE

H3: Scores on ethical perspectives EXECUTIVES ≠ Scores on ethical perspectives OFFICE STAFF

We first present the results of the MANOVA with “Type of organization” as the

independent variable, where we compared respondents working in private, public, and

cooperative organizations. This is followed by the MANOVA results with ‘Hierarchical

position’ as the independent variable, where we compare executives with office and

administrative staff.

5.5.1 MANOVA by type of organization

In our sample, 66 respondents work in cooperatives and mutuals, 98 respondents work in

public (government) organizations, and 168 work in private organizations. For the

following analysis, we retained all 66 respondents from cooperatives and mutuals, and

selected a random sample of 66 respondents from public and private organizations,

respectively, in order to compare an equal number of respondents from the three types of

organization. This precaution increases robustness to departure from the normality and

equality of variance assumptions in MANOVA (Hair et al. 1998). Indeed, MANOVA

operate on assumptions of normal distribution of the samples of each group, and equality of

127

variance between the samples. Table XXV presents the mean factor score for each type of

organization. The MANOVA will enable us to determine if the difference between the

mean scores of the respondents working in private, public and cooperative organizations is

significant.

Table XXV. Mean factor score by type of organization

Type of organization

Private

N=66

Public

N=66

Cooperatives

and mutuals

N=66

FI Ecosocial harmony 3,84 3,90 4,26

F2 Cooperative Egalitarianism 3,27 3,33 3,80

F3 Neoliberal Law and Order 2,30 2,42 2,23

F4 Scientific Rationalism 3,15 3,34 3,36

F5 Machiavellian Cynicism 2,00 2,25 1,88

As a first step, we verified the normality and equality of variance assumptions of our

samples. We conducted the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of evaluation of normality

assumptions, which suggested that normality of distribution is violated for several samples

(p 0,05, indicating significant difference from normal distribution). The results of the

Levene test of assumption of equality of variance suggested the assumption of equality of

variance is not violated. However, since the samples are composed of the same number of

respondents, these departures from the assumptions of normality and equality of variance

have less impact for the reliability of the MANOVA results.

For the actual MANOVA, we used the Wilks Lambda multivariate test to evaluate

multivariate differences in the means scores for the five different ethical perspectives

(F=4,391; df = 10; p < 0,05). These results indicate that there is a significant between

groups difference in at least one of the factor scores, justifying a further analysis to evaluate

which factor scores present significant between groups differences. Table XXVI presents

the impact of the type of organization on the scores on each ethical perspective.

128

Table XXVI. Impact of type of organization on ethical perspectives

Wilks Lambda multivariate test: F=4.391 df=10 p = 0.002

Independent variable Dependent Variable Type III Sum of

Squares Df F Sig.

Type of organization FI Ecosocial harmony 6,756 2 11,198 ,000

F2 Cooperative Egalitarianism 11,056 2 14,027 ,000

F3 Neoliberal Law and Order 1,309 2 1,192 ,306

F4 Scientific Rationalism 1,790 2 1,568 ,211

F5 Machiavellian Cynicism 4,812 2 5,668 ,004

These results suggest there are significant between groups differences on Factor 1-

Ecosocial harmony, Factor 2- Cooperative Egalitarianism and Factor 3- Machiavellian

Cynicism (p < 0,05). A post hoc analysis was conducted in order to compare the scores

obtained by each type of organizations on the ethical perspectives. In cases such as this

where a normality or equality of variance assumption is violated, it is recommended to use

stricter tests such as the Scheffe test, for post hoc analysis (Hair et al., 1998). Compared to

other post-hoc tests, the results obtained by the Scheffe test are more conservative in

detecting significant differences between groups, making it less prone to Type 1 errors

(Hair et al., 1998). The results of the post-hoc analyses are presented in Table XXVII.

Table XXVII. Post hoc analysis of the impact of the type of organization (Scheffe test)

Dependent Variable Type of

organization (A)

Type of

organization (B)

Mean Difference

(A-B) Sig.

F1 Ecosocial Harmony Cooperatives and

mutuals

Private 0,42 0,000

Public 0,36 0,001

F2 Cooperative Egalitarianism Cooperatives and

mutuals

Private 0,53 0,000

Public 0,47 0,000

F3 Neoliberal law and order Cooperatives and

mutuals

Private -0,07 0,853

Public -0,20 0,314

F4 Scientific Rationalism Cooperatives and

mutuals

Private 0,21 0,275

Public 0,02 0,985

F5 Machiavellian Cynicism Cooperatives and

mutuals

Private -0,13 0,546

Public -0,38 0,005

129

We observe that respondents working in cooperatives score significantly higher, on

average, on the Ecosocial Harmony and on the Cooperative Egalitarianism ethical

perspectives than respondents working in either private or public organizations (p < 0,05).

We also note that respondents working in cooperatives score significantly lower, on

average, on the Machiavellian Cynicism ethical perspective than respondents working in

public organizations ( p < 0,05).

We thus reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is ground to support a significant

difference between the ethical perspectives of workers in cooperatives compared to workers

from both private and public organizations.

5.5.2 MANOVA by hierarchical position in the organization

Our sample is composed of 47 executives and 47 office and administrative personnel. We

have seen that some scholars, such as Chester Barnard, consider ethical decision-making to

be a central function of executives, since non routine decisions are referred to them, while

lower ranks workers follow established guidelines for their routine decisions. This involves

that executives need to exercice ethical judgment in their decision-making often, while

office and administrative staff have less opportunity to do so in their work. We expect that

executives will have stronger opinions about the ethical perspectives, while lower ranks

workers, involved in routine work, will present more neutral positions. Table XXVIII

presents the mean score for each ethical perspective for executives and office staff. The

MANOVA will enable us to establish if these differences are statistically significant.

130

Table XXVIII. Mean score on ethical perspectives by hierarchical position

Executives

Office and administrative

personnel

F1 Ecosocial Harmony 4,03 4,16

F2 Cooperative Egalitarianism 3,34 3,63

F3 Neoliberal law and Order 1,94 2,68

F4 Scientific Rationalism 3,23 3,39

F5 Machiavellian Cynicism 1,69 2,23

As a first step, we verified if the assumptions of normality and equality of variance between

the samples are respected. We conducted the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of evaluation of

normality assumptions, which suggested that normality of distribution is violated for

several samples ( p 0,05, indicating significant difference from normal distribution, see

Appendix 6). The Levene test of assumption of equality of variance suggests the

assumption of equality of variance is violated in the two samples responses regarding the

Cooperative Egalitarianism perspective. However, since the two samples are composed of

the same number of respondents, these departures from the assumptions of normality and

equality of variance have less impact for the reliability of the MANOVA results. Moreover,

since we compare only two groups, there is no need to do post-hoc analyses of the

MANOVA.

We used the Wilks Lambda test to evaluate multivariate differences in the means scores for

the five different ethical perspectives. The Wilks Lambda multivariate test indicated that

there is a significant between groups difference in at least one of the factor scores (F=1335;

df = 5; p < 0,05). This justified a further analysis to evaluate which factor scores present

significant between groups differences. Table XXIX presents the impact of the hierarchical

position of the respondent on the scores on each ethical perspective.

131

Table XXIX. Impact of hierarchical position on ethical perspectives

Independent

variable

Dependent Variable Type III

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Function F1 Ecosocial Harmonyç ,383 1 ,383 1,150 ,286

F2 Cooperative Egalitarianism 1,891 1 1,891 3,678 ,058

F3 Neoliberal law and Order 12,736 1 12,736 27,767 ,000

F4 Scientific Rationalism ,598 1 ,598 ,909 ,343

F5 Machiavellian Cynicism 6,783 1 6,783 14,060 ,000

These results suggest that there is significant difference between the scores of executives

and office and administrative personnel on the Neoliberal Law and Order ethical

perspective and on the Machiavellian Cynicism ethical perspective (p < .000). Executives,

on average, reject more strongly both the Neoliberal Law and Order and the Machiavellian

Cynicism ethical perspectives than office and administrative personnel.

We therefore reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is ground to support a significant

differences between executives opinion on the ethical perspectives, compared to lower

ranks employees.

5.6 Convergent validity

As a complementary method to factor analysis, we used multidimensional scaling to

identify the key dimensions underlying respondents’ evaluations of the ethical beliefs

presented in the statements. Multidimensional scaling, also known as perceptual mapping,

measures the similarities perceived by respondents between the different ethical statements

(Hair et al., 1998, p. 522). Items close together are perceived as similar by the respondents,

while items that are mapped farther apart in the multidimensional space are perceived as

more different by the respondents. Figure 4 presents the multidimensional scaling results of

the 25 items retained in the EFA solution. The numbers on the map correspond to the

numbers of the 25 items in the five factors EFA solution presented in Table XXVIII. Figure

5 presents the region occupied by each factor on the multidimensional map.

132

Figure 4. Multidimensional scaling of the 25 items (Euclidian distance)

2

25

1

3

4 6

7

8

9

11

10

12

13

14

15 17

18

19 20

21

22

23

24 5

16

Legend

Factor 1- Ecosocial harmony: items 1 to 6

Factor 2- Cooperative Egalitarianism: items 7 to 12

Factor 3- Neoliberal Law and Order: items 13 to 17

Factor 4- Rational Objectivity: items 18 to 21

Factor 5- Machiavellian Cynicism: items 22 to 25

133

Figure 5. Multidimensional scaling : regions occupied by the five factors EFA solution

Rational

Objectivity

Ecosocial harmony

Cooperative

Egalitarianism

Neoliberal Law

and Order

Machiavellian

Cynicism

Universal

Contextual

Individual Collective

134

We observe that each factor occupies a distinct territory in multidimensional space, which

suggests convergent validity with the factor analysis solution.

Multidimensional scaling requires the researcher to interpret the dimensions suggested by

the axis in the multidimensional space. We interpret the horizontal axis to represent the

individual / collective continuum, or whether the ethical perspective frame the actors as

autonomous individuals or as members of a community. We interpret the vertical axis to

represent the universal/ contextual continuum, or whether the ethical perspective suggests

general rules that apply in all situations or rather contextual judgments that vary to fit the

particular situation.

5.7 Exploring new research opportunities

A polyphonic ethics scale opens new opportunities for research in the field of business

ethics. One area of interest is the relationship between ethical perspectives and

organizational practices. Indeed, the ethical decision-making process model we presented

in Chapter 2 implies that ethical perspectives influence, with other factors, actual

behaviours. Furthermore, according to Schein’s theory on organizational culture,

identifying the organizational basic assumptions, rather than expressed values, is the surest

way to understand the organizational artefacts, such as organizational practices and actual

behaviours.

The third part of the questionnaire contained questions about 81 organizational practices to

foster ethics in organizations, which provided the data for another doctoral thesis

(Martineau, 2014). Although the following results are only preliminary, we nevertheless

want to give the reader a taste of the nature of some promising research made possible with

the PES.

In this segment of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to : “Indicate, based on your

experience and your personal opinion, what is the effect of each of the following practices

135

on the ethics of an organization.” The respondents were asked to rate the 81 ethical

practices on a five point Likert scale, anchored in 1= deteriorates, 2 = no effect, 3=

produces slight improvement , 4= produces moderate improvement, and 5= produces great

improvement. These 81 practices were selected from an exhaustive review of the literature,

and the respondents were given no definition of “ethics”, in order to let them rely on their

own intuitive conception of ethics. Table XXX presents the top five practices with the

highest correlation with each ethical perspective.

Table XXX. Correlation between ethical perspectives and ethical practices

Ethical perspectives Practices Correlation

Ecosocial Harmony Investing in research and development to create socially and environmentally

responsible products and services ,396**

Promoting sound environmental practices (ex.: recycling, water and energy

conservation, waste management, etc.) ,388**

Prioritizing the purchasing and commercialization of fair trade products ,372**

Providing social rehabilitation programs ,351**

Investing the organization's capital in Socially Responsible Investment funds

(SRI) ,327**

Cooperative

Egalitarianism Providing social rehabilitation programs ,358**

Investing the organization's capital in Socially Responsible Investment funds

(SRI) ,332**

Investing in research and development to create socially and environmentally

responsible products and services ,329**

Engaging the organization in community projects ,320**

Using the organization's influence to promote social and/or environmental causes

(corporate activism) ,317**

Neoliberal Law and

Order

Using the services of a public relations firm to improve the ethical image of the

organization ,326**

Using the services of a lawyer to defend the interests of the organization ,298**

Checking the criminal records of all employees at the time of hiring ,276**

Using the services of a security and information verification agency ,262**

Using the services of an invited speaker on ethics ,243**

Rational Objectivity Implementing a code of ethics or a deontological code ,304**

Integrating national or international laws or regulations in the code of ethics ,294**

Using the services of an invited speaker on ethics ,283**

Using the services of a public relations firm to improve the ethical image of the

organization ,275**

Implementing a statement of ethical values or ethical mission statement ,261**

Machiavellian Cynicism Hiring a private detective or working with police ,203**

Establishing a system for the anonymous reporting of misconduct (ex.:

anonymous reporting "hotline") ,197**

Developing incentive systems to reward ethical behaviour ,194**

Using the services of a lawyer to defend the interests of the organization ,194**

Adopting a program to protect whistleblowers ,166**

** : significant at p < 0.001

136

While the correlations between the perceived usefulness of ethical practices with ethical

perspectives are low to moderate, ranging from .166 to .396, they are all very significant (p

< 0.001). They also appear to be very coherent with the ethical perspectives to which they

relate.

Table XXX suggest people who agree with the Ecosocial ethical perspective also agree that

sustainable development practices and fair trade practices, such as “investing in research

and development to create socially and environmentally responsible products and services”,

“promoting sound environmental practices”, and “prioritizing the purchsing of fair trade

products”, are useful to encourage ethics in an organization.

Likewise, these results suggest that respondents who agree with the Cooperative

Egalitarianism ethical perspective find that community related practices, such as “providing

social rehabilitation programs”, and “engaging the organization in community projects”, or

“ investing in socially responsible investment funds” are useful ways to promote ethics in

an organization

Meanwhile, the correlations between the Neoliberal Law and Order ethical perspective are

coherent with legal and conformity oriented practices such as “using the services of a

lawyer to defend the interests of the organization”, and “checking the criminal records of

all employees at the time of hiring”. Similarly, the respondents agreeing with a

Machiavellian Cynicism ethical perspective also agree with more muscled approaches to

detect wrongdoings, such as “ hiring a private detective or working with the police”, or

“establishing a system for the anonymous reporting of misconduct”.

Finally, respondents who agree with the Rational Objectivity ethical perspective appear to

find value in a variety of types of ethical practices, from compliance measures, to

137

educational activities, and image related practices to protect the organization’s social

reputation.

5.8 Exploring practical applications

Psychometric tests are often used in organizations to produce profiles of individuals, in

order to facilitate the interpretation of results by comparing respondents’ scores with the

general population or different types of individuals. Since our theory implies that people

justify their ethical decisions not from one perspective only, but from a repertoire of ethical

perspectives that they consider valid, we have favoured cluster analysis as a means to

evaluate how people combine the ethical perspectives. Cluster analysis is very useful way

to produce profiles of respondents and empirical taxonomies (Hair et al, 1998).

The following exploratory cluster analysis was obtained with SPSS Quick cluster, a K-

means clustering method using random seed points. The solution we present is intended to

serve as a basis for further studies, in which this solution can serve as initial seed points.

In this case, we selected a four clusters solution over a three or five clusters solution to

optimize distance between clusters centers (Hair et al., 1998). The distance between

clusters is higher in the four clusters solution compared to a three clusters solution, while a

five clusters solution produces shorter distances between two clusters and does not increase

interpretability. Table XXXI present the average scores for the four clusters solution that

we obtained, while Figure 5 illustrate these scores in a graphical representation. Table

XXXII presents the distance between the cluster centers.

138

Table XXXI. Cluster centers of the four clusters solution

Cluster

1

Neutral

2

Reject

Rationalism

3

Reject

Coop

4

Everything but

Neoliberal

Machiavelism

Mean for

Total

sample

F1 Ecosocial Harmony 3,95 4,00 3,45 4,42 3,98

F2 Cooperative Egalitarianism 3,56 3,24 2,74 4,02 3,43

F3 Neoliberal law and Order 2,91 1,66 2,27 2,17 2,28

F4 Rational Objectivity 3,57 2,38 3,40 3,73 3,31

F5 Machiavellian Cynicism 2,86 1,57 1,93 1,70 2,04

Number of cases in each cluster 120 98 102 121 441

Figure 5. Cluster centers of the four clusters solution

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Cluster 1 Neutral

Cluster 2 Reject Rationalism

Cluster 3 Reject Coop

Cluster 4 Everything but Neoliberal Machiavelism

139

Table XXXII. Euclidian distance between cluster centers

Cluster

1

Neutral

2

Reject

Rationalism

3

Reject

Coop

4

Everything but

Neoliberal

Machiavelism

1 2,178 1,495 1,526

2 2,178 1,447 1,695

3 1,495 1,447 1,659

4 1,526 1,695 1,659

Table XXX shows the number of cases in each cluster is similar, ranging from 98 to 121

respondents per cluster, which is indicative of a good solution (Hair et al., 1998). The

Euclidian distance indicates that the most different clusters are clusters 1 and 2, while the

least different are clusters 2 and 3.

To interpret the clusters, we followed Hair et al.’s (1998) recommendation to focus on the

most salient similarities and differences between clusters. We observe that cluster 1,

compared to all other clusters, present significantly higher scores for Neoliberal Law and

Order perspective and for the Machiavellian Cynicism perspective. In fact, all other clusters

strongly reject these two perspectives. Moreover, all scores, except for Ecosocial

Harmony, tend towards the value 3, which is the neutral point of the Likert scale we used in

the questionnaire, corresponding to “neither agree nor disagree”. We named this cluster

“Neutral”. Cluster 2 strongly reject the Neoliberal Law and Order and Machiavellian

Cynicism perspectives (scores of 1,66 and 1,57 respectively), but also presents a

significantly lower score than the three other clusters for Rational objectivity (score: 2,38).

We therefore named cluster 2 “Reject Rationalism”. The distinctive feature of cluster 3

compared to the other clusters is that while it also rejects Neoliberal Law and Order and

Machiavellian Cynicism, it presents the lowest score for the Cooperative Egalitarianism

perspective (score of 2,74). We named this cluster “Reject Cooperative”. In cluster 4, we

find the highest scores of all the clusters for Ecosocial Harmony (score of 4,42),

Cooperative Egalitarianism (score of 4,02) and Rational Objectivity (score of 3,73). We

have labelled this cluster “Everything but Neoliberal Machiavelism”.

140

While clusters provide a useful tool for practice, in the form of ethical profiles of

respondents, this statistical method is known to be somewhat subjective, since ultimately,

the researcher’s judgment is required to select an optimal solution (Hair et al., 1998, p.

500). Hair et al. (1998) recommend to take great care in validating the cluster solution with

predictive or criterion validity tests, and ensure practical significance of the cluster results.

In order to validate this cluster solution, we have chosen to test it with the variables we

have used in the MANOVAs, for which we have already identified a significant difference

between groups.

We therefore evaluated the criterion validity of the cluster solution by searching for

significant differences in cluster membership based on the type of organization the

respondents worked for (private, public, or cooperatives and mutuals), and based on the

hierarchical position occupied by the respondents in their organization (executives or office

and administrative personnel). We expect to find the same significant differences between

these groups that we identified with the MANOVAs.

Table XXXIII presents the cluster membership by types of organization, while table

XXXIV present the cluster membership by function.

