Cultivate Mutual-ism: Outlining the barriers and opportunities for greater alignment between Philosophy Departments and Business schools within Universities.

Facultative Mutualism: Outlining the barriers and opportunities for greater alignment between Philosophy Departments and Business schools within Universities
1.1 Background
The 4th industrial revolution is upon us, creating change of an unprecedented nature in the way we interact and work with each other.
“The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”
-Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum Geneva
The Fourth Industrial Revolution affects everyone individual and at an organization level. Organisations are connecting everyone and everything, everywhere, all the time, creating a world in which people, insights, and money interact quickly, easily and cheaply.
This revolution is changing the world of work, with the future of work is becoming less clear, less traditional, more fluid, and ‘gig like’, but in parallel expectations of the workplace have increased in terms of improvements in areas such as leadership, providing work life balance, optionality, respect, inclusion, support and reputation.
As the world of work changes, and as we all feel challenged by the change new measures from both within and outside organizations have surfaced. Trust, respect, reputation, social responsibility and behaviour are now increasingly accepted measures in many countries and markets of organisations and its leaders.
These new measures are also increasingly used by the marketplace to determine economic value around company stock and sustainability. This effects a company’s sustainability, market rating and often bottom line. In parallel employees both in place and prospective ones, are increasingly using these measures to make decisions about how and where they work based on company and leadership reputation.
Despite the increased measure and interest in trust and ethics, we are seeing indications that society believes a general moral and ethical decline in society has occurred, including in business. The most recent Edelman trust barometer report shows that since 2018 there are record high levels of mistrust in most relationships including those with govt and business. Trust and confidence in govt and business has halved in many cases to date from the last century.
This is easy to understand when we continue to see increased public failings at company and executive levels that relate to fraud, poor ethical practices or behavioural and value missteps which have resulted in a declining trust of companies, industry and their leaders.
We can attribute moral failures and illegal activities in business like Bank of Boston money laundering, GE falsification of time sheets to overcharge the government, insider trading on Wall Street, and cases of bribery and collusion in Department of Defence in united states contracting as examples of a disturbing disregard for business ethics that is all too frequent.
One can easily see the significance and importance of incorporating moral and ethical issues into business curricula when you look at the scale and reach of influence that business has on all citizens, and also the number of business degrees awarded along with the continued issues that continue to crop up.
Business is now the most popular major among undergraduates, accounting for one quarter of all degrees awarded, according to the United States Department of Education, and over a twenty-year period there has been a 400% increase in candidates earning master's degrees in business administration (Evangelauf, 1988).
With this type of growth, business schools’ interface with a large portion of our future leaders and occupy a strategic position from which to make a contribution to their ethical and moral development.
Therefore, business schools must accept more responsibility and take more initiative in increasing ethics in their curricula.
But, in a report to Harvard University's board of trustees, Derek Bok said that universities have failed to take seriously their responsibility to instil a sense of ethics in college students. Bok feels that colleges and universities must help students develop moral and ethical standards that they are unlikely to get elsewhere (Bok, 1988).
University of Washington Professor William G. Scott (1988) attributes some of this disregard to business schools and their failures to sufficiently incorporate moral and ethical issues into university curricula. Scott (1988) laments that ethical issues are rarely discussed in business schools; they have failed to establish mechanisms for moral disclosure and promoted a single-set value system instead of an awareness of moral choices.
Moral dilemmas are at the heart of business practice. The market, popular myths, and pseudoscience are not providing insight into what managers should and should not do. Scott's beliefs suggest that business students may not be generally exposed to ethical questions. If there is any truth to Scott's beliefs, then there may be even more support for the findings in a recent study prepared by Porter and Mckibbin (1988).
According to Porter and Mckibbin, success has turned the nation's business schools into complacent, self-satisfied institutions that are in danger of becoming ossified and irrelevant. Business schools, rich in resources and flooded with applicants, are doing little planning beyond scheduling their next semesters, and are ignoring important trends that will affect what they teach and how they teach it.
It is important to look to our business schools and consider what role they play in addressing current dissatisfaction with moral behaviour or ethical dilemmas in the work world. Business educators have a responsibility to contribute in any way they can to the ethical development of their students, yet we have still seen very little change in the way that business schools approach their leadership and management programs over the years.
Although new pedagogical approaches have been adopted in business schools over the last few decades, through the inclusion of case study methodology, experiential learning and online technologies, curriculum content has not necessarily evolved at the same pace to address the values based, philosophical and behavioural needs that are borne out of the new market expectations, measures and changed world ideals.
There is still 20th century approach to many MBA and other executive programs in the undergraduate and post graduate space within business schools.

One might imagine that business schools would be hotbeds of innovation and rethinking, with every professor keen to help understand and master this emerging new world. Paradoxically, it’s the opposite. For the most part, today’s business schools are busy teaching and researching 20th century management principles and, in effect, leading the parade towards yesterday.
Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Khurana offered a scathing critique of business schools in strategy and business. “Business schools are facing “a crisis of irrelevance.” Business schools are “in an incredible race to the bottom." It’s “not even clear what an MBA consists of anymore.” There is a “lack of quality and consistency in the development of general management knowledge.” The incentives are based on "research and academic credibility, not producing management knowledge." As a result, "very little general management knowledge" has been produced by business schools.
The “’good’ management of yesterday” centred around profit maximization and a philosophy of controlism is obsolete. It was a relatively good fit for much of the 20th century. But then the world changed, and ‘good’ management began to falter. It couldn’t cope with the fast pace and complexity of a customer-driven marketplace. Yet this “good management’ of yesterday” is, by and large, what is being taught in today’s business schools.
Firms leading the fourth revolution are being run very differently from the unwieldy industrial behemoths of the 20th century. They are focused on continuous innovation for customers and organized to be nimble, adaptable, socially and morally responsible and sustainable and able to meet the shifting expectations and measure of a marketplace driven by end-users. Think Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba, Airbnb, Etsy, Lyft, Menlo Innovations, Saab, Samsung, Spotify, Tencent, Tesla, Uber and Warby Parker. In these firms, profits are the result, not the goal, of the enterprise. At their core they have a purpose first, with social responsibility tenants at their core. They run on the platform of three Ps of sustainability, People, Planet, Profits.
Why the disconnect then?
There is growing interest in why business schools have not kept up with the rate of change, as reflected in their outdated curriculum. One theory is that the change has not occurred because at Universities it’s difficult to discuss, it puts in question careers, competencies, job tenure, values, goals, assumptions of the entire business-school world and more.
It isn't obvious that prior management experience plays a large role in becoming a business school professor. The professors usually have no management experience in 20th century management, let alone in firms implementing the new paradigm.
It appears that careers in a business school depend more on research than on teaching.
In 2013, Larry Zicklin, a former chairman of the Wall Street investment firm Neuberger Berman, a professor at New York University’s Stern School and a lecturer on ethics at the Wharton school at the University of Pennsylvania, made a revolutionary proposal to fix business schools. Business schoolteachers, he said, should teach business.
Academics at business schools now spend a lot of their time doing research for academic journals that is of little practical relevance that nobody even reads. ‘Academics do it,’ Zicklin told the Financial Times, “because they are interested in doing it, but it’s also the mechanism by which they get promoted and secure tenure. Because research is an important part of business school rankings, it has created the value system by which academics are rewarded. Research adds so much to the cost of education, especially at business school. But the evidence about research also suggests that most people can’t understand it.”

Although Zicklin’s recommendations have not been widely accepted, there are exceptions. Hult International Business School, for instance, aspires to be relevant to business with a curriculum stressing real-world experience the world and faculty who have management experience.

The accreditation process of business schools guarantees glacial change to core curricula. It takes around five years to have even a small change to the core curriculum accepted by the accreditation process. One highly successful dean admits with frustration that 15 years of strenuous effort resulted in only two minor changes in the core curriculum.
In some cases, business schools also perform a cash-cow function for the rest of the university, as the business school attracts wealthy students from overseas. The risk of losing this revenue stream induces caution in changing a money-making degree.
The business school has little need to concern itself with value to the end-users—the students. The inherent learning an MBA provides matters less than the high-salaried job-offers that it leads to. Indeed, the high cost of an MBA is a feature more than a bug. It’s part of the MBA's mystique in the marketplace: “Anything that expensive must surely be valuable!”
It’s not that some individual business school professors haven’t grasped and made the case for change.
In 2010, business guru and former business school dean Roger Martin at the Rotman School of Business hailed the advent of customer capitalism over shareholder primacy.
More recently, two distinguished Harvard Business School professors–Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine—declared in Harvard Business Review that profit maximization is “the error at the heart of corporate leadership.” It is “flawed in its assumptions, confused as a matter of law, and damaging in practice”, and in effect, “pernicious nonsense.” Yet business schools press ahead with core curricula based on this error, seemingly impervious to issues.
In 2013, professor Rita McGrath at Columbia Business School challenged the conventional business school theology of sustainable comparative advantage.
In 2014, professor William Lazonick at the University of Massachusetts Lowell won HBR McKinsey Award winner for the best HBR article of 2014. Lazonick has courageously led the charge in identifying the problems inherent in maximizing shareholder value through massive share buybacks.
In 2014, professor Clayton Christensen and his colleague Derek van Bever questioned the orthodoxies governing finance and called for a modern-day Martin Luther to articulate the change.
Business schools also support many technology centres and small programs, such as Jay Goldstein’s program at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering on radical management and Susan George’s program on Agile Management at UC Berkeley Extension.
Yet these innovations have not led to basic change to the core curricula in most business schools, business schools keep churning out more standard MBAs, steeped in yesterday’s methodologies, thus resembling medical schools teaching pre-penicillin medicine.
There are industry factors that keep business schools stuck on an obsolete institutional treadmill:
There is still a large demand for 20th century management. Many managers in large firms have spent decades implementing the doctrines of profit maximization and controlism. They share the same assumptions, goals, values and attitudes, and therefore their firms continue to be run that way, despite the performance problems it causes. So, it is not surprising that these executives seek recruits who have the same mindset. Hence there is continuing demand for MBA graduates schooled in 20th century thinking.
The new management isn’t simply a new training course, or a process, or a methodology or an organizational structure that can be written down in an organizational manual and simply added to the ongoing agenda. It’s a different mindset with counterintuitive ideas that fly in the face of the assumptions of a "good" 20th century manager or the typical business school case.

How did such an unproductive system come about? Many of today’s business school problems date back to 1959, when the Ford Foundation published the Gordon-Howell Report which lambasted the unscientific foundation of business education. In the same year, the Carnegie Foundation also published an analysis with an equally harsh message:

The result? Half a century of business school research that aspired to be “scientific.” The problem is that in a field of human activity that is undergoing dramatic change findings that can be proven to be universally true by double-blind scientific experiments turn out to be of little practical utility. Research therefore came to be evaluated on the elegance and rigor of the experimental design more than on the utility of the findings. The fact that few, if any, businesspeople ever tried to read, let alone implement, the research was considered irrelevant. Business school research is an enclosed self-referential world—academics writing for other academics. The utility of the entire research enterprise is not a fit subject for discussion.

Roger Martin argues persuasively that the Ford Foundation made a fundamental conceptual error. It was seeking scientific findings in a subject where science methodology can’t be applied:

Aristotle was a proponent of his scientific logic, and in the best scientific tradition, he established boundary conditions for his theory. It was for the part of the world in which things could not be other than they are. An oak tree is an oak tree and cannot be something else. A piece of granite is a piece of granite and can’t be something else. For this world, Aristotle laid out the seminal scientific method and argued that it was the optimal way for understanding that part of the world.

As Aristotle laid out his scientific method for the part of the world that cannot be other than it is, he also cautioned that there is another part of the world that can be other than it is, and there was another method that needed to be used to understand it. Here the scientific method would be wholly inappropriate.

That part of the world consists of people – of relationships, of interactions, of exchanges. In this part of the world, relationships can be good, bad or indifferent; close, distant or sporadic. They change – they can be other than they currently are. For this part of the world, Aristotle said that the method used to develop our understanding and to shape this world is rhetoric; dialogue between parties that builds understanding that shapes and alters this part of the world…

[The Ford Foundation thus] embraced Aristotle’s science, but ignored his boundary condition. They pushed the scientific method past the limits for which it was designed. It was as if they adopted Aristotle’s tool and then ignored his user manual."

As a result, “business schools have lost the place where we could be turned to as a source of basic research and basic knowledge. Businesses and industry now turn to other sources of knowledge, such as consulting firms, instead, and these firms like Deloitte and McKinsey are themselves rapidly gearing up to meet the need. If business schools don’t see and grasp the opportunity, the risk of disruption is even greater. It would be a pity if business schools miss the boat.

Indeed, the future looks unpromising for lesser known schools. A number of planned or actual business school closures have occurred at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Iowa, Virginia Tech, and Simmons College.
There are various factors in play. Non-MBA graduate business degrees are proliferating; undergraduate student debt is ballooning; and online courses including massive open online courses (MOOCs) are offering cheaper alternatives to the learning aspect of MBAs; and key leading industry players have stopped recruiting business and MBA graduates in leu of so called more creative start up entrepreneurial candidates..