141

Table XXXIII. Cluster membership by type of organization

Cluster

Total

1 Neutral

2

Reject

Rationalism

3

Reject Coop

4 Everything but

Neoliberal

Machiavelism

Private

Count 49 38 42 39 168

Expected Count 50,6 32,9 41,0 43,5 168

% within private

organisation

29,2% 22,6% 25,0% 23,2% 100%

Std. Residual -,2 ,9 ,2 -,7

Public

Count 36 11 32 19 98

Expected Count 29,5 19,2 23,9 25,4 98

% within Public

organization

36,7% 11,2% 32,7% 19,4% 100%

Std. Residual 1,2 -1,9 1,7 -1,3

Cooperative or

mutual

Count 15 16 7 28 66

Expected Count 19,9 12,9 16,1 17,1 66

% within Cooperatives or mutuals

22,7% 24,2% 10,6% 42,4% 100%

Std. Residual -1,1 ,9 -2,3 2,6

Total N

Count 100 65 81 86 332

Expected Count 100,0 65,0 81,0 86,0 332

% of Total N 30,1% 19,6% 24,4% 25,9% 100%

The Chi-square test of independence indicates significant difference between groups (χ2

=

24,63, df=6; p = 0.000). Table XXVII shows two cells where the standard residuals for the

group of respondents working in cooperatives or mutuals are over 1.96 (p < 0,05),

indicating that respondents working in cooperatives and mutuals are significantly under

represented in cluster 3 and over represented in cluster 4. We therefore once more reject the

null hypothesis.

These results are coherent with the MANOVA results, as respondents from cooperatives

were found to be significantly more in agreement with the Cooperative Egalitarianism

142

ethical perspective, which is highest in cluster 4 and lowest in cluster 3. The results from

these two tests, obtained by two different methods, indicate a form of convergent validity,

which supports the four cluster solution.

Table XXXIV. Cluster membership by hierarchical position in the organization

Clusters

Total 1

Neutral

2 Reject

Rationalism

3

Reject Coop

4 Everything but

Neoliberal

Machiavelism

Executive

Count 6 15 12 14 47

Expected Count 13 9,5 10,5 14 47,0

% within Executives 12,8% 31,9% 25,5% 29,8% 100,0%

Std. Residual -1,9 1,8 ,5 ,0

Office and

administrative

personnel

Count 20 4 9 14 47

Expected Count 13 9,5 10,5 14 47,0

% within Office and

administrative personnel

42,6% 8,5% 19,1% 29,8% 100,0%

Std. Residual 1,9 -1,8 -,5 ,0

Total N

Count 26 19 21 28 94

Expected Count 26 19 21 28 94,0

% of Total N (441) 27,7% 20,2% 22,3% 29,8% 100,0%

The Chi-square test of independence for the impact of function on cluster membership

indicates significant difference between groups (χ2

= 14.34, df = 3; p = 0.002). Table

XXVII shows that standard residuals for executives is -1.9 for cluster 1, while it is +1.9 for

office and administrative personnel, which is very close to the 1.96 standard for p < 0.05.

Since this is a relatively small sample, the statistical power of the test is less. These results

suggest that executives are significantly under represented in cluster 1, while office and

administrative personnel are over represented in clusters 1. We therefore reject the null

hypothesis and conclude there is support to claim executives hold significantly different

opinions on the ethical perspectives compared to lower ranks employees.

143

These results are also coherent with the MANOVAs results, which suggested that office

and administrative personnel was significantly more in agreement (or less in disagreement)

with the neoliberal and Machiavellian ethical perspectives than executives. Cluster 1 is the

only cluster that does not strongly reject these two ethical perspectives, with average scores

close to neutral (3,00). Indeed, the Cluster 1 score is 2,91 for Neoliberal Law and Order,

and 2,86 for Machiavellian Cynicism. Furthermore, the under representation of executives

in cluster 1 suggests that executives are less prone to be neutral in their positions, which is

coherent with our hypothesis that executives have stronger ethical opinions. Hence, cluster

analysis provides us with relevant additional information that was not available with

MANOVA, underscoring that the actual combination of scores is relevant to discerning the

patterns of beliefs of respondents. This also supports our theory that people evaluate

ethical issues by using a repertoire of ethical perspectives that they consider valid, and that

their ethical judgment in deciding which action is the most ethical thing to do, depends on

how they combine the relative worth of these ethical perspectives. Once again, these

results support the validity of the four clusters solution for analysing the profiles of

respondents.

In this chapter, we have presented evidence, through statistical measures, that support the

relatively good reliability and strong validity of a five factors polyphonic ethics scale. This

scale evaluates five ethical perspectives, namely Ecosocial Harmony, Cooperative

Egalitarianism, Neoliberal Law and Order, Rational Objectivity, and Machiavellian

Cynicism. Moreover, we have glimpsed at some ways this scale opens research

opportunities as well as how it can be used in organizations. We choose to name this scale

the Polyphonic Ethics Scale (PES). In the following chapter, we further discuss the

contribution the PES brings to the field of business ethics compared to other ethics scales

and its practical applications in organizations.

144

Chapter 6 : Discussion

In the introduction to this thesis, we have claimed that the field of business ethics

needs to integrate a richer diversity of ethical perspectives in its measurement instruments

in order to understand the ethical decision-making process of managers. The objective of

this thesis was therefore to develop an ethics scale that recognizes the pluralistic nature of

our globalized world and incorporates a variety of ethical perspectives. Using a novel

methodological approach, we propose the Polyphonic Ethics Scale, which includes also

contemporary business ethics theories as well as feminine and non-Western ethical

traditions.

In this chapter, we discuss the psychometric properties of the Polyphonic Ethics Scale

(PES) and compare its advantages with the scales we have reviewed in Chapter 2. We

further discuss the theoretical and methodological developments suggested by this thesis

for conceptualizing and evaluating ethical perspectives in organizations. We conclude this

chapter by discussing the practical applications of the PES for research and for

organizations.

6.1 Psychometric properties of the PES

In order to create a validated polyphonic ethics scale, we followed standard scale

development procedures. We first set out to establish an initial item pool reflecting 30

diverse ethical theories, selecting from the most cited ethical theories in the business ethics

literature, including 1) Contemporary normative theories developed for business; 2) Ethical

theories developed or promoted by women; and 3) Ethical theories developed or promoted

by non-Western thinkers. These theories were rendered into item statements, in terms of

basic assumptions about reality, ethical prescriptions and ethical ideals, following the

Toulmion method. An online questionnaire comprising these 90 items was administered to

146

441 respondents working in various organizations in Quebec. We performed factor analysis

and multidimensional scaling analysis to interpret the independent ethical perspectives that

are distinguished. We observe that the factors do not represent unique ethical theories, but

rather regroup ethical theories that share compatible assumptions. Indeed, items of

different ethical theories loaded together. The interpretation of the factor analysis and

multidimensional scaling analysis results led us to suggests names for the ethical

perspectives identified in the five factors solutions. These perspectives are (1) Ecosocial

harmony, 2) Cooperative egalitarianism, (3) Neoliberal Law and Order, (4) Rational

Objectivity, and (5) Machiavellian Cynicism. We labelled our scale the Polyphonic Ethics

Scale (PES), referring to the scale’s ability to identify a plurality of voices, reflecting

different ethical traditions. We now discuss the psychometric properties of the PES,

respectively its reliability, as well as construct, criterion and convergent validity.

Reliability

The reliability of a scale is measured by its capacity to deliver the same results over

different trials. In the case of the PES, its reliability was measured by the internal

consistency of the scale, indicated by the Cronbach alpha. The Cronbach alphas for the five

factors, ranging from .594 to .719, were satisfactory for this first stage of scale

development. These results mean that from 60% to 70% of the variance between the items

of each factor is due to the ethical perspective it is intended to measure. A different way to

express this is to say that between 30% and 40% of variance in ethical perspectives

measures is due to either measurement error or noise.

EFA does not distinguish between measurement error and variance due to other causes

(noise), which is possible through structural equations modelling. Further refinements to

improve the reliability of the scale could be suggested by conducting a confirmatory

factorial analysis through structural equation modelling, although this other method

requires further assumptions to be fulfilled, such as the absence of correlation between

147

factors. At this point, the PES does present a moderate correlation between Factor 3-

Neoliberal Law and Order and Factor 5- Machiavellian Cynicism.

Construct validity

Construct validity is assessed by evaluating how the operationalization of a concept

measures the concept it is intended to measure. In accordance with our theoretical

framework, we operationalized ethical theories as logically integrated patterns of beliefs

reflecting basic assumptions about reality, ethical prescriptions and ethical ideals. We

expect that ethical perspectives factors combine these three types of items. The factorial

solution does show that the three types of beliefs load together to reflect ethical

perspectives, supporting our conceptual framework. Four of the five factors present the

three types of statements. Only Factor 2- Cooperative Egalitarianism, does not present all

three types, as it lacks a statement referring to a basic assumption about reality (fact). The

general fit of the data with our theoretical model supports high construct validity, and the

correctness of using Toulmin’s data, claim and warrant structure for operationalizing the

ethical theories.

Criterion validity

We evaluated the criterion validity of the PES through MANOVA, which revealed

significant relationships between the scores on ethical perspectives and the type of

organization for which the respondent works, as well as with the hierarchial position

occupied by the respondents in their organization. Our hypothesis were based on theoretical

relationships presented in the literature, suggesting that cooperative organization promote a

distinct ethical perspective from both private and public organizations. Also, previous

theory suggested that, by reason of their tasks, executives are required to hold stronger

ethical opinions on ethical perspectives than lower ranks employees, such as office staff

and administrative personnel. We found significant between groups differences in ethical

perspectives in both situations, which permitted to reject the null hypothesis in both cases.

148

These results suggest high criterion related validity and showcase the discriminant power of

the PES to detect differences in respondents’ ethical perspectives.

Convergent validity

Convergent validity evaluates how the results obtained by one method are similar and

coherent with the results obtained by way of another, independent method. We evaluated

convergent validity of the factorial solution by using multidimensional scaling as an

independent method of assessing the factors. All the items are located close to the other

items representing the same factor, with different factors occupying distinct regions of the

multidimensional space. That we find the same items composing the factors grouped

together in distinct regions of the multidimensional space indicates high convergent

validity.

Practical utility for organizations and research

Finally, a scale such as the PES is intended to be used as a psychometric test, evaluating

differences in respondents profiles. We conducted cluster analysis to provide exploratory

results of the different profiles that can be identified with the PES. Profiles offer a systemic

view of how different types of respondents combine the different ethical perspectives, and

form patterns of beliefs that serve as criteria to guide ethical evaluation. Cluster analysis is

an exploratory technique, and the solution requires to be validated by external criteria. We

chose a four clusters solution and conducted criterion validity tests by comparing cluster

membership along the same groups we used for the MANOVAs, namely by comparing

group differences by the type of organization where the respondents work and by the

hierarchical position occupied by the respondents in their organization. Our results were

coherent with the earlier results of the MANOVAs, indicating significant between groups

differences in both situations, leading us to reject the null hypotheses. These results suggest

high convergent validity, as well as criterion validity. Moreover, the cluster analysis

provided additional support for the hypothesis that executives hold stronger opinions about

149

ethical perspectives, since the cluster analysis indicate that executives are significantly less

neutral in their positions than office and administrative personnel.

The combination of these results support the use of the PES as a valid tool for evaluating

ethical perspectives in organizations. While a second step, involving a confirmatory

sample, needs to be conducted, with additional items to refine the subscales representing

the factors and improve the internal consistency coefficients of three factors, overall, the

PES promises to become a robust measurement instrument with discriminant power. We

now discuss the contributions of the PES compared to the ethics scales currently used in

business ethics research.

6.2 Comparison with other ethics scales

In chapter 2, we reviewed the most used ethics scales in the business ethics literature and

concluded that these scales cover a very narrow range of ethical theories. First, we saw that

instruments derived from Kohlberg’s cognitive development theory on the stages of moral

development are embedded in a universalistic normative view based on Immanuel Kant’s

ethical theory. Next we compared the few polyphonic scales and measurement instruments

based on ethical theories. Some authors developed scales based on conceptual

classifications of ethical theories, while we found only two studies in which more than five

ethical theories have been used to reach empirical categories of ethical theories. We argued

that the various forms of conceptual classification need to be tested empirically in order to

serve as valid grounds for scientific research.

Comparing the PES with scales constructed on conceptual categories

When we compare these conceptual categories with the ethical perspectives of the PES,

we note that the categories that are perceived by our respondents are far different from the

conceptual categories arrived at by scholars of moral philosophy. Examples of conceptual

categories of ethical theories include common distinction between deontological and

teleological theories (Forsyth, 1980; Hunt and Vitell, 1986, 1990), or utilitarian theories,

150

theories of rights, and theories of justice (Cavanagh et al., 1981; Fritzsche & Becker, 1984;

Premeaux, 2004, 2009; Premeaux & Mondy, 1993). First of all, our empirical categories do

not make a distinction between the teleological or deontological ethical perspectives. When

comparing with the utilitarian, rights and justice categories, our empirical categories

present similarities as well as differences.

Indeed, we have not identified an utilitarian ethical perspective. Utilitarian ideas are

partially reflected in the Rational Objectivity and the Cooperative Egalitarianism

perspectives. The Rational Objectivity perspective more specifically reflects the reliance on

objective and impartial calculation of the utilitarian tradition. Meanwhile, the utilitarian

idea that ethics is about creating the greatest good for the greatest number is associated with

the Cooperative Egalitarianism ethical perspective.

On the other hand, the justice theories are partially interpreted through the Rational

Objectivity perspective, because of its reliance on rational and objective rules of justice,

such as impartiality, along with Kant and Rawls. As for the theories of rights category, if

rights are to be understood as fundamental human rights, we have not identified this idea in

our scale. Indeed, the ethical theory we identified with Eleanor Roosevelt, expressing the

statements referring to the Charter of Universal Human Rights, did not present strong

correlation with any of the ethical perspectives of the scale.

Comparing the PES with scales constructed on empirical categories

However, the important contribution of our scale is most evident when we compare the

PES with the two most polyphonic scales based on empirical data, namely Reidenbach and

Robin’s MES and McDonald and Pak’s Cognitive Philosophies Scale. On the next pages,

Table XXXV compares the similarities between the scales, while Table XXXVI showcases

the unique dimensions, or ethical perspectives, measured in the PES.

151

Table XXXV. Similarities between the PES, Cognitive philosophies scale and the MES

Scale

PES Cognitive philosophies MES

Rational Objectivity Ethical judgment requires

rational thinking that is not

biased by emotions.

One can objectively calculate the positive and negative

consequences of any policy.

Rational principles must be

followed in order to guarantee

the absolute respect of each human being, regardless of the

circumstances.

In order for a decision to be ethical, it must be made by

people who set aside their

personal interests.

Justice That it is important that justice is

seen to be done.

How would I feel if someone did that to me.

That people must be treated

fairly.

What would be the most

equitable decision.

Moral equity Fair/Unfair

Just/Unjust

Morally right / Not morally right

Acceptable / Not acceptable to my

family

Machiavellian Cynicism Ethical considerations are often a

utopian fantasy in a world that is

characterized by merciless competition.

All possible means must be used

to protect and ensure the long term survival of an organization.

The only responsibility of an organization is to maximize the

interests of its investors while

respecting the rules of the game.

The maximization of one’s own

interests is the only possible way

for each person to be able to survive and realize his/her

projects.

Self-Interest (I generally considered) what was

best either for myself or my

company.

In today’s business world one

must look after oneself and one’s

interests.

What effect the action might

have on my personal reputation and career.

That one cannot be expected to be responsible for everyone and

everything.

152

Table XXXVI. Unique factors in the PES

PES

Ecosocial Harmony It is essential that customers become more aware of how they can consume responsibly in ways that are fair for small producers who

have little power.

An action is ethical when it favours harmony in the social, ecological and spiritual realms.

In order to become world citizens, children must be provided artistic and multicultural education at a very early age.

Openness to different cultures and to art stimulates feelings of sympathy and of mutual aid throughout the world.

Respect of the natural and spiritual forces of the world is essential for ethical communities.

Organizations must invest significantly in the transformation of their activities to minimize their environmental impact.

Cooperative Egalitarianism To be ethical, an organization must be based on cooperation.

To be ethical consists of preserving one’s freedom and that of others by fighting oppression.

Every ethical decision requires one to be empathetic with regard to how other people are experiencing a given situation.

An ethical organization or society seeks to maximize the interests of the poorest.

To be ethical, the well-being of the greatest number of people must be maximized.

Members of an organization should own a part of its capital, elect its leaders and have a sense of solidarity to one another.

Neoliberal Law and Order Thanks to the ‘’invisible hand’’ of the market, any activity that benefits the interest of one individual will also be beneficial to the

common interest.

It is possible to discourage all forms of behaviour that are detrimental to others through the use of legal sanctions.

Laws, codes and rules are the only means of ensuring the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

Only a market that is free from all state intervention gives everyone a chance to increase their wealth.

To be ethical, one has only to follow the laws and the deontological rules of one’s profession or organization.

When we compare the PES with Reidenbach and Robin’s MES, the first observation is that

the PES manages to distinguish between five ethical perspectives while the MES

distinguished between three perspectives. Of course, this was to be expected as we started

out with statements reflecting 30 ethical theories, whereas Reidenbach and Robin generated

an initial pool of items reflecting only eight ethical theories. Since the eight ethical theories

that were used as a basis to generate the initial item pool in Reidenbach and Robin’ s study

all stem from Western traditions, it is no surprise that our scale reflects ethical perspectives

not found in the MES, such as Ecosocial harmony. Indeed, the items that loaded in the

factor we labelled Ecosocial harmony were all from non-Western ethical theories : Ubuntu

ethics (Wangari Maathaï), Citizen of the world (Rabinadrath Tagore) and Fair trade ethics

(Frans Van der Hoff and the members of UCIRI cooperative in Mexico). Furthermore, our

inclusion of contemporary business ethics theories such as cooperativism and neoliberalism

enabled us to find two new factors, which we labelled Cooperative Egalitarianism and

Neoliberal Law and Order. Cooperative Egalitarianism is a concept that does not appear in

153

any other scale, but which nevertheless resonates strongly in the business world, especially

with cooperatives organizations. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that while the items in

the contractualism ethical perspective in Reidenbach and Robin’s scale were intended to

reflect the Kantian deontological ethical theory, its focus on honoring contracts and

promises appear to bear some conceptual similarities with the Neoliberal Law and Order

ethical perspective. However, the contractualism perspective is only about the respect or

violation of contracts and promises, and the Neoliberal Law and Order perspective

concerns free market, laws and wealth production. The Neoliberal Law and Order

perspective appears to reflects an important trend in how ethics is viewed in today’s

business world, where the free market ideal is increasingly associated with the application

of a growing set of rules and regulation to protect the shareholders (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley).

When comparing the PES with the Cognitive Philosophies Scale developed by McDonald

and Pak (1996), we observe that they share similarities on only two factors. Rational

Objectivity is similar to the ‘Justice’ framework with its emphasis on impartiality, and

‘Self-interest’ shares some ideas with the perspective we name Machiavellian Cynicism.

Once again, the inclusion of contemporary business ethics normative theories and non-

Western ethical traditions has permitted us to identify unique ethical perspectives. Indeed,

the Ecosocial Harmony factor was also missed in McDonald and Pak’s study, just as the

more business related perspectives represented by Cooperative Egalitarianism and

Neoliberal Law and Order.

However, as stated above, we do not find the distinction between the utilitarian and

deontological factors identified by McDonald and Pak. Rather, we find the Rational

Objectivity factor might be loosely likened to the ‘Justice’ and ‘Categorical imperatives’

factors.