What is required?
A radical rethink of the business school system. The challenge is to build business schools that are as innovative as they are efficient, as forward-looking as they are pragmatic, as passion filled as they are intellectually rigorous and as valuable as their enrolment fee. This is not merely about adding on a new course, practice, process or structure to the current modus operandi. Instead, business schools must rethink their existence from top to bottom.
It’s possible that a few exceptional pioneers will have visionary leadership that is ready to build the business school of the future from first principles. This would entail having businesspeople teach business, abandoning the current accreditation system, setting aside tenure, recruiting a whole new set of professors with different skillsets and embracing agile management from top to bottom.
They would need guidance and support from an enlightened leadership, aimed at establishing the case and the basis for change. They would need to focus primarily on delivering real value to students.
Layer over that the exponentially growing need, interest, economic and social measure and regulation around trust, morality, reputation and sustainability and you are in the world of ethics.
This is a game changer for business schools.
Business ethics is the study of how personal moral norms apply to the activities and goals of the organization, it is the study of how individuals, at all levels of an organization, try to make decisions and live their lives according to a standard of or right or wrong behaviour, Business ethics is not a separate moral standard, but the study of how the business environment poses its own unique challenges for the moral person who acts as an agent of the business.
Ethical decision making, and improper framing can preclude moral awareness; cognitive biases and psychological tendencies can hinder proper moral judgments; and moral rationalizations, can obstruct moral judgments from being translated into moral intentions or ethical behaviour.
Many of the new cultural and organisational needs in business are philosophically based and could be addressed by improved quantity and quality of philosophical and ethical course content and study.
Who should monitor and measure progress in this area?
Although ethics has been taught in university programs in the past it has been adopted in a sporadic fashion, for example the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has long required the integration of ethics into the accounting curriculum of accredited schools, yet there is little research available to show how this requirement is implemented. (Gerald L. Plumlee, 2014), or when studies are conducted the results shock.
A study of department chairs of colleges in New York found that only 66% of the respondents indicated that ethics was discussed in introductory accounting courses (Haas, The CPA Journal. June 2005). These results are consistent with the findings of Educating for the Public Trust (2003). commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Other assessments (Moss, 2009) have been made around the level of inclusion of ethics and social responsibility in broader university level programs and specifically within business schools seeking accreditation from AACSB, with findings that there is a perceived deficiency in the degree of integration of ethics and social responsibility. (Gerald L. Plumlee, 2014)
A survey of accounting educators sponsored by the American Accounting Association (AAA) in conjunction with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) indicated that less than half of business schools offered a separate course in ethics (Mastracchio, The CPA Journal, January 2005).
Recent reviews of guidelines for general learning objectives for business ethics education by both AACSB and the Accrediting Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), two primary undergraduate business accrediting agencies, both concluded that undergraduate business ethics education is of significance importance today and placing emphasis on those disciplines within their business school assessment process.
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International is the leading accrediting organization, with 432 accredited institutions worldwide and it has included Ethics education as a required component in AACSB International—accredited schools.
Although AACSB has encouraged the teaching of ethics in management curricula and has mandated the implementation of ethics codes within the university setting. A preliminary study of the use of ethics codes in AACSB accredited universities did not find the required level of implementation. Rather schools are using a patchwork of components that fall short of the integrated approach envisioned by the AACSB. ( (Heller, 2011)
Content analysis of fifty ethics AACSB accredited undergraduate courses across the AASCB four broad standards of

1. Responsibility of business in society
2. Ethical decision-making
3. Ethical leadership
4. Corporate governance
   During 2009 and 2010, fifty AACSB accredited business schools were randomly selected, to examine the undergraduate business ethics course content, textbooks and related readings.
   Universities ranged in size from approximately 4,000 to 55,000+ students. Syllabi were obtained online. Business school websites were also reviewed for additional information on the philosophy of teaching business ethics at that institution.
   Results showed that
   • Responsibility of business in society was directly addressed in 100% of the courses reviewed.
   • Ethical decision-making was addressed in 84% of the courses reviewed.
   • Ethical leadership was addressed in 92% of the courses reviewed; and
   • Corporate governance was addressed in 88% of the courses.

The intensity of content followed a similar pattern as above
• “Responsibility of business in society” averaged 4.8;
• “Ethical decision-making” averaged 4.2;
• “Ethical leadership” averaged 4.6; and
• “Corporate governance “averaged 3.9.
Content analysis demonstrated that AACSB undergraduate business ethics courses focus
primarily on the:
1.) responsibility of business in society,
2.) ethical leadership,
3.) corporate governance, and
4.) ethical decision making.
The review found that most of the discussions evolved around applied decision making with little references to theoretical ethical foundations of decision making, and that even though some business schools are successfully implementing ethics programs in the undergraduate programs, added emphases is needed in the classroom to raise students‟ awareness of the importance of a broader horizon of ethical issues confronting the workplace and society. (Douglas, 2010)
Despite the positive shift. both AACSB and ACBSP have determined that ways in which business schools implement and measure business ethics education remains quite diverse with studies showing that, while preferences for measurement methods centred upon the ability to apply ethics concepts, the support for any use of standardized testing of business ethics learning objectives, whether based in ethics application or conceptual knowledge alone, is clearly divided. (Oates, 2017)
Conclusions were also drawn that further research could determine if what is learned in the general business ethics course is being transferred, by the student, into his/her selected discipline.
There is a gap and there is an opportunity.
1.2 Research Gap

As we look at what the opportunities are as opposed to the research available, we should begin with a very rapid inquiry into how it has come to pass that business schools are operating in such an obsolete fashion. How could such a thing have happened?
Business schools should be willing to discuss the undiscussable, including the validity and utility of “scientific” research in business, career structures, the accreditation system, entrenched financial interests and more.
A focus on opportunities, as well as problems is important.
The opportunity to tackle new world issues and the needs of the fourth revolution are primary, and as outlined above one of the greatest opportunities is to improve the level of education around ethics, a growing issue, a growing need, a space that universities accreditation bodies are measuring, and a space that industry, business and regulators are asking for ore hep with.
Ethics and the principles associated with new skills that are increasingly required around ambiguity, trust, logic, communication, social order and reputation fall into that space. These principles have not been developed upon within business school curriculum.
Ethics has often been taught from a legal perspective. Ethics in business has often been dealt with from a legal perspective. This could be cause and effect. Teach ethics through a legal lens and it will be practiced in a legal fashion within business.
The problem with this approach is that it threatens to redefine the goals of business itself. Of course, the truth is that if business is to live up to the great power our capitalist society entrusts to it, nothing short of redefinition can suffice. Not surprisingly, few if any business schools are willing to take that leap. Most tend to choose the first option, teaching ethics as little more than a tool of compliance with regulations and standard codes of conduct. So, the conventional curriculum represents one of higher education's starkest conflicts between the lofty ideal of a subject and the brutal reality of a much narrower pedagogy.

Business and organizational ethics has a higher order aim than just regulation, code of conduct, and do as I say! Higher order organization ethics is based on the ability to think critically, use philosophical constructs, theories and practice to evolve leaders and business culture into thinking, feeling, reputable organisms.
The opportunity rests with business schools and universities to fill this gap. It requires a shift of thinking from one that ethics is taught primarily through a legal lens, to one where it is taught with philosophy at its core.

Let's face it. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, concerned with uncovering truth about a transcendent aspect of reality, namely, the Good. But most business programs are essentially trade schools entrusted with training students for careers in specific branches of business, namely finance, management, marketing, and accounting.