The PES not only proposes a measurement instrument, but also an innovative typology of

ethical perspectives. More importantly however, is the fact that the PES let the voice of

154

formerly silenced ethical traditions be heard. Compared with the eight ethical theories

forming the Cognitive PhilosophiesSscale, a total of 14 ethical theories are represented in

the PES, making it by far the most far ranging ethics scale to date. More importantly, the

PES covers a wide range of traditions. The items forming the PES reflect basic assumptions

underlying three non-Western traditions (Citizen of the world; Ubuntu ethics; Fair trade

ethics). Moreover, the PES includes the ethical assumptions promoted by four women

(Wangari Maathaï- Ubuntu ethics; Carol Gilligan- Ethics of care; Ayn Rand- Ethical

egoism; and Simone de Beauvoir- Existential ethics). Finally, the PES also includes

assumptions reflecting such important contemporary ethical theories as Neoliberalism

(Milton Friedman), Cooperative ethics (Rochdale Pioneers), and Sustainable Development

(Gro Harlem Brundtland). The PES is thus composed of 43% (6 theories out of 14)

theories from non-Western and feminine traditions.

More importantly, our research demonstrates that the narrow range of ethical theories on

which current ethics scales are built do effectively silence ethical traditions which resonate

deeply with people in organization. In our survey of 441 respondents from Quebec

organizations, Ecosocial harmony is the ethical perspective the respondents most agreed

with. These results demonstrate that people’s perspectives about ethics in organizations are

a far cry from the deontological-teleological divide that has occupied business ethics

scholars for so long. If nothing else, the PES, even in this early stage of development, has

succeeded in demonstrating the importance of including other traditions that have been

silenced by the design of the measurement instruments.

We were surprised to find a non-occidental theory, namely Ubuntu ethics, among the top

five ethical theories with which our sample most agreed. That is to say that even in sample

of Canadians, and African tradition points toward a collectively shared ethical ideal. Our

results show that Quebecers like Ubuntu ethics, although they have probably never heard of

it, reflecting it is not important to know a formal theory, for a person to have already

endorsed its ideas tacitly. Perhaps this attraction and recognition of Ubuntu ethics may be

155

linked with the Native ethical traditions that still resounds deeply in Quebecers identity

(Saul, 2008; Vaugeois, 1995). Indeed, this is an interesting hypothesis since Quebecers are

not only from French and English descent but are also from Metis heritage, stemming from

the deep intermingling of French Canadians and Natives. This discussion leads us to

consider the cultural dimension of ethics, which goes beyond organizations. In chapter 3,

we have presented Schein’s theory on organizational culture and how values are an

expression of tacit basic assumptions of reality. Among the vast literature on values in the

field of sociology, we have reviewed the works of sociologists who have considered the

basic assumptions underlying cultural values. We now compare the PES to the models

presented by these sociologists.

Comparison with studies in sociology

In Chapter 3, we have referred to the theoretical contribution of scholars from the field of

sociology on the concept of values, namely Schwartz’s culture-level value types model, and

Boltanski and Thevenot’s value justification theory on economies of worth. In different

words and with different images, these scholars also suggest that values are rooted in basic

assumptions. The PES yields empirical support to these models, by revealing the

underlying basic assumptions of ethical perspectives.

For instance, Schwartz offers a theory linking cultural-level value types to three domains

of basic assumptions: 1) basic assumptions about the desirable distribution of power in

society distinguish between the Hierarchy and Egalitarian value types, 2) basic assumptions

about the human relationship with the natural environment distinguish between the

Harmony and Mastery value types, and 3) basic assumptions about the nature of the

relationship between the individual and the group distinguish between the Autonomy and

Conservative value types. In contrast, the PES adds another domain of basic assumptions.

156

The multidimensional scaling results of the PES led us to interpret two domains of basic

assumptions on which the five ethical perspectives are related. These domains of basic

assumptions concern 1) the nature of truth and reality, which distinguishes between

Universal and Contextual truth; and 2) the nature of the relationship between the individual

and the group, which distinguishes between human being chiefly considered as Individuals

or members of a Collective. This last domain is identical to what Schwartz labels the

Autonomy and Conservative value types. Meanwhile the Universal vs. Contextual

distinction echoes the two theoretical approaches to business ethics which we presented in

Chapter 1, namely the universalistic and polyphonic approaches. Interestingly, this pole

also relates to the common distinction made in the business ethics literature between the

deontological and teleological moral theories, in which the deontological reflect a

universalistic view based on moral principles, and the teleological theories reflect a

contextual view based on the anticipated consequences in the particular situation and the

ethical goal to be reached.

While the domains of basic assumptions covered by the PES are not identical as those

covered by Schwartz’s model, the structure of these two measurement instruments

complement each other, and support Schein’s claim that values are best understood as an

expression of deeper basic assumptions which serve as filters to interpret reality. Figure 6

presents how the multidimensional scaling analysis using the PES compares to the

dimensions suggested by Schwartz.

157

Figure 6.

Comparison of

the

multidimensional

structure of the PES

with Schwartz’s model

Indeed, the ethical

perspectives found

in the PES relate

to Schwartz’s

culture-level value types. We find the Neoliberal Law and Order and Machiavelian

Cynicism to reflect Hierarchy and mastery value types, and the Ecosocial Harmony and

Cooperative Egalitarianism ethical perspectives to reflect the Harmony and Egalitarian

value types. The Rational Objectivity ethical perspective is less obvious to locate within

Schwartz’s framework. We suggest it is situated between the Conservatism and Hierarchy

COLLECTIVE CONTEXTUAL

Conservatism

Mastery

Affective

Autonomy

Intellectual

Autonomy Egalitarianism

Hierarchy

Harmony Cooperative

Egalitarianism

Ecosocial harmony

Neoliberal

Law and

Order

Machiavellian

Cynicism

Rational

Objectivity

UNIVERSAL INDIVIDUAL

158

value types, which both involve a collective external source of authority concerning ethics,

and opposite the Autonomy value-type, which implies that the moral authority to decide

what is right and wrong is within each individual, and therefore not universal. As

suggested in figure 5, we represent the Universal vs Contextual dimension of ethics that we

identified in the PES factor structure in multidimensional space, as a line that cuts through

the area between the Conservatism/Hierarchy and the Affective and Intellectual Autonomy

dimensions. Meanwhile, the Individual vs Collective dimension parallels the

Harmony/Egalitarianism vs the Hierarchy/Mastery value-types in Scwhartz’s model.

The strength of the PES compared to Schwartz’s model is that while Schwartz offers a

theoretical explanation of the multidimensional scaling structure of the value types, through

a theory of compatible and conflicting basic assumptions, we have actually empirically

verified this theory by measuring basic assumptions in the PES, instead of values.

Moreover, the item structure of the PES, in which four out of the five ethical perspectives

are measured with a combination of statements reflecting the three types of basic

assumptions (reality, ethical prescription and ethical ideals), yield empirical support to this

claim.

Likewise, Boltanski and Thevenot suggest that people give different degrees of ‘worth’ to

the values depending on how they frame the context. They suggest the context of action can

be framed as different ‘worlds’, which filter reality and cues on the type of evidence that is

relevant to establish which value has the highest worth in the context. Although they do

not present this list as exhaustive, and have in fact identified other ‘worlds’ since, they

originally identified six ‘ common worlds’, namely the 1) inspiration, 2) domestic, 3) civic,

4) fame, 5) market and, 6) industrial worlds. These worlds rely on the following types of

evidence, which we liken to basic assumptions which are considered as facts, or data, on

which the ‘world’ structure is constructed: 1) intuition, 2) title, 3) legal text, 4) notoriety,

5) market price, 6) that which is effective in producing the desired results. Moreover, these

‘worlds’ respectively frame the following type of values to have higher worth: 1)

159

detachment, 2) hierarchical position, 3) the common good, 4) visibility, 5) wealth, 6)

improvement of life. Similarly, the PES also suggests different ethical ideals, which reflects

how different ethical perspectives attribute higher worth to specific values. Table XXXVII

presents the evidence and ethical ideals describing the economies of worth in each of the

five ethical perspectives identified by the PES.

Table XXXVII. Economies of worth of the PES

Ethical perspective

Evidence

Ethical ideal (highest worth)

Ecosocial Harmony Openness to different cultures and art,

feelings of sympathy and of mutual

aid throughout the world.

Respect of the natural and spiritual

forces of the world.

Cooperative Egalitarianism n/a Preserving one’s freedom and that of

others by fighting oppression.

Neoliberal Law and Order The invisible hand of the market, any

activity that benefits the interest of

one individual (will also benefit to the

common interest.

Everyone has a chance to increase

their wealth.

Rational Objectivity Rational thinking that is not biased by

emotions.

Guarantee the absolute respect of

human beings, regardless of the

circumstances.

Machiavellian Cynicism The world is not ethical; merciless

competition.

Realize one’s own projects.

We observe that the economies of worth identified in the PES present some resemblance

with Boltanski and Thevenot’s theory. First, the Ecosocial Harmony ethical perspective

shares similarities with Boltanski and Thevenot’s world of “inspiration”, with its sensitivity

to the spiritual and intangible reality. Second, the Cooperative Egalitarianism ethical

perspective shares similarity with the “civic” world, with its focus on the common good.

Third, the Neoliberal Law and Order ethical perspective reflects the economies of worth

of the “market” world. Fourth, while the link is less obvious, the Machiavellian Cynicism

ethical perspective offers an interesting similarity to the “industrial” world, with it’s focus

on valuing “whatever works” to achieve the desired end. In contrast, the Rational

160

Objectivity does not have any counterpart in Boltanski and Thevenot’s model. Once again,

the identification of the Rational Objectivity ethical perspective is a novel contribution of

the PES, which is found in no other scale.

Although we use different words and concepts to describe the ethical perspectives,

Boltanski and Thevenot’s model is the closest to the theoretical grounding of the PES, in

that it contributes to show how values are the expression of an integrated system of beliefs,

which frames how people perceive and evaluate situations.

While we chose to feature Schwartz and Boltanksi and Thevenot’s work as a basis to

compare the PES within a larger scientific community than the business ethics literature, it

is important to note that many other studies describe and identify different worldviews that

shape the way people understand and respond to their ethical responsibilities. For example,

I will now point toward a recent Ph.D. thesis (Marchildon, 2011), in which the author

studied how members of the bio-engineering community perceive their CSR

responsibilities in regard to the controversial nature of their work, which involves

transgenic products and touches upon the very definition –or conception- of life.

Marchildon concludes that the scientists in this field do not one shared conception of their

social responsibilities of their industry, but a plurality of distinct conceptions of their

responsibilities, which are linked to different worldviews. She identified seven worldviews

shaping how the actors perceived their CSR responsibilities: 1) governmental

responsibility, where it is seen as mainly the government’s responsibility to impose limits

through laws and regulations; 2) Natural responsibility, where the first concern is for the

actors to be in harmony with nature and use precaution and prudence in order to preserve

nature’s intrinsic balance; 3) Community responsibility, meaning there has to be a

dialogue with the community to establish what is acceptable and where transgenic science

should be heading; 4) Governance responsibility, in which the challenge is to coordinate the

shared responsibility between the governement, the industry, the civil society and the other

different interest groups affected by bio-engineering; 5) Individual responsibility of the

161

merchant, where bio-engineering is perceived as “innovative” and “positive” for society,

and the principal social responsibility is percived to be about how to efficiently produce and

market these transgenic products to the society; 6) Corporate responsibility, where the

social responsibility is perceived to belong primarily to the corporation that produces

transgenic products and as such, it is for these corporation to be pro-active and establish the

scope and nature of their responsibilities, preferably with the participation of their

stakeholders; and 7) Scientific responsibility, where the responsibility is firstly to ground

policies and decisions on scientific evidence and rational arguments, in order to counter the

folly of decisions based on fear, public opinion and irrational, unfounded judgments

(Marchildon, 2011, pp. 185-211).

It is interesting to note how the results in this thesis match the results in Marchildon’s

thesis, which was conducted through a qualitative methodology based 38 in-depths

interviews with actors from the bio-engineering field (researchers, business, industry

associations, investors, regulators, potential users and groups from civil society). In

particular, the ethical perspective that we identified as Ecosocial Harmony reflects the

“Natural responsibility” identified by Marchildon; the Cooperative Egalitarian perspective

matches the “Community responsibility”; the Neoliberal Law and Order matches the

“Government responsibility” and part of the “Individual respoonsibility of the merchant”;

and the Rational Objectivity perspective mirrors the “Scientific responsibility”. Only the

Machiavelian Cynicism ethical perspective is not reflected in Marchildon’s typology, while

Marchildon adds another worldview labeled “Governance responsibility. Once again, when

independent studies using different methodologies and samples of subjects, arrive at similar

results, it suggests convergent validity.

6.3 Theoretical developments

Before attempting to build a polyphonic scale, the first duty in this thesis was to clarify the

theoretical background of the latent variable to be measured. We observed that comparison

between studies is difficult because of areas of confusion in theoretical models and lack of

162

common definitions of the key concepts. In particular, advancement in scale development is

obstructed by the confusion surrounding the concept of “moral judgment” (Mudrack &

Mason, 2013).

To clarify this concept of moral judgment, we distinguished between two dimensions of the

concept: a content (ethical or unethical), and a construct (why?). As suggested by Hunt and

Vitell (1986), we labeled the construct dimension “ethical evaluation” and the content

dimension “ethical judgment”. The concept described and measured in this thesis involves

the ethical evaluation component of the ethical decision-making process. We labelled

different patterns of evaluation as “ethical perspectives”, which we defined as systems of

basic assumptions concerning ethics.

This thesis contributed theoretical development firstly by clarifying some key concepts in

ethical decision-making, such as ethical judgment, ethical evaluation and ethical

perspectives. Second, we contribute to develop theory about the structure of ethical

evaluation as comprising not just values, which are prone to different interpretations, but

going beyond values by identifying the basic assumptions underlying formal ethical

theories. Following the Toulmin method, we described 30 ethical theories along three

domains of assumptions: nature of reality, ethical prescriptions and ethical ideals. These

basic assumptions are a form of tacit knowledge that are not readily expressed in

organizations, but which nevertheless influence organizational culture, through shared

values, behaviours and even organizational structures and policies. Moreover, our theory

leads us to a systematic method through the use of Toulmin’s method of the structure of

logical arguments. While not ignoring the emotional dimension of evaluation, we focus on

the cognitive dimension of evaluation, which gives a rationale for justifying and defending

an ethical decision. Ethical evaluation is thus constructed mainly as a sensemaking

experience. The others scales we have examined in this thesis fail to present any theoretical

construct to support the way the statements reflecting the chosen theories are generated. We

consider the systematic and systemic procedure of constructing the ethical theories as data,

163

claims and warrants, - translated as facts, ethical prescriptions, and ethical ideals – to be a

major contribution to theory development in the field of business ethics. It also contributes

to bridge the gap in the business ethics literature between the normative moral philosophers

on one side, and the descriptive social scientists on the other, by providing a research

strategy in which normative theories are used to evaluate and describe the actual criteria

that respondents believe are valid for ethical decision-making.

6.4 Methodological developments

This thesis provides insights for methodological developments in ethics scale development.

While most scales, including the MES and the Cognitive Philosophies scale, use vignettes,

the PES is context free and examines only the respondent’s perception of the validity of the

statements as ethical arguments. We argue that ethical decision-making is highly influenced

by context, therefore an ethical judgment given about a situation described in a vignette

cannot be generalized to other situations. Moreover, vignettes offer a poor approximation

of the thick description of real life situations, where details may bear heavily in the ethical

decision-making process. Indeed, a very small change in context, for example putting a

woman instead of a man as the protagonist of action, may change entirely the ethical

evaluation of the situation. Mudrack and Mason examined precisely this question of

measurement reliability and ask on what ground can scholars claim that the variety of

vignettes used in the ethical decision-making literature measure a common construct

(Mudrack & Mason, 2013). In contrast, we consider ethical decision-making as a complex

process, for which systems theory offer a more appropriate analytical framework. We claim

it is more strategic to focus on the repertoire of evaluation criteria of the decision maker,

which is more stable, than on the specific context of a decision. Our research strategy was

thus to identify the beliefs respondents consider valid criteria for ethical decision-making.

Ethical theories provides us with a repertoire of different criteria to evaluate ethical

situations.

164

To use a context-free measurement instrument is a great advantage for future researchers as

the use of the PES increases the reliability of the scale, in that it is measuring the same

concept from one research context to another. As McDonald an Pak’s 14 vignettes

experience remind us, it also provides for a less time consuming questionnaire, both for the

respondents and for the researchers who analyze the data.

6.5 Some practical applications of the PES in organizations

The PES provides useful information with practical application in organizational settings.

For instance, it can be used as a complementary tool for personnel selection. Moreover, it

can be used as a pedagogical tool to foster personal and collective ethical development in

organizations, through personal introspection activities or a dialogue process between

members.

6.5.1 A complementary tool for personnel selection

The PES could perhaps become an interesting tool for personnel selection. However, an

important precautionary note needs to be underscored: the PES is not intended to predict if

a candidate is more likely to engage in “unethical” behaviour.

As noted earlier, Hunt and Vitell (1986) present ethical evaluation and ethical judgment as

components of the ethical decision-making process, which is also composed of moral

intent, or the decision to act ethically or not, and the way the decision is acted upon through

actual behaviour. Of course, the decision to act morally or not, as well as the actual

behaviour, are influenced by contextual factors, such as the anticipated consequences of

actions to self and other stakeholders, the organizational culture, or personal life

experience, among others. Rather, the PES is intended to measure ethical evaluation and

indicate what types of justification a person will probably use when asked to explain an

ethical judgment or defend an ethical decision. While there is ground, theoretically, to

165

expect a correlation between ethical evaluation, ethical judgment and actual behaviour,

people who wish to use the PES as a complementary tool for personnel selection, need to

understand that behaviour is related to other factors as well. Nevertheless, our preliminary

results suggest a very significant correlation between respondents’ ethical perspectives and

distinct preferences on key practices. The results of the cluster analysis presented in this

thesis is a first step in establishing psychometric ethical perspectives profiles of individuals

and provide information in this regard. For example, the PES can serve to evaluate the fit

of a candidate with the organizational culture or the requirements of a particular position, as

a complementary tool to other personnel selection tools such as the interview, work related

situational simulation, and other psychometric personality tests.

As we have showed, the different clusters (or profiles) appear to be correlated with

organizational types, as well as with the hierarchical position occupied by the respondent in

the organization. For instance, a cooperative organization will be clued to a possible

conflict on ethical orientation with a candidate who presents a cluster 3 type of profile,

since the dominant feature of this cluster is its rejection of the Cooperative Egalitarian

ethical perspective. Likewise, when selecting candidates for an executive position, our

exploratory results suggest that stronger ethical opinions is correlated with a higher–level

position in the organization. This would lead to question the fit of candidates with neutral

ethical orientations for a higher management position, as the responsibilities of executives

requires them to give a coherent ethical direction to the organizational members.

Executives require an ability to decide for oneself what is right and what is not in terms of

ethics, as well a to defend one’s views and justify them in the face of competing ethical

claims. This does not mean that candidates with strong ethical orientations as necessarily a

better fit for executive functions, as this depends on the organizational culture that is

desired to be promoted by the candidate. In all, the PES is a useful tool to signal possible

problematic fits between the candidates, the position to be filled and the organization, but

does not provide a one size fits all desired profile of candidates.