Within universities there is a gap in the approach and intellectual grounding of disciplines that can help with this problem , one example of this gap can be seen in the way that business schools provide education to undergraduate commerce/ business/ management students and the way that philosophy schools develop the critical, conceptual and theoretical understanding of undergraduates.
The lack of exposure and education in key/ core philosophical understanding means that business graduates lack capacities they will need to response to the rapid social, political and technological changes that will shape their careers, and the lack of engagement with the practical demands on business and the understanding and skills required for success in employment means that philosophy graduate are not aware of the applicability of their education when the graduate and so are not as able as they should be to articulate the value of their philosophical grounding which provides, among other things, skill in stepping back and analysing the changing context, logical reasoning and recognition of cultural values shaping the working environment.
As a result, business students aren't so much in school to learn about truth and wisdom —to get educated in the traditional sense of the word. Unlike some other college students, who tend to choose majors that will teach them about timeless subjects they find inherently valuable, business students are often primarily, if not entirely, focused on landing a job.
Do they teach ethics as if it were just another vocational tool, like marketing or accounting? Or do they teach it in its true form, as an attempt to understand the nature and application of the greater good?
Employers highly value what humanities majors learn in college, focus groups and surveys show. More than nine out of 10 say a job candidate’s capacity for thinking and communicating clearly and solving complex problems is more important than his or her major, according to an AAC&U poll.
As the humanities decline, business has become the largest undergraduate major. But a Carnegie Foundation report found that undergraduate business education is narrow and doesn’t challenge students to think creatively or ask important questions.
What, then, do business schools and their students expect from their instructors?
In the research ī have conducted about what employers are looking for they kept coming back to the same things: critical thinking, communication, ethics and responsibility. But subsequently it was found that the School of Business couldn’t teach these skills. They didn’t have the in-house expertise to teach philosophy.
Research does precious little to hone the mission of business itself.
While the public clamours for the return of managerial leadership in ethics and social responsibility, surprisingly little research on the subject exists, and what does get published doesn't appear in the top journals. The reasons are varied, but perhaps more than anything it's that those journals are exclusively empirical: Take the Academy of Management Review, the only top journal devoted to management theory. Its mission statement says it publishes only "testable knowledge-based claims."
Unfortunately, that excludes most of what counts as ethics, which is primarily a conceptual, a priori discipline akin to law and philosophy. We wouldn't require, for example, that theses on the nature of justice or logic be empirically testable, although we still consider them "knowledge based."
The major business journals have a responsibility to open the ivory-tower gates to a priori arguments on the ethical nature and mission of business. After all, the top business schools, which are a model for the rest, are naturally interested in hiring academics who publish in the top journals.
One solution is for at least one or two of the top journals to rewrite their mission statements to expressly include articles applying ethical theory to business. They could start by creating special ethics sections in the same way that some have already created critical-essay sections.
Another solution is for academics to do more reading and referencing of existing business ethics journals. Through more references in the wider literature, those journals can rise to the top. Until such changes occur, business ethics will largely remain a second-class area of research, primarily concerned with teaching.
Meanwhile, although I seem to notice more tenure-track positions in business ethics appearing every year—a step in the right direction—many required business-ethics courses are taught by
relative outsiders. They are usually non-tenure-track hires from the private sector or, like me, from various other academic disciplines, such as psychology, law, and philosophy.
In my years as a philosopher in business schools, I've often held a place at once exalted and reviled. It's provocative and alluring. But it can also be about as fitting as a pony in a pack of wolves. During my three years at a previous college I became accepted—even a valued colleague of many. But deans sometimes treated me with the kind of suspicion normally suited to a double agent behind enemy lines.
For a business-ethics curriculum to succeed, it must be at least somewhat philosophical. And that is difficult to establish in the university context, in which departments are loath to give up turf.
Not surprisingly, few business Ph.D. programs offer any real training in ethical theory. Naturally, dissertations in applied ethics are generally written in philosophy departments, and those addressing business are rare, since few philosophers are school.

Business schools should begin collaborating with philosophy faculties and centres for applied ethics, Conversely, philosophers in applied ethics should reach out to business and law professors interested in ethics. With that kind of academic infrastructure, real progress can be made.
Perhaps then fewer business students will view their major mainly to gainful employment and might instead see it as a force of social progress. Progressive universities and business schools which root their students in ethics and liberal arts, are training them to think for themselves. Business schools that fail to do so are clinging to the past and will face irrelevancy and closure.
The program is also seen as a way of shoring up enrolment in humanities classrooms, which have been declining.

1.3 Purpose of Study
Organizations and society at large recognize that ethically and socially responsible behaviour plays a crucial role in good business practices, and business leaders believe that ethical standards should be followed in business but that current ethical standards do not meet society's needs adequately.
This realization has led employers to expect and demand that business schools facilitate the training of students in ethics and social responsibility.
There is strong sentiment that business ethics should receive more attention in business schools than it does, and widespread agreement among students that business ethics should be taught as a required course in business schools, (Crane, 2004) however, research is mixed on how well business schools are responding to these pressures. (Moss, 2009).
There continues to be basic disagreements about what business ethics is, why it should be taught, who should teach it, what department should be responsible for it, and where it should be included in the curriculum. (Gilbert, 1992. Published online 2010).
Business ethics consists of two elements: the theoretical principles of morally right and wrong actions and the application of these principles to business situations. Business ethics is taught primarily to increase awareness of ethical aspects of business situations and to improve the level of ethical reasoning.
Business schools need to continue to be relevant to remain competitive, Business schools have exhausted old models developed in the 70s and 80s and, Business school clients expect the offerings to be better than in house education. “we give you good people, we expect you to make them better”.

In parallel Philosophy Schools are at risk of losing funding, university status and at times closure. Several universities including Bradford, Exeter, Newcastle have closed their philosophy departments, while others like Reading and Sheffield came very close.
Philosophy pursues questions rather than answers. That doesn’t always translate into ease of acceptance or application outside of academia where practical application is often necessary in delivering on operational goals.
Philosophy faculties have the background and expertise to assist business schools with new world/old world issues that the market is demanding a fix for.
In summary this thesis explores the opportunities, gaps and limitations between philosophers and business academics for improved leadership programs that deal with new world issues, and improved graduate outcomes.
1.4 Research objectives
Assessing what collaboration between business schools and philosophy dept exist
1.Highlight success stories arising out of Philosophy and Business collaborations University programs that combine the two decisions, what exists, what revenues are generated and Student success.
Focus on
• Successful business leaders who have philosophy in their background
• Philosophers in business

Analyse curriculum gaps within business school’s vs contemporary business issues and needs
i.Ethical investment growth and activism around sustainability and ‘good business”
ii.CEO and C Suite morality and responsibility themes
iii.Big corporate failure…fraud, poor decision making, etc.

Mapping Philosophical concepts and constructs that are most relevant to business issues and challenges with a focus on business philosophy and business ethics theories, such as but not exclusive to
1.Normative ethics
2.Moral theory
3.Logic and critical reasoning
4.Rhetoric
5.Virtue ethics
Mapping Philosophy skills and knowledge to Business career opportunities arising out of new models of work and future business challenges.

CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Objective of the literature review
Ethical behaviour in business practice has been a continuous concern and in modern times, increasingly so it is considered an important aspect of business success, sustainability and a measure of investment interest.
There are many theoretical and empirical studies explaining factors and variables impacting ethical behaviour of individuals in the organization and their ethical decision making which have been evaluated,
• Cavanagh et al. (1981) have given utilitarian, theory of right and theory of justice.
• Hunt and Vitell (1986) have given descriptive decision-making process
• Gresham, Ferrel and Mclaves N. (2013), consider that both organizational and individual factors are drivers of ethical
• Fritzche and Becke, (1984) link ethical behavior with normative theories of ethics.
Since 1970 to 2013 there are a number of literature reviews on ethical decision making that have been conducted
• Ford and Richardson (1978)
• Terry W. Loe, Linda Ferrell, and Phylis Mansfield 1992-1996
• Fallen and Butterfield, 1996- 2003
• Jana.L.Craft 2004-2011
• Kevin Lennert-Yung-Hwal Park, Nitish Singh (2013).
Most currrent researchers acknowledge that the literature reviews all centre around Trevino, Rest, and Jones model.
The purpose of this review is not to extend the previous literature review, instead to assess those factors and constructs which have impact on ethical behaviour and to find out methodology, gaps of those studies in order to construct a business school model, including curriculum suggestions for business schools to follow.

Metaanlysis of empirical studies
Given the proliferation of research regarding the ethical development of students in general, and business students in particular, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the contradictory results of many studies. In this meta-analysis of empirical studies from 1990 through to 2014 the relationships of business schools to schools of philosophy, in ethics, curriculum and teaching are analyzed.
The results indicate that there are loose or no links with most busihess schools to philosophy curriculum, the same is true when looking at philosophy teacing in business. However, due to the limited number of studies that connect the relationship between the two areas any causality or proven disconnect would be difficult to interpret and prove.
THEORETICAL STUDIES AND MODELS ON ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR
There are many models and theories centred on explaining ethical behaviour in business.
A review of available research and models is analyses below.
Ferrell and Gresham (1985)
This research included individual and organizational factors such as contingency and argued that ethical dilemma emerges from the social, cultural environment. He related his model to existence of professional codes, corporate policy, reward and punishment in his contingency frame. In general, theory of marketing ethics showed that perceptions of ethical problems and consequences gone through the deontological and teleological evaluation lead to ethical judgment and then intention tend situational constraint affect the ethical behaviour.
The four component of ethical behaviour, Rest (1986) of behavioural process in which each component is distinct to each other, on the basis of four component model, Trevino (1986) he introduced person situation interactionist model, he introduced individual and situational factor as moderated which impact moral judgment to reach to the behavioural stage. As an individual factor he included ego strength field and locus of control. As situational factors he included elements of immediate job context, organizational culture and character of work. Dubinsky and Loken (1989) ethical decision making on marketing was based on theory of reasoned action.
Similar findings by (Aizen ad Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Fishbein, 1979). Dubinsky proposed a factors which influence ethical decision making in marketing i.e. behavioural and normative believes about the evaluations of those outcomes and motivation to comply with reference, at the same time in (1989) Ferrell, Gresham, and Fraedrich synthesis other model and developed a more comprehensive five stage model of ethical decision. Ethical decision making process passes from five stages, Awareness (of ethical issue), Cognition (stage of cognitive moral development), Moral evaluation (Deontological evaluation and teleological judgment), Determination and Action (ethical or unethical behaviour and behavioural evaluation, feedback loop which may be influenced by organization action opportunity, individual moderator, which impact every stage of the process. He integrated the component of Kohlberg,
Ferrell and Greshan and Hunt and Vitell and provides more informative view in which ethical decision making is affected by the external (environment, peers, situation) as well as internal (moral value structure construct) factors. After that most comprehensive Jones model (1991) was introduced. He introduced a moral intensity as in his issue contingent model and he argues that moral intensity which is the degree that people see that and issue as an ethical one influence every component of moral decision making and behaviour, element of moral intensity which impact the behaviour is magnitude of the consequence, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, concentration of effects, these important element was ignored by all previous existing models.
Woceshym (2011) proposed a model of ethical decision making, he argued that both conscious and subconscious, intuitive processes operate when decisions are being made. Further, it is argued that the decision maker spirals back and level of forth between the two l processing when identifying moral dilemmas and applying moral principles and accessing and using subconscious, information about them, and argue that rational egoism is the moral code that long term success of companies when integrated with essentials, this model was based on reasoning, intuition and moral principles. Previous all existing model from review of these all existing models and theory, we can ensure that each model has been played an important role in the development of the more comprehensive model and moreover it is empirically tested by many researchers. This can be concluded that to reaching ethical decision behaviour it passes from one stage to other and influenced by intervening determinants, which can be categorized as individual, organizational and external factors and their constructs.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR
After reviewing the available literature on ethical behaviour, studies can be categorized into individual factors, organizational factors and external factors.
The approach of these studies is divided into three broad categories of factors, gaps and limitation.
And are divided into individual factors, organizational factors and external factors.
Individual Factors
Individuals as a factor is thought to be most important in behaviour, and behavioural outcome is seen as an overall measure performance of the individual in the situation. In empirical studies of individual factor, there are a greater volume of findings under this variable, with gender and age the most researched constructs.
Machiavellianism, although considered a significant factor it is less researched among all individual factors.
Hegarty and Sims (1978, 1979)
On 120 graduate students found Machiavellianism is a significant variance in ethical behaviour similarly Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990) supports this finding that Machiavellian manager perceive ethical problems as less serious than other and were less likely to take actions to correct the problem. In 1994 Cyriac and Dharmaraj in their study on 68 middle and senior level managers, found Machiavellianism influence ethical decision. In contrast to this, Machiavellianism is negatively associated with ethical decision making (Verbeke et al, 1996). In the same era Rayburn and Rayburn (1996) found the difference between Machiavellianism and non-Machiavellian people and argued that supports the findings of Verbeke et al (1996) studies. Bass et al, (1999) found in few situations high Machiavellians individual judge the questionable selling practices. Razzacae and Hwee (2002) supported the findings of Verbeke et al. Later Schepee (2003) found that there were no significant findings. The personality trait, Machiavellianism, produced consistent results, in seven of ten findings; Machiavellianism was negatively related to the ethical decision-making process e.g. Bass et al, (1999). The other three findings reported no significant results. Ford and
Richardson (1994) reported, Machiavellian was negatively associated with the ethical decision-making process, (Loe et al. 2000) in two supplementary studies, both findings indicated that Machiavellianism affects ethical decision making. The results consistently suggest that Machiavellianism is negatively related to the ethical decision-making process. In other words, high Machiavellianism tends to be less ethical in their decision making than low Machiavellianism.
Locus of Control
The construct, locus of control has been introduced by Julian B.Rotter in (1954). Since then it has become individual personality studies. It refers that individual believes they can control events affecting them. Two kinds of locus of control are there- internal and external. Internals believe that they can themselves control their decisions; externals believe that decisions are controlled by environmental factor which they cannot control. Studies on 120 graduated students, locus of control was found to be not related to ethical decision making (Hegarty and Sims., 1978). In the studies of Zahra (1989), on managers, found that organization politics was significant on the ethical behaviour. More recent studies Klebe- Trevino and young (1990) found significant impact on ethical behaviour either directly or indirectly. Similar results for external in the studies of (Jones and
Kavanagh 1996) found that externals were more likely to affect ethical behaviour and internal individual less likely to behave unethically than external Cherry and Fraedrich (2000). Shapeero et al. (2003) in their studies found internals are less likely to engage in unethical behaviour.
Value Orientation
Value orientation includes value- based theories in most of the studies it was found that value orientation effects specifically deontology on ethical decision making process was consistently significant and positive, in the studies of Morris et al., 1996 personal values are inversely related to behavioural intention, and intention to behave ethically are affected by teleological evaluation (Rallapalli et al., 1998) similar results find in the studies of Beams et al. 2003, value oriented individuals are less likely to engage in the unethical behaviour. Nonis and Swift, 2001 argued in three of four scenarios of studies than difference in personal values did not enhance the propensity to make unethical business decision. According to Watson and Sheikh (2008) idealism led to influence ethical decision making. Valentine and Batman 2011studies supported the assertion that relative is negative related to ethical behaviour.
Organizational Factors
Organizational factors are the factors which are external to the individual and exist in the work environment of the individual and directly or indirectly influence individual in their ethical behaviour.
There are many constructs of the organizational factors which are important like code of ethics, ethics training, rewarding system, climate, structure etc.
Code of Ethics
Most of the studies have significant findings in ethical behaviour, a few studies found that there is no significant influence on ethical behaviour of code of ethics (Sims and Keon,1999) although there are mixed results on existence of code of ethics, but most of the review concluded that code of ethics influenced ethical behaviour. In organization there is large no. of studies available on code of ethics.
The relationship of code of ethics and ethical behaviour (Loe, Ferrell, and Mansfield, 2000) provides miscellaneous result. In 1977, Weaver and Ferrell found the existence of code of conduct and enforcement improves ethical behaviour but Ferrell and Weaver (1998) argues that existence and enforcement of code of ethics has no relation with ethical conduct.