166

6.5.2 A tool to enhance introspection

As stated in the introduction, one objective of developing the PES is to use it as a

pedagogical tool to help people enhance their self-awareness about their own ethical

aspirations and beliefs. As such, the PES may be used to develop one’s introspective ability

to analyze their own experience with an ethical issue in their organization and question

their own behaviour and interaction with people in their organization from a moral

perspective.

We have used a preliminary version of the PES to enhance introspection with three groups

of graduate students participating in a mandatory “Ethics and Governance” course in the

HEC Montreal MBA program. The students were invited to complete the online

questionnaire and obtained their ‘ethical profile’ in the form of their total score on each of

the 30 ethical theories as well as on our conceptual (hypothesized) categories of ethical

theories. Their ethical profiles were provided to them in a confidential manner, using a

code and password that they created themselves and were instructed to use on a secured

website, in order to retrieve their personal profile. The personal ethical profile was to be

used as additional material to help them identify their own ethical aspirations and write a

critical introspection about an ethical issue they had faced or witnessed in their work

experience within an organization. The “Ethics and Governance” course material and

syllabus remained the same, the only difference with previous sessions when the same

course had been given was that the students were invited to complete the questionnaire and

use it for their term paper.

A curious phenomenon happened when the questionnaire was administered to students.

Although the general quality of the terms papers on a personal introspection was generally

very high, all three groups that used the questionnaire evaluated the teaching of the course

and the course itself with a significantly lower satisfaction score than in previous terms.

This phenomenon was observed across different teachers. Although many factors may have

contributed to this puzzling low student satisfaction with the course, we offer an

167

hypothetical explanation based on Perry’s developmental theory, to be considered in future

research. William Perry’s ethical development theory, which we have presented in chapter

1, links feeling of fear, anger, depression and grief with the transition periods between

stages of moral development, when individuals transition from dualism, multiplicity,

relativism, to commitment.

We suggest the PES, coupled with the task to write their personal introspection, may have

provoked stage transitions and exacerbated feelings of anxiety and confusion within the

students, at the moment of the course evaluation. Our hypothesis is that the use of the

questionnaire may have generated these feelings of confusion and anxiety when the

students were confronted with their basic assumptions. This situation may have made the

students who have used the PES associate negatives feelings with the Ethics course and its

teachers. We will further elaborate on this hypothesis by reflecting with John Dewey on the

links between reflective thinking and emotions.

In developing the PES, we appear to have given higher importance to the reasoning skills,

but as we have stated in chapter 4 , ethics also involves deep emotions. John Dewey is

considered one of the most influential American philosopher of the 20th

century, especially

on the theme of education and the development of critical thinking. In his work How we

think, John Dewey (2007) gives this definition of reflective thought: “Active, persistent,

and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the

grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 2007, p.7).

This simple definition reflects our methodology based on Toulmin’s approach and also

defines scientific inquiry from the point of view of an epistemology of complexity. Dewey

comments on the emotional dimension of the reflective thinker, noting that mental unrest –

or confusion- is “somewhat painful” (Dewey, 2007, p. 10):

Reflective thinking is always more or less troublesome because it

involves overcoming the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions

at their face value; it involves the willingness to endure a condition of

168

mental unrest and disturbance. Reflective thinking, in short, means

judgment suspended during further inquiry; and suspense is likely to

be somewhat painful. As we shall see later, the most important factor

in the training of good mental habits consists in acquiring the attitude

of suspended conclusion, and in mastering the various methods of

searching for new materials to corroborate or to refute the first

suggestion that occur. To maintain the state of doubt and to carry on

systematic and protracted inquiry- these are the essentials of thinking.

However, the ability to engage in reflexive thinking and introspection involves a level of

emotional maturity, and what we may call “emotional robustness”. Indeed, if the PES is

successful in helping the user to surface his or her basic assumptions about ethics, it can

become a “painful” experience, to take the words of Dewey.

This discussion about Perry’s cognitive and ethical development theory and Dewey’s

relation between emotions in reflective thinking serves as a warning to the possible

emotional stress the Polyphonic Ethics Scale may contribute to, when used as an aid to

enhance introspection. We believe this possibility needs to be evaluated scientifically.

Meanwhile, great care must be given to accompany the participants through the emotional

aspects involved in surfacing ethical basic assumptions to enhance introspection, by helping

them expect, understand, and sort out the conflicting feelings they may experience. It is to

be expected that some people will not find the introspective exercises to be a pleasant

experience. Rather, if genuinely practiced, the introspection exercice may likely lead the

participants through a transition phase between stages of development. It may even be a

good preventive practice to make available psychological help if needed.

6.5.3 A tool to facilitate dialogue for collaborative action

In the introduction of this thesis, we have referred to Chester Barnard and shared his

reflection on the plurality of ethical perspectives in organizations and his statement that

169

“we shall consider the executive function of ‘moral creativeness’ as the highest expression

of responsibility” (Barnard, 1938, p. 261).

Before engaging in a discussion about how the PES may enhance dialogue for collaborative

action, we believe it is useful to cite Barnard once again, as he believed moral creativeness

to be the essence of leadership (Barnard, 1938, p. 281- 283):

The creative function as a whole is the essence of leadership. It is the

highest test of executive responsibility because it requires for successful

accomplishment that element of “conviction” that means identification of

personal codes and organization codes in the view of the leader. This is the

coalescence that carries “conviction” to the personnel of organization, to

that informal organization underlying all formal organization that senses

nothing more quickly than insincerity. Without it, all organization is

dying, because it is the indispensable element in creating that desire for

adherence- for which no incentive is a substitute- on the part of those

whose efforts willingly contributed to the organization. (…)

Executive responsibility, then, is that capacity of leaders by which,

reflecting attitudes, ideals, hopes, derived largely from without themselves,

they are compelled to bind the wills of men to the accomplishment of

purpose beyond their immediate ends, beyond their times.

When ethical issues require collaborative action to resolve systemic problems, the type of

leadership described by Barnard is needed. This idea is echoed in Werhane’s concept of

moral imagination, as well as in Senge’s description of collaborative inquiry. What these

authors have in common is a systemic outlook on the organization. It requires a new way of

thinking, seeing and leading organizations, not just in terms of a series of efficient

operations, but also as a collective sensemaking experience. A systemic view of the

organization requires to evolve from picturing organizations as machines (Morgan, 1986),

composed of a production chain transforming resources into outputs, to seeing

organizations as an organic entity, composed chiefly of human members who learn, evolve,

170

hope and achieve worthwhile goals together. The role of managers is thus not only to

manage, but also to lead by inspiring members to achieve goals that are larger than them.

It is our hope that the PES may be used as an aid to identify those ideals, hopes, sentiments

and attitudes towards ethics, in order to articulate the desired future. In particular, the PES

could be useful to help surface ethical basic assumptions when parties engage in dialogue.

Dialogue is a practice that has proved useful to challenge points of view regarding the

application of effective solutions (Anderson, Baxter, & Cissna, 2004; Isaacs, 1999;

Yankelovich, 1999). Dialogue, as an organizational practice, is first a collective learning

process where each party learns about the other’s basic assumption and mental models. It is

also an exercice where the participants attempt to project themselves into the future where

possible alternative solutions are imagined. In this second phase, mental models need to be

challenged in order to create novel solutions based on the larger view of reality the group

has constructed together. Various forms of dialogue programs have been conducted in a

variety of organizational settings, ranging from a group of healthcare workers from various

institutions in Quebec (Pauchant, 2002), to programs involving the international supply

chain of the garment industry, including textile workers in China, their factory managers,

and the buyers from occidental companies, in an effort to attain social and labour standards

in the participating Chinese factories China (Knolle, 2012). Facilitating stakeholders

dialogue and creative solution building is a relatively new discipline. Peter Senge, who has

devoted twenty-five years to develop “capacities among diverse organizations to

collaborate in order to accomplish changes that would be impossible for those organizations

to achieve individually” (Senge et al. , 2005, p. 15) is a major reference in this field. He

sums up the process as that of learning of new ways of thinking and learning in order to

create alternative futures. After all these years, he singles out the quality of presence, or

conscious intentional awareness of one’s environment, as the critical ability to develop :

We’ve come to believe that the core capacity needed to access the field of

the future is presence. We first thought of presence as being fully

171

conscious and aware in the present moment. Then we began to appreciate

presence as deep listening, of being open beyond one’s preconceptions

and historical ways of making sense. (Senge et al., 2005, p. 13)

As we have discussed in the previous section about introspection, the surfacing of basic

assumptions, and the collision with multiple worldviews can bring uncomfortable feelings

of confusion and instability to some people. A stakeholder dialogue may thus require the

participants to acquire greater personal awareness and a desire to reach higher levels of

personal mastery. Second, the participants must be willing to tolerate the ambiguities

involved in the collective attempt to get a clearer picture of the situation, by challenging

their mental models. At this point, one must remember that a ‘clearer picture’ does not

necessarily mean a clear picture and inconsistencies will still exist, and may even become

more apparent. Third, the participant must be willing to commit themselves to action, even

in the face of remaining uncertainties and ambiguities. Fourth, some of the participants

must have the leadership capacity to inspire a shared vision in their organizations, beyond

the technicalities of particular actions.

As much as identifying one’s basic assumptions about ethics is essential to become more

conscious about one’s ethical aspirations, behaviours, and conflicts, it appears, from

Senge’s personal analysis, that being conscious about one’s assumptions is also an essential

requirement for making sense of the opportunities and leverages available to construct

creative solutions, change direction and approach the desired future. Therefore, identifying

one’s basic assumptions about ethics may contribute to engage oneself in a learning path,

which helps us make sense of our current reality as well as identify possible ways to orient

action towards the desired reality. This is why a tool like the PES, which reflects which

ethical mental models the respondent most prefers, is important in fostering critical ethical

reflection. Altough the mere surfacing of basic assumptions is not enough to engage people

to commit to effective decisions, however, the surfacing of basic assumptions may help

participants to identify their mental models. This is all the more important since, according

to Argyris (2008), “the master program people actually use is rarely the one they think they

172

use” (p.23). Senge uses the term “mental models” to refer to the way people explain the

causes and effects of a situation. He explains that while some people’s mental models are

systemic, most are blind to systemic links (Senge, 2006, p.189):

Contemporary research shows that most of our mental models are often

systematically flawed. They miss critical feedback relationships, misjudge

time delays, and often focus on variables that are visible or salient, not

necessarily high leverage.

We propose evaluating the PES’s contribution within a dialogue program in an organization

as a useful future research direction. While surfacing basic assumptions about ethics can

help get a stakeholder dialogue program to a good start, we are fully aware it does not

guarantee that the dialogue will yield a positive outcome, nor that the parties will share a

vision and commit to effectively enact the collaborative decisions. Beyond that, leadership

will always be needed to inspire parties to pursue an ethical ideal, although different

stakeholders may have different views and motivations regarding the actions to implement.

Leadership is to inspire loyalty to a shared vision. An example may illustrate this point.

In an article about sweatshops, Shilling (in Boylan, 2014, p. 247-251) recalls how John

Smith, then the CEO of General Motors, was invited to visit GM workers at their home in

Reynosa, Mexico. As a result of this visit, the company committed to a housing initiative

that would bring affordable homes to the workers, equipped with such essentials as running

water and electricity.

However, as Barbara Glendon, a manager of an ethical investing program, points out,

compassion without a systemic vision is not sufficient (Boyle, 2014, p. 251):

The housing program is a generous and compassionate response to the

deplorable living conditions of some of GM’s Mexican workers. But

compassion without justice is not enough to fulfill the obligations of our

company to its employees. We are morally and ethically responsible to

provide a sustainable wage to the people whose daily labour benefits us

who are GM’s shareholders.

173

We suggest that the point Glendon is making is that while housing conditions are

important, they are perhaps only the most visible aspect of a systemic poverty problem

where the leverage lies in the wages paid to the workers. For “moral creativeness” to occur,

and create effective solutions, the participants must also be willing to question their mental

models and seek to improve their vision of the whole situation. Solutions for real

improvements become visible if stakeholders focus on surfacing the systemic relationships

that keep Mexican workers’ wages so low and accept responsibility in the areas where the

company has power to correct the situation. Most probably, sustainable improvements in

workers living conditions would require collaboration between several business, civic and

governmental organizations.

This example, out of many similar experiences, showcases the importance of dialogue that

includes the less powerful. We suggest the PES could be used as a tool that gives the

opportunity to hear the voices of less powerful groups in the current world order. Hence,

although we developed the PES as a descriptive tool, it can very well serve a normative

view of ethics, which aknowledges the ethical requirement to engage everyone, including

the least powerful, in a dialogue about the ethical goals to be pursued collectively.

Conclusion

The objective of this thesis was to develop a measurement instrument capable of

identifying a wide range of ethical perspectives held by people in organizations, including

non-Western traditions, feminine traditions and contemporary business ethics theories.

The approach taken in this thesis involved the elaboration of a novel strategy to

operationalize 30 ethical theories, including 40% non-Western and feminine theories, into

item statements to be included in a questionnaire.

At the end of this exploration, our approach was successful in identifying five ethical

perspectives, out of which two are strongly influenced by non-Western and feminine ethical

theories (Ecosocial harmony and Cooperative egalitarianism). Our results compare very

favourably to existing ethics scale such as the MES, by Reidenbach and Robin

(1988,1990), which identifies three ethical perspectives, and McDonald and Pak’s (1996)

Cognitive philosophies scale, which although it identifies eight perspectives, does not

include non-Western nor expressly feminine ethical perspectives.

In this concluding chapter, we examine the theoretical contribution of this thesis, its

contribution to practice, its limits as well as the research avenues opened by the results of

this research.

Theoretical contribution

We propose that the theoretical development on which we base the use of the Toulmin

method to operationalize the ethical theories, as claims, data and warrants, is in itself an

important contribution to the field of organizational ethics. This method goes beyond the

value level, where expressed values may be ideals that are admired, yet not considered

valid to actually guide action. Instead, we strive to identify the basic assumptions in the

176

domains of ethical prescriptions, ethical ideals and beliefs about reality, that form the

pattern of their ethical value system. Although they may not be able to name them, people

could recognize their basic assumptions they hold when they are formulated, as they

represent beliefs they take for granted to ground their understanding of the world.

Moreover, the Toulmin method also offers a systemic and systematic methodology to

generate statements reflecting normative ethical theories.

The results of this research support this systemic theory, as people have identified

themselves with the basic assumptions of ethical theories they did not intellectually know

beforehand. The surprising popularity of Ubuntu ethics in our sample supports that claim.

Although it is safe to say that most people in our Canadian sample had no prior knowledge

of this African tradition, its assumptions were recognized and resonated with their own

assumptions, possibly because its beliefs are similar to Native ethical assumptions

transmitted from their Metis heritage (Saul, 2008).

Furthermore, the items forming the factors representing four out of five ethical perspectives

refer to the three types of basic assumptions, suggesting that the three types of statements

are perceived as being linked together in the respondents’ minds.

In relation to the constructivist nature of this work, we have attempted to present our

methodology and results in a rigorous transparent manner. Our approach based on

statistical methods may appear to some to convey a positivist aura to our methodology. In

reality, one must keep in mind that this thesis is more adequately understood as an

interpretative effort to understand the ethical evaluation made by people within

organizations. Throughout this thesis, the quantitative tools served to question and further

challenge our judgment about how to conduct this research. For example, our choice of the

ethical theories to include in this instrument was influenced by our intention to include

under-represented ethical traditions in our instrument. As well, even the underlying

mathematics involved when performing factorial analysis or multidimensional scaling, are

177

probabilistic and based on iterative trial and errors, not linear processes that give out the

correct answer. Rather, the ultimate responsibility to make sense of the outputs produced by

such technical aids, are subjected to the researcher’s judgment.

Contribution to practice

The PES was developed with the purpose of being used as a pedagogical tool to facilitate

personal introspection about ethics as well as inter/intra organisational dialogue. For us,

ultimately the most important validity test lies here. Future research will thus assess the

practical implications and contribution of the PES, using clinical research, case study or

action research methodology.

Following our experience of using a rudimentary version of the PES as a pedagogical tool

with three MBA groups, as part of their mandatory ethics class, we strongly suggest that

further research be conducted to estimate the level of emotional and psychological stress

the participants are feeling while engaging in their personal introspection. According to

Perry’s moral complexity theory, the level of confusion and distress that may be

experienced by a person undergoing a transition phase between two stages of moral

development can be quite severe. If the PES is successful in surfacing the participants’

basic assumptions about ethics, the questioning that follows may stir strong emotions while

revisiting a personal experience involving ethics. While this may prove to be a very strong

learning experience, as it is hoped by the teachers, it can also be felt as mildly

uncomfortable to highly traumatic by some individuals, as suggested by Perry. Hence great

care must be given to the participants’ psychological and emotional well-being when using

the PES to give an additional light for a personal introspection.

The PES will also be useful to use at the organizational level. It can firstly be used as a

diagnostic tool, to generate an organizational profile, indicating the levels of agreement of

the members of the organization with the ethical perspectives. These scores can then be

178

compared to the mean score for each perspective found in that society, region or industry.

Furthermore, the scores on the five perspectives may be compared between the members of

the organizations and the leaders of the organizations. These results may hopefully lead to

further discussions within the organization, as the participants will be invited to express

what sense they give to these results, illustrate them with concrete observations, and

contribute to build a more comprehensive vision of the place of ethics in their organization,

identify areas of improvement and work towards the realization of a shared vision. Of

course, an organizations may or may not engage in a few or all of these steps. The same

logic can be applied to inter-organizational collaboration, as we discussed in the previous

section about the practice of dialogue.

The PES may also be useful, in addition to other measures for evaluating a candidate, for

human resources personnel for the selection of key employees. The candidates’ scores on

the five ethical perspectives can be compared to the mean score obtained by the current

employees of the organization and the ethical orientation and culture the leaders want to

promote. It could also serve to evaluate the ability of candidates for executive positions, to

give strong ethical orientation to the organization, by assessing if they holds strong or

neutral opinions about the different ethical perspectives. Once again, the PES should be

used in conjunction with other tools, interviews and selections methods, as the

interpretation of the scores is always to be subjected to the user’s judgment.

Limits of this study

While the PES brings a richer diversity of perspectives than other scales, along with

subtleties lost in shorter scales such as the MES, it also presents some limits. A first limit

is that it is composed of long sentences, which require a greater reading ability than the

MES, or even the cognitive philosophies scale. Widely used readability test such as the

Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level test use sentence length and the average number of syllable

per words as indicator of a text readability (Schwarm & Ostendorf, 2005). For example, an

item such as “Organizations must invest significantly in the transformation of their

179

activities to minimize their environmental impact” scores 19.6 on this test, indicating that

this sentence is well understood by a person with at least 19.6 years of education. This

represents a college or undergraduate level of education. Since the PES is meant to be used

with different levels of managers and professionals, this limit is not an obstacle to its

intended use. It must be noted, however, that the PES may pose difficulty with workers

with lower levels of reading skills. As such, if the PES is to be used as a tool in a dialogue

program to foster mutual understanding about ethical aspirations and goals, throughout a

global supply chain for example, it would need to be adapted in a way to be easily

understood by production line workers and managers with basic or no litterary skills.

Another limit of the PES is the length of the questionnaire. In this study, the respondents

required an average of 64 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Of course, the

questionnaire used for this thesis comprised all 93 items, as well as a second part on

practices to foster ethics in organizations, which was used by a Ph.D colleague for another

thesis. The next version of the questionnaire can now be shortened to contain only the items

retained in the PES, plus a few additional items for rewording and strengthening the

internal consistency coefficients. A questionnaire containing between 25 to 30 statements

may require an aproximative completion time between 10 to 15 minutes.

Some scholars may consider the absence of particular theories in the item pool of the PES

to be a limit to this scale. Indeed, an external evaluator who evaluated the content validity

of the items reflecting the 30 ethical theories selected in this study voiced the concern that

the questionnaire includes less known ethical theories while missing some more important

ethical theories, such as Epicurianism or Rousseau’ social contract theory, among others.

On the other hand, the independent experts all recognized the rich variety of ethical

traditions evaluated in this study, including many theories they were less familiar with.

Indeed, the PES is more inclusive than any existing scales.

180

Also, while validating the results with managers in our pre-test group, one manager

observed that our questionnaire did not include any Middle Eastern ethical theories, and

worried that it may therefore miss some important ethical differences among his workforce.

While these missing ethical theories represent limits of the PES, we recall that it would be

unrealistic to include all existing theories in a single questionnaire. Our aim in developping

this questionnaire was to be more inclusive than existing scales by including 40% ethical

theories from feminine and non-Western traditions. In final, 43% of the items retained in

the PES reflect ethical theories from feminine and Non-Western traditions, which suggests

that we reached or goal of diversity. Theoretical or practical reasons may suggest for future

versions of the PES to include other theories in its item pool. For example, along with

Middle Eastern ethical traditions, scholars may wish to include religious convictions as a an

ethical perspective. Along with the Toulmin methodology, we offer the PES as a basis on

which to conduct further research and identify constrasting ethical perspectives.

Concerning the need for further validation of the PES, while our development sample is

diverse, and representative of managers in many types of organizations, we suggest to

conduct several confirmatory studies in other countries. Also, since our sample was taken

in Quebec, it is more prudent to consider that the sample represent a Quebec point of view

and not generalize the results to the rest of Canada. Another avenue is to subject the PES

to a confirmatory factorial analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM will

enable us to further assess the validity of the scale by distinguishing between the true score

obtained by the data and the variance that is due to error of measurement. Finally, further

refinements are needed in order to increase the reliability of the PES scale. In order to attain

the recommended threshold for established scales (Nunnally, 1976), some items

adjustments will be required in order to improve the Cronbach alphas to a minimum of 0,7

for the Machiavellian Cynicism, Rational Objectivity and Neoliberal Law and Order

perspectives. In particular, the interpretation we give to each factor can be tested by

including additional items reflecting these ideas in a future version of the scale.

181

Research avenues

The PES provides a useful tool for researchers in the business ethics field, who wish to

understand the ethical decision-making process by estimating the correlations of ethical

perspectives with a host of other factors, such as gender differences in ethical perspectives,

differences in ethical perspectives between countries and different regions of the world, by

age groups, religious and political affiliation, between people working in different types of

organizations and industries, etc. We have given a brief overview of the correlations

between ethical perspectives and the types of practices that are deemed most useful to

foster ethics in organizations, which were evaluated by a Ph.D. colleague in the second

part of the questionnaire (Martineau, 2014). The PES and the availability of data relating to

these 81 practices aiming to encourage ethics in organisations raise many interesting and

practical questions. What are the organizational practices that are most coherent with the

ethical perspectives identified with the PES? How do employees perceive the fit between

the ethical discourse and the ethical practices enforced and encouraged in their

organization? What ethical practices would gain to be more used in organizations and

which represent trends that do not fit with particular ethical perspectives and organizational

contexts? Also, the practical validity of the PES will need to be assessed, which can be

tackled by combining the PES with qualitative research methods, such as an action research

involving assessing the PES’ utility in a dialogue program, as suggested previously, or the

narrative approach to compare with practionner’s own sensemaking experience in their

reflective quest about ethics (Lecourt, 2014), as well as interviews with organisational

leaders about how they go about to encourage ethics in their organizations (Lahrizi, 2014).

In conclusion, our task in this scientific endeavour was to offer solid grounds on which to

warrant our methodology and conclusions regarding the validity of a Polyphonic Ethics

Scale, in order to open a dialogue with those who want to join the discussion. With the

PES, we offer our contribution to scholars in the business ethics field to increase our

collective understanding of the ethical decision-making process of people in organizations,

along with a measurement instrument to better evaluate this process. Equally, we hope this

182

tool will prove to be useful for members of organizations to increase their personal and

collective sensemaking ability to frame, express, and imagine effective solutions to

concrete ethical issues.

Bibliography

Airhart, P.D., Legge, M.J., & Redcliffe, G.L. (Eds.). (2002). Doing Ethics in a Pluralistic

World. Essays in Honour of Roger C. Hutchinson. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid

Laurier University Press.

Anderson, Rob, Baxter, Leslie A., & Cissna, Kenneth N. (ed.). (2004). Dialogue:

Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Arthur, Henry B. (1984). Making Business Ethics Useful. Strategic Management Journal,

5(4), 319-319.

Au, Alan K. M., & Wong, Danny S. N. (2000). The impact of Guanxi on the ethical

decision-making process of auditors -- An exploratory study on Chinese CPAs in

Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 87-93.

Bandura, Albert. (1999). Moral Disengagement in the Perpretration of Inhumanities.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.

Barnett, Tim, & Vaicys, Cheryl. (2000). The moderating effect of individuals' perceptions

of ethical work climate on ethical judgements and behavioral intentions. Journal of

Business Ethics, 27(4), 351-362.

Bauman, D. (2011). Evaluating Ethical Approaches to Crisis Leadership: Insights from

Unintentional Harm Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(2), 281.

Beauchamp, Tom L., & Bowie, Norman E. (2004). Ethical Theory and Business 7th ed.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Beekun, Rafik I., Westerman, Jim, & Barghouti, Jamal. (2005). Utility of Ethical

Frameworks in Determining Behavioral Intention: A Comparison of the U.S. and

Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(3), 235-247.

Boltanski, Luc, & Thévenot, Laurent. (2006). On Justifications. The Economies of Worth.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

184

Borganza, C., Depedri, S., & Tortia, E. (2011). Organizational variety in market economies

and the role of cooperative and social enterprises: A plea for economic pluralism.

Journal of Cooperative Studies, 44(1), 19-30.

Brender, Nathalie. (2013, May 13, 2013). Feel bad about the Bangladeshi factory disaster:

Act as a citizen, not consumer, Commentary, TheStar.com. Retrieved from

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/13/feel_bad_about_bangl

adeshi_factory_disasters_act_as_citizens_not_consumers_brender.html

Brooks, L.J. . (2004). Business and Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives and

Accountants (3rd. Ed.). Toronto, Ont.: Thomson South-Western.

Canto-Sperber, Monique. (Ed.) (2004) Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie morale, 2

tomes (4ième Ed.) Paris PUF.

Carlson, Dawn S., & Kacmar, K. Michele. (1997). Perceptions of Ethics Across Situations:

A View Through Three Different Lenses. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 147-

147-160.

Cavanagh, Gerald F., Moberg, Dennis J., & Velasquez, Manuel. (1981). The Ethics of

Organizational Politics. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management

Review, 6(3), 363.

Cavanagh, Gerald F., Moberg, Dennis J., & Velasquez, Manuel. (1995). Making business

ethics practical. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 399.

Colby, Anne, & Kohlberg, L. . . (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment Vol. 2:

Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, Denis. (2000). The Quest to Improve the Human Condition: The First 1500

Articles Published in Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(1),

1-1-73.

Corey, Robert John. (2000). Packaging ethics: perceptual differences among packaging

professionals, brand managers and ethically-interested consumers. Journal of

Business Ethics, 24(3), 199-213.

Cottone, R. Rocco, & Claus, Ronald E. (2000). Ethical Decision-Making Models: A

Review of the Literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(3), 275.

185

Desmarteau, Robert H., & Maguiraga, Lassanana (2012, October 11-12 ). Aux nouvelles

frontières de l'enseignement de la gestion, surgit la glocalisation, là où le local et le

global s'harmonisent. Paper presented at the IIIe États Généraux du Management,

Strasbourg, France.

DeVillis, Robert F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Second Edition

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dewey, John. (2007). How We Think. Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing.

Dion, Michel. (2001). Relations d'affaires et croyances religieuses. Sherbrooke, QC:

Éditions GGC.

Donaldson, Thomas, & Dunfee, Thomas W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of

business ethics: Integrative. Academy of Management. The Academy of

Management Review, 19(2), 252.

Donaldson, Thomas, & Preston, Lee E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:

Concepts, evidenc. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review,

20(1), 65.

Duska, Ronald F., & Whelan, Mariellen. (1975). Moral Development: A Guide to Piaget

and Kohlberg. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Elfstrom, Gerard. (1998). International Ethics. A Reference Handbook. Santa Barrbara,

CA.: ABC-CLIO.

Etzioni, A. . (2000). The Third Way to a Good Society. London, UK: Demos.

Forrester, Jay W. (2009). Some Basic Concepts in System Dynamic. Sloan School of

Management. Massachussetts Institute of Technology.

Forsyth, Donelson R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 39(1), 175-184.

Fort, Timothy L. (2000). A Review of Donaldson and Dunfee's Ties That Bind: A Social

Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 383-387.

Frederiksen, C. (2010). The Relation Between Policies Concerning Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) and Philosophical Moral Theories - An Empirical

Investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 357.

186

Freeman, R. Edward. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409.

Friedman, Milton. (1991). Say "No" to Intolerance. (Edited transcript of a talk given on

August 14, 1990 at the 5th World Libertarian Conference of the International

Society for Individual Liberty). Liberty, 4(6), 17-20.

Fritzsche, David J., & Becker, Helmut. (1984). Linking Management Behavior to Ethical

Philosophy - An Empirical Investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1),

166-166.

Gibson, Kevin. (2000). The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics,

26(3), 245-257.

Giddens, Anthony. (2003). Runaway World. How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives.

New York, NY: Routhledge.

Gilligan, Carole. (1982). In a different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's

Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting Paradigms For Sustainable

Development - Implications For Management Theory And Research. Academy of

Management Review, 20(4), 874-907.

Goffman, Erving. (1974). Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience.

London: Harper and Row.

Habermas, J. . (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of

Law and Democracy. Cambdridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Hair, Joseph F. Jr, Anderson, Rolph E., Tatham, Ronald L., & Black, William C. (1998).

Multivariate Data Analysis, Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

Haugh, H., & Kitson, M. (2007). The Third Way and the Third Sector: New Labour’s

economic policy and the social economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31,

973-994.

187

Henderson, B. Charlene, & Kaplan, Steven E. (2005). An Examination of the Role of

Ethics in Tax Compliance Decisions. The Journal of the American Taxation

Association, 27(1), 39-72.

Hinman, L.M. (1998). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. New York:

Thomson Wadsworth.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hopwood, Bill, Mellor, Mary, & O'Brien, Geoff. (2005). Sustainable development:

mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52.

Hornett, Andrea, & Fredericks, Susan. (2005). An Empirical and Theoretical Exploration of

Disconnections Between Leadership and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(3),

233-246.

Hunt, Shelby D., & Vitell, Scott J. (1986). A General Theory of Marketing Ethics. Journal

of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5.

Hunt, Shelby D., & Vitell, Scott J. (2006). The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A

Revision and Three Questions. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), 143-143-153.

Isaacs, William. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York, NY:

Currency/Doubleday.

Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related

decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1),

137-155.

Jones, Thomas M. , & Wicks, Andrew C. . (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory.

Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206.

Knolle, Maren. (2012). Influence of Participatory Organisation Structures on the

Implementation of Social Standards: An Empirical Study of Chinese Garment

Factories. (Ph.D.), Leuphana University L neburg, L neburg, Germany.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1981). The Psychology of Moral Development. Vol. I New York:

Harper and Row.

188

Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development. Vol. II. New York:

Harper and Row.

Kolk, Ans, & Van Tulder, Rob. (2002). The Effectiveness of Self-regulation: Corporate

Codes of Conduct and Child Labour. European Management Journal, 20(3), 260-

271.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Illinois: The

University of Chicago Press.

Kujala, Johanna, & Pietiläinen, Tarja. (2004). Female Managers' Ethical Decision-Making:

A Multidimensional Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 153-163.

Lahrizi, Fatima A. (2014). L’éthique en organisation : le point de vue de gestionnaires

d’avant-garde au Québec. (Ph.D.), HEC Montreal, Montreal.

Langlois, Lyse. (2008). Anatomie du leadership éthique. Québec, QC: Les Presses de

l'Université Laval.

Lecourt, Virginie. (2014). Le questionnement éthique en organisation : natures, processus

et pédagogies du questionnement éthique par des gestionnaires. (Ph.D.), HEC

Montréal, école affiliée avec l'Université de Montréal, Montréal.

Limbs, Eric C., & Fort, Timothy L. (2000). Nigerian business practices and their interface

with virtue ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(2), 169.

Lutz, D. (2009). African Ubuntu Philosophy and Global Management. Journal of Business

Ethics, 84, 313.

Lyshaug, Brenda. (2004). Authenticity and the Politics of Identity: A Critique of Charles

Taylor's Politics of Recognition. Contemporary Political Theory, 3(3), 300.

Marchildon, Allison. (2011). Responsabilité et bio-ingenierie: de la responsabilité sociale

des entreprises au problème public. (Ph.D.), Université du Québec à Montréal,

Montreal.

Martineau, Joé. (2014). Pratiques d'éthique organisationelle: État des lieux et taxonomie.

(Ph.D.), HEC Montréal, Montréal.

McDonald, G., & Pak, P. C. (1996). It's all fair in love, war, and business: Cognitive

philosophies in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 973-996.

189

Morgan, Gareth. (1986). Images of the Organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Mourot, Noémie. (2009). Application d’un outil de diagnostic des suppositions de base

culturelles influençant l’éthique organisationnelle. Réflexion autour de l’approche

proposée par Schein. (Master's Degree), HEC Montréal, Montreal.

Mudrack, Peter E., & Mason, E. Sharon. (2013). Ethical Judgments: What Do We Know,

Where Do We Go? Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 575-597.

Narasimhan, N., Bhaskar, K., & Prakhya, S. (2010). Existential Beliefs and Values. Journal

of Business Ethics, 96(3), 369.

Noddings, Nell (2003). Caring. A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (2nd.

Ed.). Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.

Nonaka, Ikujiro, & Takeuchi, Hirotaka. (2011). The Wise Leader. Harvard Business

Review, 89, n/a-n/a.

Ntibagirirwa, S. (2009). Cultural Values, Economic Growth and Development. Journal of

Business Ethics, 84, 297.

Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Fallon, Michael J., & Butterfield, Kenneth D. (2005). A Review of The Empirical Ethical

Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375.

Pauchant, Thierry C. (1995). In Search of Meaning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Pauchant, Thierry C. (2002). Guérir la santé: un dialogue de groupe sur le sens du travail,

les valeurs et l'éthique dans le réseau de la santé. Montréal, Canada: Les Éditions

Fides / Presses HEC.

Pauchant, Thierry C., Coulombe, Caroline, Gosselin, Christiane, Leunens, Yoséline, &

Martineau, Joé T. (2007). Deux outils pour encourager des pratiques morales et

éthiques en gestion. Gestion, 32(1), 31.

Pauchant, Thierry C., Elliott, Fabienne, Franco, Elisabeth, Lecourt, Virginie, Leunens,

Yoséline, & Martineau, Joé. (in press). Corruption, collusion et éthique: comment

contrer une culture de désengagement moral? Éthique Publique.

190

Pauchant, Thierry C., & Mitroff, I. (1995). La gestion des crises et des paradoxes: Prévenir

les effets destructeurs de nos organisations. Québec: Québec Amérique/ Presses

HEC.

Pauchant, Thierry C., & Mitroff, Ian. (1990). Crisis Management - Managing Paradox in a

Chaotic World. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38(2), 117-134.

Pauchant, Thierry C., & Mitroff, Ian. (2002). Learning to cope with complexity. Futurist,

36(3), 68-69.

Perry, William G. Jr. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College

Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Perry, William G. Jr. (1981). Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning. In A.

W. a. a. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College (pp. 76-116). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Premeaux, Shane R. (2004). The Current Link Between Management Behavior and Ethical

Philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 269.

Premeaux, Shane R. (2009). The Link Between Management Behavior and Ethical

Philosophy in the Wake of the Enron Convictions. Journal of Business Ethics,

85(1), 13.

Premeaux, Shane R., & Mondy, R. Wayne. (1993). Linking management behavior to

ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(5), 349.

Prinsloo, E. D. (2000). The African view of participatory business management. Journal of

Business Ethics, 25(4), 275.

Putnam, Hilary. (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Reidenbach, R. Eric, & Robin, Donald P. (1988). Some Initial Steps Toward Improving

The Measurement Of Ethi. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 871.

Reidenbach, R. Eric, & Robin, Donald P. (1990). Toward the Development of a

Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics. Journal of

Business Ethics, 9(8), 639.

191

Rest, James R. (1984). Research on Moral Development: Implications for Training

Counseling Psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 19-29.

Robertson, Christopher J., & Crittenden, William F. (2003). Mapping moral philosophies:

Strategic implications for multinational firms. Strategic Management Journal,

24(4), 385.

Robin, Donald P., Gordon, Gus, Jordan, Charles, & Reidenbach, R. Eric. (1996). The

empirical performance of cognitive moral development in predicting behavioral

intent. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(4), 493.

Roddick, A. . (2000). Business as Unusual. London: Thorsons.

Saives, Anne-Laure, Ebrahimi, Mehran, Desmarteau, Robert H., & Garnier, Catherine.

(2005). Les logiques d'évolution des entreprises de biotechnologie. Revue Française

de Gestion, 31, 153-171.

Saul, John Ralston. (2008). Mon pays métis. Quelques vérités sur le Canada. Montréal:

Boréal.

Schein, Edgar H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th Edition). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Schepers, Donald H. (2003). Machiavellianism, profit, and the dimensions of ethical

judgment: A study of impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(4), 339-352.

Schneider, Susan C., & Shrivastava, Paul. (1988). Basic Assumptions Themes in

Organizations. Human Relations, 41(7), 493-493.

Schwarm, Sarah E., & Ostendorf, Mari. (2005, June 2005). Reading Level Assessment

Using Support Vector Machines and Statistical Lamguage Models. Paper presented

at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the ACI.

Schwartz, Mark S. (2005). Universal Moral Values for Corporate Codes of Ethics. Journal

of Business Ethics, 59(1-2), 27-44.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of

Human Values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for

Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47.

192

Sen, Amartya. (1991). Ethics and Economics. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.

Sen, Amartya. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press.

Senge, Peter, Scharmer, C. Otto, Jaworski, Joseph, & Flowers, Betty Sue. (2005). Presence.

An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society. Revised

and updated edition. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.

Senge, Peter, Smith, Bryan, Kruschwitz, Nina, Laur, Joe, & Schley, Sara. (2008). The

Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together

to Create a Sustainable World. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Shrivastava, Paul. (1985a). Integrating Strategy Formulation with Organizational Culture.

The Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3), 103-103.

Shrivastava, Paul. (1985b). Theoretical Observations on Applied Behavioral Science. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(1), 95-95.

Shrivastava, Paul. (1986). Is Strategic Management Ideological? Journal of Management,

12(3), 363-363.

Shrivastava, Paul, Mitroff, Ian I., & Alvesson, Mats. (1987). Nonrationality in

Organizational Actions. International Studies of Management & Organization,

17(3), 90-90.

Shrivastava, Paul, & Schneider, Susan. (1984). Organizational Frames of Reference.

Human Relations, 37(10), 795-795.

Simola, Sheldene. (2005). Concepts of Care in Organizational Crisis Prevention. Journal of

Business Ethics, 62(4), 341.