Thomas R.Wotruba, Lawrence B.Chonko, Terry W.Loe, 2001, investigated the role of code familiarity as a factor which impacted the manager’s behaviour. Peterson (2002) supports the findings and concluded that codes of ethics were associated with less observed unethical behaviour. Greenberg (2002) found individuals who worked at an office with a corporate ethics program significantly less than individuals who do not work at an office with an ethics program, Schwatz (2001) supported potential of code of ethics.
Ethics Training
Merely the existence of the code of ethics not only influences ethical behaviour but knowledge of its content among employees has a positively influence on employee’s ethical behaviour. A training programme should positive influence on ethical behaviour (Delaney and Sockell 1992; Kawathatzopoulos 1994). Jose and Thiodeaus 1999; Sims,1991; Trevino and Nelson,2007; Valentine and Fleishman, 2004; White and Lam, 2000) proposed that ethics training enhance ethical behaviour in organization. According to the (Knouse and Giacadone, 1997; Loe and weak, 2000; Minkes et al.,1999; Palmer and Zakhem, 2001) ethics training introduces the organization policies rules, codes and teach how to deal with this job to behave ethically.
Rewarding System
Rewards are the one of the most important in ethical behaviour. A relationship between rewarding unethical behaviour and the continuation of such behaviour was revealed in most studies. Rewards system for ethical behaviour increases ethical behaviour (Baumhart., 1961). Hegarty & Sims in 1978 on 120 Graduated students found that rewards for unethical behaviour increases frequency of unethical behaviour. Hunt Kiecker and Chonko (1990) on 330 advertising executives found no association of penalties and rewards. Trevino (1990) confirmed the studies and found that reward influences ethical decision making indirectly through outcome expectation. Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993) on 747 managers found unethical behaviour or disciplined more severely when results are negative and rewarded for positive results. Shapeero et al. (2003) found that reward for greater likelihood of the intention to engage in unethical behaviour, similar findings by Ten Brusell (1998), individuals in a high incentive condition were more likely to engage in unethical behaviour.
External Factors
External factors are external to the individual organization which cannot be controlled by organization and which influence directly or indirectly the organization. This chiefly includes competition and other factors of relevance like influence of stake holders & regulation system.
Competition
Competition in market brings greater pressure to the organization on its ethical behaviour studies conducted by Hegarty and Sims (1978) found that competitiveness tends to decrease ethical behaviours, no significant relations has been found by Dubinsky and Ingram (1984), previous research found that as competition increases. Unethical business conduct also increases Baumhart, 1968). Dubinsky, A.J. and T.N. Ingram (1984) in his exploratory investigations of sale peoples find no relationship between increases competitiveness and unethical behavior. Verbek, W., outwekerk, C., and Peelen, E, (1996) does not support previous studies and found competition in the market had a significant impact on personality trait in 2003.
Christies et al. find external environment influence positively on the business practices.
CONCLUSION
From this systematic review of the literature all variables are related with each other, to come to the stage of behaviour. Just not only one factor or variable is responsible, but all factors and variables are responsible in influencing ethical behaviour. We see that most of the empirical studies are based on the variables which have been discussed in famous theories like Hunt and Vitell, Rest’s model, Jones model. Some of variable have been most, researched the most like age, gender but very little attention has been given to variable like Machiavellianism.
Furthermore, most of the research is done in western domain so the generalisability of the research done is questionable. Future research should consider in different domain. It has been noted that most of empirical studies are moving around Rest’s and Jones ethical behaviour model so further advancement in theoretical model is required.
There are very limited studies on external factors like competition; influence of stake holders, regulation system etc., and further attention is required in this field. In empirical studies of each variable we find mixed results, so more research is needed to better understand the variables.
As far as methodology is considered, there is need to explore more and new methods to analyse ethical behaviour.

Overview of the subject under consideration.
Clear categorization of sources selected into those in support of your
position, those opposed, and those offering completely different arguments.
Discussion of both the distinctiveness of each source and its similarities with the others.

Hypotheses

H1. The ‘4th industrial revolution”, technology, new ways of working, AI and machine learning as well as new business and social measures around trust and ethics will drive the need for different and more contemporary business school education with a new and greater focus on ethics.

H2. There is an opportunity for Philosophy to contribute to business school offerings to solve some of the ‘new world of work ’and future work challenges as it relates to applied ethics.

H3. If philosophy departments and business schools are aware of the opportunities for collaboration, they may collaborate more than in the past
(Warzynski, published online 2010)
H4. The value of collaborative efforts between philosophy departments and Business schools may be valued in economic terms for stakeholders. Some examples may exist.

H5. Highlighting examples of success in industry for those with philosophy as a background may assist with the acceptance of philosophy as a critical or valued need in education within business schools

H6. Defining critical connections between Philosophical concepts and critical business challenges/issues and needs may help map opportunities for curriculum development, broader careers for Phil students as well as teaching and research

Research Methodology
Focus Group interviews
With key decision makers in HR/C Suite/Management roles asked about critical business issues

Determine in interviews what skills/competencies/knowledge are required as the world of work has changed

Test knowledge of philosophical constructs to fill those gaps - how can philosophy help fill the gap?

Use data to determine with Philosophy depts what Phil concepts may map to the outlined issues from the survey…what can fill the gap?

Economic evaluation. Value based accounting

Analyse the cost of bad business decisions, behaviour or issues that could be related to philosophical/ethical constructs

Determine what the opportunities lost is for case studies in business failures as it relates to stock price/investment decisions etc.

Survey study
Survey AAP members/Key corporates/Business school deans about what they consider important for business curriculum as it relates to Phil

Analyse gaps/areas of alignment through Case studies

Interview successful business leaders who have Phil as a background – determine who Phil has helped them in their career/industry

Determine patterns of business failures, matched with philosophical remedies - what if scenarios using Phil concepts

Literature review

What research exists around the benefits of the collaboration between the two fields