Singhapakdi, Anusorn. (2000). Some important factors underlying ethical decision making

of managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(3), 271-284.

Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dennis, Cole, & Bird, Monroe Murphy. (2000). How Do Managers Make

Teleological Evaluations in Ethical Dilemmas? Testing Part of and Extending the

Hunt-Vitell Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3), 259-269.

Somerville, M. . (2000). The Ethical Canary. Science, Society and the Human Spirit. New

York, NY: Viking.

193

Spiller, C., Erakovic, L., Henare, M., & Pio, E. (2011). Relational Well-Being and Wealth:

Maori Businesses and an Ethic of Care. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 153.

Starratt, Robert J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational

leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202.

Statistics Canada. (2006). Population 15 years and over by highest certificate, diploma or

degree, by age groups (2006 Census) 2013

Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, A. (2005). Corporations,

stakeholders and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business-

society relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(3), 263-281.

Swanson, Diane L. (1999). Toward an Integrative Theory of Business and Society: a

Research Strategy for Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management

Review, 24(3), 506-521.

Tabachnick, Barbara G., & Fidell, Linda S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th

edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Taylor, Charles. (1989). Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, Charles. (1991). The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Thomson, G. (2010). Taxonomy of Business Ethics Theories. SSRN Working Paper Series.

Toulmin, Stephen E. (1960). An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. Cambridge:

University Press.

Toulmin, Stephen E. (1990). Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda of modernity. New York: Free

Press.

Trevino, Linda Klebe. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-

Situation Interactionist Model. Academy of Management. The Academy of

Management Review, 11(3), 601-601.

Trevino, Linda Klebe, & Weaver, Gary R. (1994). Business ethics/business ethics: One

field or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 113.

194

Trevino, Linda Klebe, Weaver, Gary R., Gibson, David G., & Toffler, B.L. (1999).

Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California

Management Review, 41(2), 131-131-151.

UNFCC. (2013). Warsaw Climate Change Conference. from

http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/meeting/7649.php

van Marrewijk, Marcel (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate

sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics,

44(2/3), 95.

Vaugeois, Denis. (1995). La fin des alliances franco-indiennes. Montréal: Boréal.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The Organizational Bases Of Ethical Work Climates.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101-101.

Wanderley, L., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & de Sousa Filho, J. (2008). CSR Information

Disclosure on the Web: A Context-Based Approach Analysing the Influence of

Country of Origin and Industry Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 369.

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weaver, Gary R., & Trevino, Linda Klebe. (1994). Normative and empirical business

ethics: Separation, marriage of convenience, or marriage of necessity? Business

Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 129.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of

sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Werhane, Patricia H. (2008). Mental Models, Moral Imagination and Systems Thinking in

the Age of Globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 463-474.

Yankelovich, Daniel. (1999). The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into

Cooperation. New York, NY: Touchstone.

APPENDICES

196

APPENDIX 1

Statements generated with the Toulmin method

198

Nature of reality : This statement answers the question “ Which facts are important, real,

non debatable ?”. It corresponds to your perception of reality. This is a descriptive

statement of what “is” and those who agree with it consider it to be an obvious affirmation.

Ethical prescription: This statement answers the question “ What should I do to be

ethical?” or “ Ideally, what attitude an individual or an organization ought to adopt?”. This

is a normative statement, and is expressed in the form of what «ought » to be done.

Ethical ideal : This statement answers the question “ Why must one be ethical?” or “ What

is the purpose of being ethical?”. This is a moral statement and points towards the

“Ultimate Good” that is to be pursued by an individual, an organization, and even a society.

199

1

ARISTOTLE : Virtuous character

Lifetime : 384-322 B.C.

Country : Antique Greece

Backing : Éthique à Nicomaque (posthumous compilation of his notes

for his lectures at the Academy )

Nature of reality : Happiness does not depend on wealth, fame or power, but on the full

realization of one’s talents and capacities.

Ethical prescription : People must develop their virtuous character by a variety of means

(experience, practice, education...).

Ethical ideal : The goal of any community is to produce friendship between its members.

2

Simone de BEAUVOIR : Existentialism

Lifetime : 1908-1986

Country : France

Backing : Simone de Beauvoir (1949). Le deuxième sexe .

Nature of reality : The oppression of certain groups (women, minorities, outcasts...) is the

sign of the lack ethics in our organizations and societies.

Ethical prescription : .In order to fight oppression, one has to know the particular situation

faced by the oppressed.

Ethical ideal : To be ethical consists in the preserving of one’s freedom and that of others

by fighting oppression.

200

3

Jeremy BENTHAM : Legalistic Deontology

Lifetime : 1748-1832

Country : Angleterre

Backing : Jeremy Bentham (1834). Deontology or the science of morals

.

Nature of reality : It is possible to limit all behaviour that is detrimental to others through

the use of legal sanctions.

Ethical prescription : To be ethical, one has only to follow the laws and the deontology

rules of one’s profession or organization.

Ethical ideal : By themselves, laws, codes and rules ensure the well-being of the greatest

number of people.

4

Gro Harlem BRUNDTLAND : Sustainable Development

Lifetime : 1939-

Country : Norwy

Backing : World Commission on Development and the

Environment (1987). Our Common Future.

Nature of reality : The health of the environment is intimately linked to the social and

economic health (of a society).

Ethical prescription : Organizations must really invest in the transformation of their

activities to minimize their environmental impact.

Ethical ideal : It is necessary to protect the natural environment because it is a matter of

fairness between different nations and towards future generations.

201

5

Archie CARROLL : Corporate Social Responsibility

Lifetime : 1946-

Country : United States

Backing : Edward Freeman (1979). «A Three-Dimensional Conceptual

Model of Corporate Social Performance». Academy of Management

Review.

Nature of reality : The reputation of an organization is generated, in order of importance

by (1) its financial results, (2) its respect of the law and (3) its social and philanthropic

contributions.

Ethical prescription : An organization must seek to secure a good social reputation by

promoting its ethical activities.

Ethical ideal : In order to be socially accepted, an organization must comply with the

requirements that are expected in the societies in which it operates.

6

CONFUCIUS : Mutual Moral Obligations

Lifetime : 551– 479 B.C.

Country : China Backing : Analects (compiled after his death by various authors between

479-221 B.C.)

Nature of reality : Ethics is first learned within the family, then with friends, and later

through social relationships.

Ethical prescription : One must follow rituals of respect, beginning with those established

in the family, because this is the foundation of all ethical development.

Ethical ideal : The obligation of respect in the family is the model to follow in all other

social relationships, such as friendship, business, and public administration.

202

7

Émile DURKHEIM : Moral Education

Lifetime : 1858-1917

Country : France

Backing : Émile Durkheim (1902). L’Éducation morale.

Nature of reality : People’s values are determined by the groups to which they belong.

Ethical prescription : Every organization or society must train and/or educate their

members to its values.

Ethical ideal : Secular (i.e. non-religious) ethics is necessary to ensure social unity in any

society or organization.

8

Henry FORD : Corporate Paternalism

Lifetime : 1863- 1947

Country : USA

Backing : Henry Ford (1922). My Life and Work .

Nature of reality : In all organizations and societies, there are a great number of immature

people who require strong leaders to guide them for their own good.

Ethical prescription : A manager must lead people like a good father who oversees the

education of his children.

Ethical ideal : The role of managers is to ensure the survival and development of the

organization by controlling their employees’ behavior.

203

9

Edward FREEMAN : Stakeholders Ethics

Lifetime : 1951-

Country : United States

Backing : Edward Freeman (1985). Strategic Management : a stakeholder

approach .

Nature of reality : An organization cannot survive in the long term by only taking into

consideration the interests of its investors.

Ethical prescription : In order to insure it’s long term survival, an organization must

respond to the interests of all its stakeholders.

Ethical ideal : An organization must care for all its stakeholders because they are all

affected by its activities.

10

Milton FRIEDMAN : Neoliberal Ethics

Lifetime : 1912-2006

Country : United States

Backing : Milton Friedman (1980). Free to Choose.

Nature of reality : Thanks to the ‘’invisible hand’’ of the market, any activity

that benefits the interest of one actor will also be beneficial for the common interest.

Ethical prescription : The only responsibility of an organization is to maximize the

interests of its investors, while respecting the rules of the game.

Ethical ideal : Only a market that is free from all intervention from the State gives

everyone a chance to increase their wealth.

204

11

Carol GILLIGAN : Ethics of Care

Lifetime : 1936-

Country : United States

Backing : Carroll Gilligan (1982). In a Different Voice.

Nature of reality : A person’s ethics depends upon the quality of the relationships that

he/she establishes with others.

Ethical prescription : Every ethical decision requires one to be empathetic with regard to

how other people are experiencing a given situation.

Ethical ideal : To be ethical means to establish caring relationships between people.

12

Jürgen HABERMAS : Ethics of Discussion

Lifetime : 1929-

Country : Germany Backing : J rgen Habermas (1981). Théorie de l’agir communicationnel.

Nature of reality : Ethics is produced through a dialogue between all the

people who are touched by common issues.

Ethical prescription : Every organization or society must create spaces for discussion and

train people for public dialogue.

Ethical ideal : To be ethical means to work towards social consensus, without power

struggles.

205

13

Thomas HOBBES : Ethics of Survival

Lifetime : 1588-1679

Country : England

Backing : Thomas Hobbes (1651). The Leviathan .

Nature of reality : By nature, people are violent and dangerous.

Ethical prescription : An organization or a society must give itself a central authority that

watches closely and punishes people in an exemplary way.

Ethical ideal : The most important ethical consideration is public order, because it ensures

people’s survival and the protection of their possessions.

14

Immanuel KANT : Personal Deontology

Lifetime : 1724-1804

Country : Germany

Backing : Immanuel Kant (1745). Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.

Nature of reality : Ethical judgment requires rational thinking, that is not biased by

emotions.

Ethical prescription : To be ethical, each person must restrain his/her own behaviour by

following rational principles that apply to everyone.

Ethical ideal : Rational principles must be followed in order to garantee an absolute

respect towards each human being, regardless of the circumstances.

206

15

Lawrence KOHLBERG : Moral Development

Lifetime : 1927- 1967

Country : USA

Backing : Lawrence Kohlberg (1981, 1985). Essays on Moral

development : The Psychology of Moral Development- vol. I et II

Nature of reality : Ethics depends on a person’s maturity, which can develop throughout a

person’s lifetime.

Ethical prescription : An organization must encourage the development of the ethical

consciousness of its members.

Ethical ideal : An ethical organization requires at a minimum a core group of people who

have attained a high level of ethical consciousness.

16

Hans KÜNG : Global Ethics

Lifetime : 1928-

Country : Suisse

Backing : Hans Küng (1993). Déclaration pour une éthique planétaire.

Nature of reality : Despite their differences, one can find a common ground between the

values of all the religions of the world.

Ethical prescription : For a change in consciousness to occur, the use of religious

practices is required.

Ethical ideal : What is ethical is revealed by the divine.

207

17

LAO-TSEU : The Natural Way

Lifetime : entre 600 et 500 av. J-C.

Country : Chine

Backing : Livre de la Voie et de la Vertu

Nature of reality : The spontaneous order of nature generates wisdom, which is something

above and beyond factual knowledge.

Ethical prescription : Ethics is something that occurs spontaneously; it does not require

any pre-determined rules or reflection.

Ethical ideal : Harmony and social ethics derive from the natural current of life.

18

Wangari MAATHAÏ: Ubuntu Ethics

Lifetime : 1940-2011

Country : Kénya

Backing : Wangari Maathaï (2009). The Challenge for Africa.

Nature of reality : Nobody is really independent, since every person exists in

interdependence with his/her community, and with his/her natural and spiritual

environment.

Ethical prescription : An action is ethical when it enhances harmony in the social,

ecological and spiritual realms..

Ethical ideal : Respect for the natural and spiritual forces of the world is essential for

ethical communities.

208

19

Nicolas MACHIAVELLI : Political Realism

Lifetime : 1469-1527

Country : Italie

Backing : Nicolas Machiavel (1532). Le Prince.

Nature of reality : Ethical considerations are often a utopian fantasy in a world that is

dominated by a merciless competition.

Ethical prescription : For an organization to survive, a leader must sometimes set aside

his/her ethics.

Ethical ideal : The long term survival of an organization must be defended by all possible

means.

20

Karl MARX : Egalitarianism

Lifetime : 1818-1883

Country : Allemagne/Angleterre

Backing : Karl Marx (1894). The Capital.

Nature of reality : The domination of certain groups over others explains the inequalities

in all societies.

Ethical prescription : Private property must be abolished in order for equality between

people to be possible.

Ethical ideal : Ethics requires government intervention, in order to ensure equality

between people.

209

21

John Stuart MILL : Utilitarianism

Lifetime : 1806-1873

Country : Angleterre

Backing : John Stuart Mill (1863). Utilitarianism.

Nature of reality : One can calculate in an objective manner the positive and negative

consequences of any policy.

Ethical prescription : To be ethical, a decision must be based on an objective calculation

of its consequences.

Ethical ideal : To be ethical, the well-being of the greatest number of people must be

maximized.

22

ROCHDALE PIONNEERS : Co-operative Ethics

Lifetime : 1844

Country : England Backing : The Rochdale Principles (1844)

Nature of reality : An organization can be based on mutual help and voluntary co-

operation between its members.

Ethical prescription : Members of an organization should own a part of its capital, elect its

leaders and share a spirit of solidarity.

Ethical ideal : To be ethical, an organization must be based on co-operation.

210

23

PLATO : The Good, the True and the Beautiful

Lifetime : 428 - 347 B.C.

Country : Ancient Greece

Backing : The Symposium

Nature of reality : Ethics begins with self-knowledge and knowledge of one’s own

society.

Ethical prescription : One must help others to discover by themselves what is good,

beautiful and true, rather than impose social norms.

Ethical ideal : Ethics is what gives meaning to life and must not be pursued for any other

reason.

24

Ayn RAND : Ethical Egoism

Lifetime : 1905-1982

Country : Russia/ USA

Backing : Ann Rand (1957). Atlas Shrugged.

Nature of reality : A rich and fair society is formed of people who pursue

only their own personal goals, while respecting the laws.

Ethical prescription : In all types of relationships (business, citizenship, friendship,

love...), the use of contracts is the only way to maximize the interests of each person.

Ethical ideal : The maximization of one’s own interests is the only possible way for each

person to be able to survive and realize his/her projects.

211

25

John RAWLS : Distributive Justice

Lifetime : 1921-2002

Country : United States

Backing : John Rawls (1971). A Theory of Justice.

Nature of reality : It is possible to set aside one’s personal interest when taking decisions.

Ethical prescription : In order for a decision to be ethical, it must be made by people who

set aside their personal interests.

Ethical ideal : An ethical organization or society seeks to maximize the interests of the

poorest.

26

Eleanor ROOSEVELT : Human Rights

Lifetime : 1884-1962

Country : USA

Backing : United Nations Human Rights Declaration (1948).

Nature of reality : Every person on earth is endowed with the same fundamental rights.

Ethical prescription : An organization must first of all respects the fundamental human

rights, as defined by the United Nations.

Ethical ideal : The respect of human rights is necessary to be ethical.

212

27

Amartya SEN : Capability Approach

Lifetime : 1933-

Country : India / United Kingdom / USA Backing : Amartya Sen (2009). The Idea of Justice

Nature of reality : People’s life plans are diverse and complex, and go beyond solely

individualistic and material considerations.

Ethical prescription : To be ethical, organizations must absolutely take into account

people’s quality of life.

Ethical ideal : Ethics requires that people be allowed to realize their own life plans.

28

Adam SMITH : Evolutionnary Ethics

Lifetime : 1723-1790

Country : Royaume-Uni

Backing : Adam Smith (1776). Inquiry on the Wealth of Nations.

Nature of reality : Human beings seek their own personal interest but are also empathetic

to the situation of others.

Ethical prescription : To be ethical, a person must be able to question the soundness of

her/his personal feelings and the beliefs of her/his society or organization.

Ethical ideal : The evolution of societies brings along new conceptions of ethics, that

require profound changes.

213

29

Rabindranâth TAGORE : Citizen of the World

Lifetime : 1861-1921

Country : India

Backing : Rabindranâth Tagore (1913). Gitanjali.

Nature of reality : Openness to art and different cultures stimulates feelings of sympathy

and mutual help throughout the world.

Ethical prescription : One must develop an artistic and multicultural education from a

very early age in order to form world citizens.

Ethical ideal : Peace and development depend on every person seeing themselves as a

citizen of the world.

30

Frans VAN DER HOFF : Fair Trade Lifetime : 1939- Country : Netherland/Mexico

Backing : Frans Van der Hoff (2005). Nous ferons un monde équitable.

Nature of reality : The workings of current global economic markets often result in the

overexploitation of the producers without power.

Ethical prescription : In order to counter the overexploitation of producers without

power, it is necessary that products be certified by an independent international

organization.

Ethical ideal : It is essential that customers become more aware of how they can consume

responsibly in ways that are fair for the producers without power.

APPENDIX 2

Example of a chapter on an ethical theory

216

Chapter X

Fair Trade Frans van der Hoff

Netherlands, Mexico

1939 -

Luc K. Audebrand and C. Pauchanti

Version January 2, 2006

The philosophy and practice of fair trade (FT) has emerged out of a very particular context.

At a time when opposition towards the two dominant logics of market-driven or

government-controlled markets, the FT movement has taken root in small communities at

the margins of these two systems. Not based on grand moral ideals, FT is rather a social

movement designed to ensure the survival of the community and safeguard its dignity. FT

is not rooted in Western countries but rather in so-called “developing countries” or the

“South.” Furthermore, whereas in the modern Western world, the future of the economy is

believed to lie not in the industrial sector or even the services sector but, mostly, in the

information sector, FT is rooted in the oldest economic sector, agriculture, a sector in which

no more than 2% to 3% of the Western workforce participates.ii Nonetheless, FT is not

antimodernist, romantic or backward-looking. Today, 2.06 billion men and women still

earn their living or subsist by working the land.iii

FT was enshrined in the United Nations

Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed in 1948. Endorsed by Eleanor Roosevelt,

this declaration stipulates that “Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable

remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity.”iv

FT has become an international movement, representing the common will of many

individuals and organizations.v In Southern countries, it improves the living conditions of

over five million people, including farmers and their families.vi

Frans van der Hoff has

played a pivotal role in the development of this movement: he introduced the first FT

product; co-founded the first international FT label, Max Havelaar, and settled in Latin

217

America in 1970. Since 1980, he has been sharing the life of plantation farmers in a small

village in Mexico, the fertile birthplace of FT.

Born in 1939 in the Netherlands into a family of 15 children, Francisco “Frans” van der Hoff was raised on

a farm in very humble conditions. He claims he grew up “literally under the cows.”vii His first memories are

of World War Two: he was struck by the sight of a charred corpse of a German pilot whose plane had

crashed near his farm. Drawn to the priesthood, he recalls the austere quasi-military life at the seminary, but

admits that it was there that he learned discipline, introspection and meditation. He also noted the rift

between city dwellers and the rural population; he himself had been mocked as a “yokel.” Ordained as a priest in 1968, he

describes this period as effervescent: Vatican II, the student occupations of universities, large gatherings of the

revolutionary left, May ’68 in Paris, Martin Luther King jr., the opposition to the Vietnam War, etc. Yet he concludes

today that “we believed that the simple defence of human rights, justice and democracy would prevail over abuse.”viii

After studying history, philosophy and theology in the Netherlands and in Germany (Universities of Nimègue,

Heidelberg, Münster and Berlin) and studying economics under Nobel Prize winner Jan Tinbergen, he earned two

doctorate degrees in 1970, in political economics and theology.