Training of future managers in business schools has been criticized as too quantitative and too technical, and as ignoring qualitative, i.e., "human" and ethical issues’ (e.g., Peters & Waterman, 1982; Behrman & Levin, 1984). Business
Graduates know how to calculate net present values but cannot lead and motivate their subordinates or distinguish morally wrong decisions from right ones.
The graduates also have been said to prefer "analytical detachment and methodological elegance over insight, based on experience, to the subtleties and complexities of strategic decisions" (Hayes and Abernathy, 1980, p. 70). Such preferences have led to a short-term orientation in decision-making and, consequently, to shortcomings in ethical conduct.
A solution to the deficiencies in business education may be achieved by examining their philosophical basis. In other words, understanding what philosophical orientations underlie business research and teaching is critical to changing their consequences (cf. Mulligan, 1987). A full discussion is beyond the scope of this paper but a brief overview of the philosophies most influential on business education is provided. These philosophies are empiricism and pragmatism. Rationalism, the dominant philosophy of the humanities, is described briefly as a contrast. This discussion is followed by some potentially important implications for business education and a proposal for a possible resolution.
The Philosophical Foundations of Business Education
Philosophy is a study of the fundamental nature of existence and of human beings.
The three basic branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Metaphysics is a study of the nature of existence, epistemology, a study of how knowledge is obtained and ethics, a study of how human beings
Ethics rests on metaphysics and epistemology; knowledge of human nature, of existence, and of human means of knowing existence are prerequisites for determining how human beings should live.
Historically, the two opposing views in metaphysics have been the "primacy
of existence" and the "primacy of consciousness." The primacy of existence
view, first advocated by Aristotle, maintains that the universe exists independently of consciousness; i.e., "there is no mental process that can change the
laws of nature or erase facts" (Peikoff, 1982, p. 329). In Francis Bacon's
words:" Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." On the other hand, the primacy of consciousness view maintains that consciousness creates or controls
existence (cf. Mulligan, 1987). Strong advocates of this view were Plato,
Augustine, and later, the German idealists, particularly Kant and Hegel.
These metaphysical views have corollaries in epistemology. In the history of
philosophy, the defenders of the primacy of consciousness have rejected reason
as the human means of knowledge and substituted faith or intuition. On the
other hand, advocates of the primacy of existence have been advocates of reason. Reason is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided
by man's senses" (Rand, 1964, p. 20)'
To identify and integrate sense data, reason requires concepts. "A concept is
a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing
characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted" (Rand, 1990,
p. 13). For example, the concept of a table is formed by observing various
tables, distinguishing them from other entities such as chairs and bookcases,
and integrating them based on similarities into a new unit. The concept
subsumes all tables, no matter what their size or material, and we recognize
them as tables if they have characteristic features; i.e., a flat surface
with support(s).
The validity of concepts is perhaps the most important issue in philosophy.
Concepts are valid if they refer to reality and are formed by an objective
method, i.e., logic (Peikoff, 1982, p. 330). Concepts are also practical: they
allow us to hold vast knowledge of reality, which would otherwise be impossible. Concepts enable us to hold knowledge of facts by subsuming numerous
concrete entities under a single label, such as "table", "business firm" or "product market strategy." Without concepts, the world would be a complex, unintegrated chaos. Those who reject reason also reject the idea that reality is the basis
of concepts; mystics (e.g., Plato, Augustine) believe that the basis of concepts is
in some supernatural realm; sceptics (e.g., Hume) deny the possibility of
76 Jaana Woiceshyn
conceptual knowledge altogether. The approach to concepts is a fundamental
issue in the philosophy of business education, as will be shown in this paper.
Empiricism and Pragmatism
In the history of philosophy, the dividing issues between different schools of
thought have always been the views on reason (particularly concepts) and reality, and the approaches to ethics are mere corollaries of these views. The schools
of thought that underlie today's business research and education, empiricism and
pragmatism, are both anti-reasons.2
The empiricists reject reason in that they discard as meaningless any questions that cannot be verified by sense data.3
Questions that require abstraction
from sense data — What is the nature of business firms? What should their goals
be? - fall into this category (Mulligan, 1987). This view underlies the culture of
sciences and has had a significant influence on business research by determining what the appropriate questions for study are, and how answers should be
sought. This research philosophy has affected teaching in the selection of subjects in business schools; many courses are science-based and rely on quantitative methods of analysis (Mulligan, 1987; House, 1975).
The empiricists attack reason also through scepticism. The early empiricists
(before Hume) claimed that only sense data count as knowledge, and concepts
are merely arbitrary labels for sets of sense data. Integration of sense data, or
observations, into universal concepts is impossible because verification of universal would require an infinite set of observations. So, the early empiricists
emphasized direct sense data, but abandoned reason (and concepts) as the integrator of the sense data. The modern empiricists (from Hume onward) are thorough sceptics; they reject altogether the possibility of objective knowledge, and
thus concepts.
The rejection of reason by pragmatism (see Dewey (1958) and James (1955))
is based on its view of reality: reality is not objective. Its nature is determined
by people, by whim or by majority vote. There is no distinction
between an external world and the consciousness perceiving it. Pragmatism has
been mostly influential on business education (although it has had some impact
on certain notions of theory, as discussed later). Case study guides emphasize
that there are no right answers to cases (e.g., Thompson & Strickland, 1984,
p. 275); and the discussion method introduced by John Dewey centres around
polling opinions and consensus rather than finding objective solutions (cf.
Peikoff, 1984, p. 13).
Their view of reality led pragmatists to scepticism: certainty is impossible
A Philosophical Approach to Business Education 77
because reality changes all the time. An idea is considered true if it works, but
whatever works today may not work tomorrow. According to pragmatism, there
cannot be any permanent concepts or principles because of this constant
Heraclitean change.4
The only way to gain knowledge according to pragmatism
is to conduct public polls and take majority votes. Reason is invalid, and concepts are not possible.
The ethical views of empiricism and pragmatism are derived directly from
their stands on reason and reality. Empiricists dismiss ethics as meaningless
since direct sense data cannot provide answers to moral questions. They maintain that one cannot derive values from facts. Pragmatists do consider ethics but
fail to provide any objective guidelines for conduct because there is no standard
these guidelines could be based on; everything is constantly changing, and
observations are interpreted subjectively, either by an individual or a group.
This means that each circumstance is unique and people's conclusions about it
are different. The only guidance that remains are the immediate feelings or
instincts for what works in a given circumstance.5
Pragmatists take ends and
goals as given, since they can be whatever one would like, and therefore any
means can be justified. Faulty products could be introduced to the market if
short term profit was the goal.
Table 1 summarizes the empiricist and pragmatist views of existence, concepts, and ethics, along with their implications for business education. (To conserve space, rationalism and Objectivism are also summarized in Table 1,
although they are discussed later).
Rationalism
The contrasting philosophical view to empiricism and pragmatism is rationalism, the dominant philosophy of the humanities. Since most of the proposed
solutions to the deficiencies in business education are based on rationalism, it is
discussed here as well. The rationalist view of reality, reason and ethics is
opposed to empiricism. Rationalism has influenced pragmatism but there are
some crucial differences. Despite its name, rationalism is anti-reason.
The basis for the rejection of reason by rationalism is its view of reality. The
rationalists, in the tradition of Plato, Augustine and Kant, maintain that the universe does not exist independently but is created by consciousness, either
human or divine. The argument is that there are two realities: the one that we
perceive and the "true" reality created by consciousness, such as Plato's "world
of forms", Augustine's "supernatural" or Kant's "noumenal world". This is the