During his sojourn as a chair holder at the University of Ottawa from 1970 to 1973, he divided his time between Canada

and Chile. In Ottawa, while volunteering at a shelter for drug abusers, he realized that drug addicts come from well to do

families “as if a whole generation were lost.”ix In Santiago he worked in the slums, where he noticed the violence between

opposing groups and the need to reduce social schisms. It was there that he met Paulo Freire, who taught him the virtues

of dialogue and how awareness and education could be liberating for oppressed populations.x After the coup d’etat in

1973 led by totalitarian leader Pinochet, he took refuge in Mexico, working in Mexico City until 1980. Although as a

priest he was associated with the Catholic Church, he often publicly expressed disappointment, notably at the Church’s

support for General Pinochet or the visits to the slums by bishops in luxury cars. To ensure his financial independence and

to fulfil his quest to share the lot of the most disadvantaged workers, he became a worker-priest, labouring as a travelling

shoe salesman, jam maker, axle producer at Ford and farmer. After receiving death threats from the secret police in

Mexico City, he moved to Ixtepec in the southern state of Oaxaca, where 80% of the population is native. To this day, he

lives among the Zapotec, Miztec, Mixe, Chontales and other tribes. Originator of the first FT product and co-founder of

the label Max Havelaar, van der Hoff was named CEO of the Year in Mexico in 2004. He has also earned an honorary

doctorate from the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, and was decorated as a Knight of the Legion of Honour by

the French government.

FT is a “commercial network of production/distribution/consumption oriented towards interdependent,

sustainable development.”xi

Its goal is to increase equity in international trade, given that today no

market can thrive in isolation. Although the volume of international trade is currently 14 times greater

than what it was after World War II, one third of the planet, or more than two billion people, still live

below the poverty line. 1.4 billion people earn less than US$2 per day.xii

Consequently, FT does not

advocate increasing charity or financial aid to developing countries; rather, it proposes an

alternative organization of international commercial trade. FT allows small producers in the This text is a completed first draft of a chapter that will be included in a book edited by Thierry Pauchant entitled Doing

Good Business: Integrating Ethics and Performance.

218

South to access Northern markets, which helps them evolve from a position of vulnerability

and dependence to greater economic self-sufficiency, while improving their social and ecological

conditions.

One of the milestones in the history of FT was the first United Nations Conference on

Trade and Development (UNCTD) in 1964. There, representatives of Third World

countries affirmed that their country’s socio-economic development would be better served

by commercial trade than by humanitarian aid. This opinion was encapsulated in the

expression “Trade, not Aid” popularized in the 1970s by Anita Roddick, then CEO of the

multinational The Body Shop, and more recently by Nobel Prize laureates in economics.xiii

FT has since been defined by both economic and extra-economic principles.xiv

Tool: The Seven Principles of Fair Tradexv

1. Carry out direct trade, that is, limit the number of intermediaries between the producer and the consumer, the two

stakeholders considered central to FT.

2. Offer fair wages to producers or an integral price, slightly higher than the market price, which covers not only the

economic costs related to production of a good or service but also the social and environmental costs.

3. Promote long-term commitment and sustainable and transparent relations between economic partners, and not focus

exclusively on short-term profits as the ethos of perpetual growth dictates.

4. Supply technical and financial support to producers in the South. This support can take the form of pre-financing that

allows producers to live comfortably between crops, guarantees a minimum purchase price despite stock market

fluctuations, and provides technical aid to improve work and management methods. Some of these principles are similar

to the ones adopted by the co-operative movement founded by the Rochdale society.

5. Favour democratic management of producing organizations, most often based on the co-operative model. Work co-

operatives offer several advantages, including member participation in decision-making and reinvestment of surpluses in

community projects. They also facilitate the learning of democracy, the repercussions of which go beyond the framework

of the organization.

6. Support sustainable development, i.e. preserve biodiversity and renewable natural resources by promoting polyculture,

avoiding pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and decreasing pollution and waste.

7. Promote consumer education on responsible consumption. All FT partners are encouraged to carry out educational

activities to raise awareness among consumers, the general public, companies and political decision makers.

Third World countries often depend on exports of raw materials and crops such as coffee, sugar, cacao

or bananas, whose prices have been declining for many years.xvi

These markets are influenced by the

large Western stock exchanges such as New York or London and by multinational corporations. In the

banana trade, for example, three multinationals—Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita—dominate the market,

219

influencing prices and salaries to their advantage. Whereas Chiquita pays a Latin American farmer $3.70

per case, Oké bananas, an FT producer, pays a farmer $6.30 for the same volume produced

organically.xvii

Similarly, the large economic powers protect their markets through quotas or allocation

of export licences to allied countries, a situation that creates a licence market in which companies trade

their permits to other companies.xviii

Note that the objective of FT is not to replace conventional trade.

Sales of FT have been evaluated in 2002 at US$500 million per year and its expansion varies

considerably by product and country.xix

For example, FT coffee in France today represents 2% of the

market and is growing rapidly. FT coffee has been integrated into large French distribution chains such

as Auchan and Carrefour, as well as hotel and restaurant chains such as Accord. In Switzerland, a

country not protected by European Union quotas, FT coffee represents 8% of the market and FT bananas

47%. By comparison, FT coffee accounts for 20% of Mexico’s exports.xx

FT upsets the classic model of the production chain, consisting of producers, local intermediaries,

exporters, brokers, importers, transformers, distributors, retailers and consumers. The mechanisms of

certification and control guarantee that the weak links of the chain, such as small producers, receive an

equitable portion of the profits. Certification is the cornerstone of FT, legitimizing it from consumers’

standpoint. The first FT certification in the world was the Max Havelaar label, named after a

famous book published in the Netherlands. Under the alias Multatuli (“I have suffered a

lot” in Javanese), Dutch writer Eduard Douwes Dekker (1820-1887) introduced the

protagonist Max Havelaar in 1860 in a novel that denounced the Dutch colonial system in

Indonesia.xxi

Like the English in India or the French in Indochina, the Dutch exploited the

natural wealth of Indonesia for several centuries to the detriment of local populations. In

the novel, the hero Max Havelaar speaks out against the oppression of the Javanese coffee

growers and the tactics of Dutch exporters who sought to keep the purchase price as low as

possible. When Frans van der Hoff and Nico Roozen met in 1985, the situation described in

the book still prevailed. While van der Hoff has been fighting to improve the quality of life

of Chileans and Mexicans since 1970, Roozen has worked for Solidaridad, an interfaith

humanitarian development organization in Latin America, since 1984. Both no longer

believed “in the large development projects put in place nor in the virtue of intermittent

donations.”xxii

The workers and farmers that they helped daily share their view, as van der

Hoff explainsxxiii

:

220

The true initiators of the Max Havelaar project are the poor Indians that told us “We do not want your

donations. We are not beggars. Real support would be to pay us a fair price for our coffee.” For me these

words express the crux of the problem, from both theological and economic standpoints.

Roozen and van der Hoff were convinced that between 7% and 15% of consumersxxiv

would be willing to pay slightly more for their coffee if they knew that this surplus would

be used to truly improve the living conditions of the producers. Two ideas were put forth:

create a distinctive brand of coffee or promote a quality label. The second option was

retained, spawning the Max Havelaar label. The first bag of FT coffee was sold in a large

department store in the Netherlands on November 15, 1988. Before this date, “ethical”

coffee was sold in specialty stores to enlightened consumers. However, the coffee growers

were able to sell only a minute portion of their production to this specialized market. Since

the label Max Havelaar was created, many FT products are no longer confined to specialty

stores: they are now sold in conventional stores, department stores, restaurants and hotels.

The FT label legitimizes the product, not just the specialty store where the product is sold.

Labels such as Max Havelaar are administered by independent non-profit organizations.

The penetration of traditional distribution circuits is the keystone of the strategy envisioned

by van der Hoff and Roozen. The first Max Havelaar product is coffee harvested by the

Mexican cooperative UCIRI that van der Hoff helped create (see the case below). FT

certification was then extended to other producers and products such as Oké bananas or

Kuyichi Jeans. In addition, many other FT certification systems were created (Fairtrade,

Transfair, etc.), grouped within Fair Trade Labelling Organizations International (FLO).

These organizations neither purchase nor sell FT products; rather, they manage FT

certification and labelling in different countries.

The FLO applies rigorous guidelines that uphold the integrity of its certification-related

decisions. It applies international FT standards, revised regularly in close cooperation with

the main stakeholders, who are represented on its board of directors. The organization

defines the certification standards by product type and verifies compliance with these

standards among producers, importers, processors and distributors through administrative

processes and physical inspections. It also coordinates technical, financial and

221

organizational support for producers. The FLO is a member of FINE, a forum that brings

together four international movements that promote FT,xxv

and of ISEAL, an international

network of organizations that manages social and environmental certification, accreditation

and labelling systems.xxvi

Case Study: Union of Indian Villages in the Isthmus Region (UCIRI), Mexicoxxvii

To promote access to freedom and land ownership after the Mexican Revolution, the government of Lazaro Cardenas

distributed land to small farmers and offered significant state support for agriculture. This policy was curtailed by the neo-

liberal deregulation reforms of the Salinas and Zedillo governments, which included the NAFTA agreement with United

States and Canada. These changes radically altered the living conditions of coffee producers, squeezed on one side by

local buyers known as “coyotes,” who bought coffee at the lowest price, and at the international level by price variations

triggered by international stock markets and large multinationals. This situation had tragic repercussions in Mexico, the

world’s fifth largest coffee producing nation. Coffee ranks as the country’s second most important export product after oil

and ensures a living or survival for millions of Mexicans. The state of Oaxaca, one of the most politicized and diverse in

terms of native populations, was determined to regain autonomy in this key crop production.

This is the context van der Hoff encountered when he arrived in the south of the state in 1980. He worked for two years in

plantations as a day labourer and in 1982 proposed not a solution but a collective problem analysis process based on the

dialogue practice of Paulo Friere. After long dialogues, 150 representatives of three villages, including members of native

tribes and Caucasians, identified two major problems: debt to the banks and the meagre sale price of their coffee. The

analysis revealed that while the “coyotes” purchased the coffee at $0.25 per kg, its real price including the farmers’ labour

was $0.65. In addition, many bank officers pocketed the debt repayments. In 1983, UCIRI was founded as a cooperative

with democratic management, an elected board of directors, representation of all partners, decision-making by consensus,

etc. By buying a truck, the cooperative could then sell coffee directly at the port of VeraCruz, without intermediaries, at

$0.95/kg. Systematic follow-up with the banks was also initiated. The reaction of the intermediaries was violent. For

almost a decade, they sabotaged equipment and assassinated 37 villagers. The members of UCIRI nonetheless stood their

ground, adopting the slogan of “together we will triumph.” They reinvested a portion of their profits in essential

infrastructures for their communities (roads, running water, electricity, telephone service, health services, schools, crops

for local consumption, such as beans and corn, etc.). They also invested in coffee production (stores, warehouses, roasters,

computers, cooperative credit bank, organic farming training centre, etc.). In 1986, they decided to only produce organic

coffee that abides by five principles: protection of biodiversity, waste water management, erosion control, elimination of

pesticides and chemical fertilizers, recycling, waste reduction and compost use. All these innovations are particularly well

received by the communities because they are consistent with ancestral values of autonomy, democracy and respect for

nature. With help from the contacts of Frans van der Hoff, UCIRI became the first exporter of FT coffee to Europe, under

the Max Havelaar label, thus gaining autonomy which let them weather market fluctuations and oligopolies. Today,

UCIRI spans 53 villages and 2,300 families. The profits earned by these small producers have skyrocketed by 300%, and

they are branching out into new products such as jam and clothing. Internationally, FT coffee, distributed in over 20

countries in the North, is helping more than one million rural families in 30 exporting countries in the South (Latin

America, Africa, Asia, etc.) to earn their living.

222

Contribution of the Theory to Organizational Ethics

FT offers a concrete alternative to traditional trade. By restoring power to small producers through the

creation of new mechanisms and institutions, FT lets farmers participate fairly in commercial trade.

Nonetheless, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the greatest

challenge to FT lies not exclusively in institutions but in people’s minds.xxviii

The FT

movement is dependent on psychology, in that it results from individuals making the choice

to participate in the responsible consumption movement. As the ultimate stage of the

economic process, consumption plays a vital role in determining ethical choices throughout

the system.xxix

It can favour oppression and injustice or conversely further the emancipation

process. In addition, responsible consumption is an alternative to a traditional boycott.

Whereas a boycott is an organized interruption of the purchase of one or more products

intended to compel a company to modify practices, responsible consumption lets

consumers incorporate their choices in a purchase, in keeping with the idea of “buying is

voting.”xxx

While economic players often seek to preserve shareholders’ interests, FT

proposes a new alliance between producers and consumers.xxxi

As van der Hoff

explainsxxxii

:

The alliance between producers and consumers is at the heart of FT: both groups agree on the trade rules to

avoid harming anyone. This trade is both a rebellion and a proposition. It is a different model, a market

model in the market… Belief in free trade that would ensure regulation, balance between supply and

demand, underestimates, in effect, two essential factors: the social cost for the producers, who have no

power over the market and are, moreover, prevented from participating in the market, and the power of the

consumers, who each day become more demanding in terms of quality, and thus the origin, traceability and

movement of merchandise through the production chain…

FT theory also contradicts the neo-liberal thesis of Milton Friedman or Friedrich von Hayek, which

stipulates that the price of a good has no possible objective basis apart from the balance between its

supply and demand on the market.xxxiii

The concept of integral price is central to FT. Proponents argue

that the objective price of a product comprises several costs. The real production cost leads to production

of a quality product; the social cost allows producers to live in dignity from their labour and develop

essential infrastructures; the environmental cost ensures that production respects the natural

environment, whereas reasonable costs of transportation and distribution can be attained by eliminating

middlemen as much as possible.xxxiv

At a time when many companies are outsourcing their production

to Third World countries and sometimes pay miserable salaries, which they justify by claiming that they

223

are creating jobs in these countries, FT offers a powerful alternative. One notable example of

outsourcing: The multinational Nike was, for example, criticized for hiring children between the ages of

five to ten who worked 70 hours per week in Indonesia earning $0.60 per day.xxxv

FT is also a viable alternative to international aid and charity because it strives to achieve a better

balance of wealth in our so-called “globalized” world. It is estimated that 48 of the poorest countries on

the planet carry out only 0.4% of global trade; their market shares have shrunk by 50% since 1980. In

addition, 500 multinationals currently control two-thirds of this trade and the five largest multinationals

generate about the same amount of revenue as the 48 poorest countries.xxxvi

To restore a balance, the

rich countries grant international aid. But today this aid represents less than 0.05% of the GDP of the

donor countries, totalling roughly US$80 billion compared with US$1,000 billion in current military

spending. Further, it is estimated that 80% of this aid, even when administered by international

organizations or NGOs, often never reaches its destination for various reasons: contractual clauses

requiring the purchase of Western products and services; fraud and corruption in the donating countries,

receiving countries and organizations; expatriates’ salaries at Western levels; use of new Volvo trucks or

Toyota 4X4s; etc.xxxvii

Moreover, allocation of the aid is often an opportunity for donor countries to

exert political pressure on the receivers.xxxviii

At a time when a rural exodus is causing serious logistical, social and ecological problems in many

countries, FT offers an interesting solution by revitalizing rural farming conditions. Frans van der

Hoff’s views echo those of Carol Gilligan on relational ethics and Rigoberta Menchú Tum

on ecological ethics. He posits that the values and cosmology of small farmers and native

populations run counter to those of city dwellers and deserve better recognition.

Specifically, he asserts that:xxxix

We must absolutely evaluate the social and ecological costs of this “replacement” of small farms by agro-

industry, which will soon dictate what we must eat and how to digest it […] Modern agriculture is not only

developed to feed populations but also to increase returns on investments. These are two very distinct things,

because to do this the large farm operators are obliged to produce commercial crops, mainly intended for export

to rich and industrialized nations. In fact, most often these crops do not correspond to local food.

[For the small farmer, a community-oriented being], the important thing is to maintain harmony in the world

and with the world. This is not done in a determined direction but rather in cycles […] Relations with others are

governed by the principle of reciprocity, and exchanges are normal conditions of existence of the community

[…] In these exchanges, it is not the economic or symbolic value that takes precedence but rather the act itself.

His cyclical concept of time would disconcert the “modern” city-dweller, whose linear, forward-looking,

progressive approach is oriented by the chain of causes and effects […] The cyclical concept allows this

conventional historical time but sees it differently, as a wheel that turns. In the culture of the indigenous

224

producer, there is an original, prior situation to the one they experience, that of a fair world, which allows

satisfaction of primordial needs: working the soil to feed themselves and their family, clothe themselves and

maintain good health. The right to the earth is as important as the right to eat […] They talk about the earth with

much respect, as Mother Earth that generates life thanks to work, sowing, rain and care provided […] NAFTA

sold their agriculture and food production to multinationals that […] apply intensive agricultural modes.

Furthermore, the ethics of FT originate from a very different source of human experience

than the grand ideals of moral or political philosophy. In management, Tom Peters and

Robert Waterman popularized the concept of “management by walking around,” urging

CEOs and senior managers to descend from their ivory towerxl

. Frans van der Hoff

espoused another approach: “management by living with,” rooted in the experience of

living alongside people without power, subordinate employees, those with firsthand

knowledge of suffering and despair. It is worth noting that in the example of child

exploitation by Nike mentioned above, CEO Phil Knight, who publicly apologized for

these practices, admitted that he had never visited this country, had never experienced

“living with” the people that manufacture his company’s products.xli

In stark contrast, even

when she was the extremely busy CEO of multinational The Body Shop, Anita Roddick

spent several weeks a year with the farmers that supply the company, sharing their way of

life. For similar reasons, each year many companies send a portion of their staff, from

employees and managers to members of the boards of directors, to developing countries so

that they can meet the population and social stakeholders such as teachers, mayors and

entrepreneurs.xlii

As part of the innovative program designed by Henry Mintzberg of

McGill University, each MBA is asked to spend at least one month in India. Mintzberg

reported that this is often the lesson that makes the deepest impression on the students.xliii

This approach is a far cry from traditional practices in business ethics such as the drafting

of a code of ethics or developing a public relations campaign! Of course, it is possible to

“live with” the most disadvantaged people in a Northern country, where poverty is also

very present. Van der Hoff differentiates misery that atrophies the human spirit from

poverty, which can be endured with dignityxliv

:

[When I taught] at the university of Ottawa, I had the idea that social problems and economic and cultural injustice

were caused by rabid imperialism perpetrated by ignorants that evidently, were completely mistaken. We then had

225

easily and purely theoretical responses: the class struggle, revolution, equality and democracy […] Discovering the

hidden face of the ideals of the Lights of liberalism and socialism was difficult for me. It is the poor people

themselves that educated me. I did not receive their message romantically or with benevolent paternalism. It is not

just a question of awareness but one of empathy […an] experience of relating to others. Only suffering can teach

this. But the term “suffering” does not appear in the lexicon of neoliberal values. For them, it is only the market that

suffers. Yet suffering is the daily lot for millions of people, who, far from letting themselves be overwhelmed, face it

courageously and with dignity. It is suffering that allows accountability toward others. I am convinced that the most

human morals are found today in suffering in its broadest sense: individual, social, cultural and religious. Wanting to

escape this experience is tantamount to trying to escape all morality.

Standing by the poor means sitting near a source of grace. Poor people are the historical messengers of our salvation

and happiness […] Thanks to them we can follow the course of history, we can understand the meaning of our

existence. It is the poor, the indigent, the small farmer that offers hope for a bright future. It is they that give time its

depth, that let us question the exploitative economic system, the political system that excludes and the social system

that denigrates.

Obviously, it is easy to attribute these views to the fact that van der Hoff is a worker-priest.

Yet economists such as Adam Smith, today considered the founding father of the concept

of the “commercial society,” the “market economy” and the “capitalist system,” reached the

same conclusion. Years after he wrote the book The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued:

“This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to

despise, or at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, [… is…] the great and

most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”xlv

Limits of the theory

FT has been criticized repeatedly by proponents and detractors alike.xlvi

Notably, FT is

decried for being only another form of charity that is not fundamentally different from

humanitarian aid: in the South, its aims to lift the small producer out of poverty, and in the

North, FT appeals to the social awareness of consumers. In addition, the main FT

stakeholders are charitable NGOs, cooperatives, unions and religious organizations. Some

thus consider FT a charitable movement. On this subject, Roozen and van der Hoff clarify

that FT centers more on superior product quality. A farmer can harvest a maximum of 60

kg of handpicked coffee cherries per day, compared with 60,000 kg harvested daily in

mechanized agro-industry.xlvii

Van der Hoff is also known to have coined this shocking

phrase: “Giving charity is a mortal sin.” xlviii

In effect, charity treats the poor as objects, not

226

as people, blurring the difference between means and ends, a notion introduced by

Emmanuel Kant.

FT has also been criticized for its higher cost to consumers and for offering, in a sense,

products reserved for the rich members of society.xlix

Generally, FT products are slightly

more expensive than products sold in conventional trade: often the reduction, in FT, of the

profit margin realized by the large companies does not compensate for the additional

integral costs. Further, because of the small scale of the operations and organic farming, FT

cannot benefit from large economies of scale; certification may also be costly.l

Once again, this difference in price can be defended if the truly superior quality of FT

products is acknowledged. The general public must also be made aware, through

educational efforts that social and ecological costs are not “externalities,” as classic

economic theory specifies, but instead are integral costs that must be included in the sale

price.li

Moreover, FT is accused of being a new form of exploitation of the populations of the

South, because the principles imposed on producers, such as democratic management and

sustainable development, strongly reflect the preoccupations of countries in the North.lii

Others have argued that these principles are not imposed on other players in the production

chain, while altermondialistes consider that reducing the proportion of subsistence

agriculture in favour of export crops perpetuates dependence within Third World

countries.liii

While these criticisms are occasionally well founded, we have seen that in the

case of UCIRI that the values of democracy and ecology emerged from the ancestral values

of the native populations and were established communally. In addition, this cooperative

considers exporting not as part of strategy of growth and market domination, but as an

activity to pursue after the basic needs have been met to improve local living conditions.

A more subjective criticism is that FT contributes to the commodification of the

populations of the South together with the products they produce. In some cases,

227

photographers and artists pry into the private life of Southern producers in the guise of

promotion: farmers are called by their first names, their family members are described.

Their intimate lives are publicized along with their crude living conditions. As a result of

this invasion of privacy, the small coffee grower in the South may become a consumer

object, on a par with the coffee he produces.liv

Again, these practices are not commonplace

within UCIRI, yet other organizations, even so-called “humanitarian” organizations, have

succumbed to this temptation of emotional marketing and voyeurism of poverty.

Another weakness of FT stems from a bureaucratic hurdle.lv

Because certification is one of

the essential characteristics of FT, its implementation at the international level is fraught

with significant political, cultural and logistic problems. Other forms of certification

controlled by multiple organizations, such as certification for organic products or locally

grown products, are hampered by similar constraints. Currently, countries such as France

are contemplating putting in place a new national certification for “fair trade products.” The

Palais de l’Élysée has adopted FT coffee while the Netherlands wants 10% of its products

to be “organic” and Germany is aiming for 20%.lvi

Time will tell whether the FLO will

successfully negotiate all these partnerships and avoid excessive bureaucratization.

Given its success in several markets, FT has also attracted formidable adversaries. Oké

bananas, which has captured nearly 50% of the market in some countries, has triggered

defensive strategies by multinationals such as Dole, Del Monte and Chiquita. With annual

sales in excess of US$10 billion, these multinationals launched their attack on the FT

movement by asserting that it cannot sustain neither quantity nor quality due to its

decentralized productive, logistical and delivery systems. In addition, exporters of FT

bananas have encountered difficulties atypical of the fresh fruit industry, including issues

related to procurement, crop fluctuation or logistics. Exporting was also hindered by

inexplicable customs delays in the Panama Canal, boat sabotage, sudden cancellations of

import licenses by the European Union and surprising reversals of agreements with

department stores.lvii

In addition, realizing that nearly a quarter of consumers consider

themselves “ethical,” and that one in five consumers has rewarded or penalized a company

228

through their purchases, these multinationals began to “polish” their reputations.lviii

For

instance, they adopted codes of ethics, mission statements, charters of values, commitments

to social responsibility and sustainable development and created sophisticated Internet sites.

They have also amassed certifications awarded by rating agencies whose criteria may be far

from stringent. Some certifiers, including the Rainforest Alliance, SA 8000, ISO14001, GRI,

Global Compact and WBCSD, do not require independent controls, only self-assessments. In

the coffee industry, the multinational Nestlé, for example, has introduced Partner Blend,

which only requires that a small percentage of the productive process has to be carried

within some organic guidelines to be called so. Given this proliferation of declarations,

ratings, certifications and labels, many analysts believe that one of the main challenges to

the survival of FT is the recognition of its distinctive label.lix

Lastly, the FT movement risks becoming a victim of its own success.lx

It faces the following

dilemma: if its presence on the market is too small, it cannot meet the needs of many small

producers nor affect conventional trade, while excessive prominence may be co-opted by

the large traditional economic players. For example, Wal-Mart, the largest distributor in the

world, has announced it wishes to become the greenest and distribute the largest quantity of

“ecological” products. Today, Wal-Mart is already the largest seller of organic milk in the

world and the largest buyer of organic cottonlxi

. Although van der Hoff and Roozen believe that

FT has the potential to influence traditional trade, they, however, reject the ethos of

perpetual growth and market domination. In their view, growth is less important than

improvement and they are trying to rescue small producers and consumers alike from

economic anonymity. For van der Hoff and Roozen, producers, distributors and consumers can

jointly determine, through dialogue, the production conditions and the prices of products,

which would in turn make the market more transparent and “free.” Whereas FT is often

opposed to free trade, FT is in fact based on the concept of concerted and responsible

freedom. As van der Hoff explainslxii

:

In the traditional culture, everything revolves around expansion, growth and increasing earnings […] By

cutting down all the trees and all the bushes, you can plant ten thousand [coffee] plants on one hectare.

Production per hectare is then optimal, but after seven or eight years the soil becomes sterile […Organic

agriculture] tries not to increase but to improve. The small farmers in UCIRI planted one to two thousand

229

coffee plants per hectare […] UCIRI coffee has not only improved the social situation of the farmers, it

also improved the ecological situation of the region. […] For us, the economic argument is not primordial.

The important thing is to leave our children and grandchildren an intact, beautiful Earth […] We are not

“poor” farmers demanding special price protection measures, but rather producers proud of our production

that are targeting consumers that are sensitive to a humane, ecological approach. […] By emerging from

anonymity and engaging in dialogue [the producer and consumer] can jointly make decisions […and

define the rules of the game] totally freely. People gain their freedom by taking on responsibilities […FT

redefines] the idea of the free market by giving it back its original meaning.

The future will tell us if the FT movement will preserve the spirit of its founder.

Frans van der Hoff, Fair Trade: Key assertions

1. The workings of current global economic markets often result in the overexploitation of small producers

without power.

2. In order to counter the overexploitation of producers without power, it is necessary that products be

certified by an independent international organization.

3. It is essential that customers become more aware of how they can consume responsibly in ways that are

fair for the producers without power.

Key text

Stiglitz, J.E. and A. Charlton (2006). Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote

Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1.

Key book

Nicholls, A. and C. Opal (2005). Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Seminal book

van der Hoff (2005). Nous ferons un monde équitable. Paris: Flammarion.

Filmography

- L’utopie caféinée (2002). (Directed by Normand Roy). Équiterre

- The Corporation (2003). (Directed by J. Abbott and M. Achbar). Zeitgeist Film.

- The Big One (1997). (Directed by M. Moore). Miramax Home Entertainment.

Internet Sites

www.fairtrade.net www.ifat.org

230

Exercise

You are a member of the Board of Directors of a company in the food sector, half of whose staff work in

Third World countries. The chairman of the board asks for suggestions on ways to increase the company’s

social and environmental responsibility toward these countries. Which options would you explore? Describe

their advantages and disadvantages.lxiii

iiii We wish to thank the SSHRC for its financial assistance.

ii In G7 countries, 2.6% of the workforce is employed in agriculture, forestry or fishing. Source: OECD

(2005), p. 16-17. iii

See ILO (2004), p. 53.

iv Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, article 23, paragraph 3, excerpt.

vThe Fair Trade Advocacy Office, based in Brussels and administered by FINE. is the most recent attempt to

forge a global fair trade movement. vi For more information about these figures, see FLO; www.fairtrade.net

vii Quote by van der Hoff, in Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 16. Given that the books by Roozen & van der

Hoff (2001) and van der Hoff (2005) are unfortunately not yet available in English, all translations of the

quotations from these two books used in this chapter are our own. viii

Quote by van der Hoff (2005), p. 55. ix

Quote by van der Hoff, in Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 28. x See Friere (2000).

xi Quote by Fretell & Roca (2005), p. 99.

xii According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report;

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005

xiii On this subject, see Stiglitz &Charlton (2006) and Sen (1993).

xiv See Murray & Raynolds (2000).

xv For these principles, see www.fairtrade.net, www.ifat.org and www.fairtradefederation.com, along with

Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 244-248. xvi

See Hira & Ferrie (2006), p. 112. xvii

On these 2000 figures, see Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 156. xviii

This applies in particular to the European Union for fair trade bananas. On this subject, Roozen & van der

Hoff (2001), p.149-196. xix

This figure is suggested by Moore (2004), p. 74, based on 2002 data and is probably conservative. xx

For these statistics, see van der Hoff (2005), p. 171; Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 134 and 266; Krier

(2005) and Moore (2004). xxi

See Multatuli (1987). xxii

Quote by Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 10. xxiii

Quote by van der Hoff, in Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 34. xxiv

According to a market study conducted in the Netherlands, see Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 110. xxv

In addition to the FLO, FINE also includes IFAT (International Federation of Alternative Trade), NEWS

(Network of European World Shops) and the EFTA (European Fair Trade Association). xxvi

ISEAL (International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance) also includes CAN

(Conservation Agriculture Network), the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), IOFAM (International

Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement), IOAS (International Organic Accreditation System) and

SAI (Social Accountability International). xxvii

Data from this case are taken from Almanza-Alcalde (2002); Mace (1998); Norget (1997); Otero (1999);

Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 67-97; United Nations (2000); and van der Hoff (2005). xxviii

On this topic, see Stiglitz (2002), and Stiglitz & Charlton (2006).

231

xxix On this topic, see Davis & Crane (2003); Mance (2006); and Nicholls & Opal (2005).

xxx On this topic, see Mance (2006); Nicholls & Opal (2005); Waridel (2005).

xxxi See Stiglitz (2002), and Stiglitz & Charlton (2006).

xxxii Quote by van der Hoff (2005), p. 33-34.

xxxiii On this topic, see von Hayek (1960), p. 87, and in this book, the chapter on Milton Friedman.

xxxiv For the calculation of the integral selling price, see Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 244-248.

xxxv See Boggan (2001).

xxxvi For these figures, see Curtis (2001).

xxxvii For this evaluation, see Jean-Pierre Blanc, in van der Hoff (2005), p. 176. Also see Pascal Pingault

(1995), p. 30, who, after having spent several decades among the pour in the South, is even more pessimistic.

He suggests that in some cases only 5% to 10% of humanitarian aid reaches its destination! xxxviii

For this data, see U.N. (2005). xxxix

Quote by van der Hoff (2005), p. 85-86, 110, 93, 117. xl

See Peters and Waterman (1982). xli

Phil Knight was interviewed on this topic by Michael Moore, in the film The Big One (1997). xlii

Such trips, also available to students, are offered by companies such as Global Vision International.

www.gvi.co.uk xliii

On this program, see Mintzberg (2004). xliv

Quote by van der Hoff (2005), p. 149, 151, 153. xlv

Quote by Smith (1976), p. 61, published in 1790, 24 years after the release of his book The Wealth of

Nations. For similar views, see Jacquard (1996), Pingault (1995) and Vanier (1998). xlvi

On these criticisms see Audebrand & Iacobus (2005) and Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 265-285. xlvii

On this subject, see Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 269-270. xlviii

Quote by van der Hoff (2005), p. 171. xlix

Regarding this criticism, see Strong (1997). l In some cases, the cost of certification can reach 5% of the sale price. See Moor (2004), p. 79, and Melo and

Wolf (2005). li On the concept of “externality” in economic theory, see Daly & Cobb (1994); Stigliz & Charlton (2006);

and Armartya Sen (1991) lii

On this criticism, see Hira & Ferrie (2006). liii

liv

On these criticisms, see Wright (2004). lv On these criticisms, see Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 265-285.

lvi On these topics, see Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 273.

lvii On these misadventures, see Roozen, in Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 149-196.

lviii On these trends, see Bird & Hughes (1997), p. 160, who suggest that 23% of consumers categorize

themselves as “ethical and that 5% always purchase or use products considered “ethical”; Goodpaster et al.

(2006), p. 597, cites a study carried out in 23 countries that suggests that 20% of consumers have rewarded or

boycotted a company for ethical reasons.

lix On this necessity, see Bird & Hughes (1997); Davis & Crane (2003); Melo and Wolf (2005); Moore

(2004); and Renard (2003). lx

See Hira & Ferrie (2006). lxi

See Gunther (2006), p. 36. lxii

Quote by van der Hoff, in Roozen & van der Hoff (2001), p. 47-49.

232

Bibliography

Almanza-Alcade, H. (2002). Transnational Social Movements, Solidarity Values and the

Grassroots: The Fair Trade Movement, Mexican Coffee Producers and a European

NGO Coalition. Unpublished dissertation, University of Sussex at Brighton.

Audebrand, L. K., and A. Iacobus (2005). La promotion du commerce équitable: Quatre

pièges à éviter (Cahiers du CRISES No ET0510). Montréal: UQÀM and HEC

Montréal.

Bird, K. and D. G. Hughes (1997). Ethical Consumerism: The Case of “Fairly-Traded”

Coffee. Business Ethics: A European Review, 6, 3, 159-167.

Boggan, S. (2001). Nike Admits to Mistakes Over Child Labor. The Independent, October

20.

Curtis, M. (2001). Trade for Life: Making Trade Work for Poor People. London: Christian

Aid.

Daly, E. H. and J.B. Cobb jr. (1994). For the Common Good. Redirecting the Economy

toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future (2nd

Ed.). Boston,

Mass.: Beacon Press.

Davies, I. and A. Crane (2003). Ethical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies. Journal

of Business Ethics, 45, 79-92.

Fretell, A. C., and H.O. Roca (2005). Commerce équitable. In J.-L. Laville and A. D.

Cattani (Eds.), Dictionnaire de l'autre économie. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, p. 95-

110.

Friere, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th

Anniversary Ed.). New York:

Continuum International Publishing.

Goodpaster, K.E., L.L. Nash and H.-C. de Bettignies (2006). Business Ethics. Policies and

Person (4th

. Ed.). Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Gunther, M. (2006). Wal-Mart Saves the Planet: The Green Machine, Fortune, August 7,

Cover Story, 34-42.

233

Hira, A. and J. Ferrie (2006). Fair trade: Three keys challenges for reaching the

mainstream. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 107-118.

ILO (2004). World Employment Report 2004-2005. Geneva: International Labor

Organization.

Jacquard, A. (1996). Le souci des pauvres. L’héritage de François d’Assise. Paris:

Flammarion.

Krier, J.-M. (2005). Fair trade in Europe 2005: Facts and figures on fair trade in 25

European countries. Brussels: FINE.

Mace, B. (1998). Alternative Trade and Small-scale Coffee Production in Oaxaca.

Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Miami University, Oxford Ohio.

Mance, E. A. (2005). Consommation solidaire. In J.-L. Laville and A. D. Cattani (Eds.),

Dictionnaire de l'autre économie. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, p. 111-116.

Melo, C.J. and S.A. Wolf (2005). Empirical Assessment of Eco-Certification. The Case of

Ecuadorian Bananas. Organization and Environment, 18, 13, 287-317.

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers Not MBAs. A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing

and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koelher Publishers.

Moore, G. (2004). The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research.

Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 1-2, 73-86.

Mori, T, & M-C. Malo (2003) Impactos del comercio justo del vino. Tres casos de

empresas colectivas de productores en Chile. Revista de economía pùblica, social y

cooperativa, 46, 265-289.

Multatuli (1987). Max Havelaar or the Coffe Auctions of a Dutch Trading Company (R.

Edwards). New York: Penguin Books (Orig. 1860).

Murray, D. and L. Raynolds (2000). Alternative trade in bananas: obstacles and

opportunities for progressive social change in the global economy. Agriculture and

Human Values, 17, 65-74.

Nicholls, A. and C. Opal (2005). Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption.

Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

234

Norget, K. (1997). The Politics of Liberation: The Popular Church, Indigenous Theology

and Grassroots Mobilization in Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin America Perspectives, 24, 5,

124-144.

OECD (2005). OECD in Figures, Edition 2005. Paris: OECD Observer.

Otero, G. (1999). Neoliberal Reform in Rural Mexico: Social Structural and Political

Dimension. Latin American Research Review, 35, 1, 187-207.

Peters, T.J. and R.H. Waterman (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and

Row.

Pingault, P. (1995). Partager la pauvreté. Paris: Bayard.

Renard, M.-C. (2003). Fair Trade: Quality, Market and Conventions. Journal of Rural

Studies, 19, 87-96.

Roozen, N. and F. van der Hoff (2001). L’aventure du commerce équitable. Paris: JC

Lattès.

Sen, A. (1991). Ethics and Economics. New York: Blackwell Publishers.

Smith, A. (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Ed. D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie).

Oxford University Press (Orig. 1759-1790).

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company.

Stiglitz, J.E. and A. Charlton (2006). Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote

Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Strong, C. (1997). The problems of translating fair trade principles into consumer purchase

behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15, 32-37.

Tadros, C. and M.-C. Malo (2002). Commerce équitable, démocratie et solidarité: Equal

exchange, une coopérative exceptionnelle au nord. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 15,

2, 77-97.

United Nations (2000). Success Stories Volume 4. Unlimited Responsibilities of the Union

of Indian Communities of the Isthmus Region. New York: U.N. Publications.

United Nations (2005). Press release. General Assembly/10364, June 7. New York: U.N.

Publications.

235

van der Hoff, F. (2005). Nous ferons un monde équitable. Paris: Flammarion.

Vanier, J. (1998). Becoming Human. New York: Paulist Press.

von Hayek, L. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chico, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Waridel, L. (2005). Coffee with pleasure: Just java and world trade (2nd ed.). Montréal:

Black Rose Books.

Wright, C. (2004). Consuming lives, consuming landscapes: Interpreting advertisements for

cafédirect coffees. Journal of International Development, 16(5), 665.

237

APPENDIX 3

Copy of online questionnaire

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

… (section cropped as not part of this thesis)

259

260

261

262

263