The predominant philosophies shaping business education have been empiricism and pragmatism. The influence of empiricism on research and teaching in
business schools are easy to understand. Empiricism has been the dominant philosophy of science, especially since its modern version, logical positivism,
flourished between the 1920's and the 1940's. Management studies, as a young
discipline, has been anxious to seek legitimation as a science and therefore has
turned to empiricism or positivism (Susman & Evered, 1978; Behling, 1980;
Whitley, 1984). This has shaped both research and teaching, which are often
data-driven rather than theory-driven, emphasizing methodological sophistication and dismissing metaphysical and ethical considerations.
The influence of pragmatism in business schools is due to its cultural dominance in North America. Its impact can be seen mostly in teaching but to a certain extent in research as well. Pragmatism is often prevalent in case teaching:
students go over particular decision situations case after case, without necessarily integrating the into principles. (This does not, of course, apply to
all schools and all instructors b
80 Jaana Woiceshyn
places (Kirkpatrick, 1989; Cohen, 1982).) Pragmatist ethics are relativistic and
thus, practically contentless and, when taught, have left students without any
guidelines for conduct. The influence of pragmatism on research is evident in a
certain theory notion. The so-called contingency theory, which became popular
in the 1960's, maintains that there are no general principles of managing or
organizing, i.e., no theory is possible (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; Wood,
1979).
Both empiricism and pragmatism have left business education lacking and
have given rise to the accusations of a "quantitative" and short-term orientation
of business graduates. Providing students with specific decision-making tools
by teaching the "sciences," the pragmatist method of problem-solving and the
pragmatist ethics do not help them to understand the long-term consequences or
moral implications of their decisions, nor the principals involved.
One of the popular recommendations for solving the problems of short-term,
quantitative orientation in managerial decision-making has been to supplement
business school curricula with humanities-based courses, and particularly with
ethics (Gandz & Hayes, 1988; George, 1988; Hosmer, 1988; Mulligan, 1987).
However, inserting a few ethics courses into the curricula is likely to be ineffective if empiricism and pragmatism remain the dominant philosophies of
business education. Ethics and other humanities courses are at odds with business courses because they often are based on a different philosophy, rationalism. Rationalism is at conflict with the underlying philosophies of the sciences
and business, a situation eloquently referred to as the "two cultures" (Snow,
1956). This conflict requires a resolution before the humanities courses can
truly complement the business curriculum or help to solve the problems plaguing business education.
Although rationalism differs from empiricism and pragmatism in its
approach to sources of knowledge, it shares one apparent shortcoming with
empiricism and pragmatism: a non-objective view of concepts. Concepts are
non-objective if they are not based on systematic observation of reality; they
are merely convenient or arbitrary labels given to entities or ideas. Rationalists
sever the link between concepts and reality. They believe that concepts are
intrinsic in some other dimension.
The argument made in this paper is that, if the non-objective view of
concepts prevail, the deficiencies in business education cannot be corrected.
These deficiencies influence the way business graduates acquire knowledge and
their views on ethics. If the method by which knowledge is acquired
A Philosophical Approach to Business Education 81
and views on ethics are considered subjective or arbitrary, the business graduates will have trouble thinking beyond the concrete of a given moment. This
leads to short-term decision-making, a lack of concern for ethical consequences
of decisions, and a lack of understanding of human nature, which is essential for
developing leadership skills. A possible resolution is discussed next.
An Alternative: An Objectivist Philosophy
An alternative philosophical view claims to overcome the conflict between
empiricism, pragmatism and rationalism by recognizing reality as the sole
object of human perception and the mind as capable of integrating percepts into
concepts. This view is called realism.7
One and recent version of realism, Objectivism, is discussed here.8
The major advocate of realism in the history of philosophy was Aristotle, followed by Aquinas, Rand (1990)9
and a very
few other contemporary philosophers (e.g., Sellars, 1963; Harre, 1970).
As stated earlier, many of the solutions offered for the problems in business
education have to do with supplementing science-based courses with humanities so that the two underlying philosophies would peacefully co-exist.
However, Objectivism appears to make collaboration between empiricism and
rationalism unnecessary, since it claims to overcome their metaphysical, epistemological and ethical conflicts and deficiencies, and avoids the problems
caused by pragmatism.
Objectivism maintains that there is only one reality, the world we perceive,
not two distinct Platonian worlds of concepts and physical phenomena.
Objectivism furthermore maintains that the human mind can obtain
knowledge of reality by means of reason, i.e., through sense perception and
concept formation, independent of the field of inquiry, whether it be sciences or
humanities. According to Objectivism, it does not matter whether we are trying
to understand a certain biochemical process or the nature of human beings—we
still need both sense data and conceptualisation to reach that understanding. The
sciences cannot rely on empiricism, and neither can the humanities rely on
rationalism.
Only one philosopher, Ayn Rand (1990), has explicitly solved the false
dichotomy of mind vs. reality posed by rationalism and empiricism. With regard
to concepts, Objectivism does not suggest that concepts exist in some other reality incomprehensible to the human mind (as most rationalists would argue).
Neither does Objectivism maintain that concepts are arbitrary labels we give to
certain concrete phenomena (as most empiricists and pragmatists would argue).
82 Jaana Woiceshyn
The Objectivist view is that concepts are mental integrations of particular existents. In other words, there is no split between mind and reality; concepts are
formed by a person's mind, based on the facts of reality. Therefore, concepts are
objective.
According to Objectivism, concepts are cognitive tools in that they enable
humans to classify and organize cognitive material; and therefore, they make
possible the acquisition of knowledge on an unlimited scale. Concepts are a
means for keeping order in the mind and they make thinking possible (Rand,
1990:69). This view of concepts is unique. If adopted, it could drastically
change business education.
The Objectivist ethics (Rand, 1964) is based on its views of reality and reason. It begins with life as the standard of value and each person's own life as
one's purpose. Unlike altruism, Objectivism maintains that one should neither
sacrifice oneself to others nor others to oneself. This view is called rational
self-interest, i.e., based on reason, as opposed to the popular notion of
self-interest as involving the violation of the rights of others to serve oneself.
The political implication of these ethical premises is that people must be free to
exercise their reason, i.e., the principle of individual rights.
Unlike animals, a human being must discover the knowledge necessary to
achieve the values required to sustain one's life. This knowledge is held in the
form of principles. For example, honesty and justice are principles governing
how one should deal with others. These principles condense vast amounts of
concrete information and thereby allow us to consider the consequences of our
decisions and to act in the long range (Peikoff, 1989). For example, if a person
understands the principle of honesty, he or she does not have to start from
scratch every time when trying to resolve whether to "fake reality a little" by
lying in order to gain a value. The principle would give the answer quickly.
Table 1 summarizes the key differences between Objectivism, empiricism,
pragmatism and rationalism.
Integrating Objectivism into Business Education
Business schools are trying to train future managers and business experts. A
crucial skill they need is problem-solving and decision-making, the ability to
foresee and evaluate both short- and long-term consequences of their decisions
(House, 1975; George, 1988). In order to make complex decisions and to act
long-term, one needs to integrate particular perceptions into concepts and to
identify principles (see also House, 1975, p. 325). In Objectivism, thinking
A Philosophical Approach to Business Education 83
conceptually and grasping principles require certain metaphysical and epistemological premises, i.e., that concepts and principles are valid means of arriving at
the truth, which is the recognition of reality.
Concepts, according to Objectivism, and as defined earlier, are mental integrations of perceptions or earlier-formed concepts, with their measurements
omitted. Concepts are prerequisites and building blocks of principles. "A principle is a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend"
(Rand, 1964, p. 144). The ability to conceptualise by integrating and identifying
principles give humans the capacity to solve problems and act long-range. "By
organizing his perceptual material into concepts, and his concepts into wider
and still wider concepts, man can grasp and retain, to identify and integrate an unlimited amount of knowledge, a knowledge extending beyond the
immediate concretes of any given, immediate moment" (Rand, 1975: 17).
An example of a principle, or a conceptual integration, in the field of business is the Law of Demand which states: "Ceteris paribus, there is an inverse
relationship between price and quantity." This statement, although simple,
involves a tremendous number of integrations of concrete observations and
other concepts. Another principle borrowed from microeconomics is that the
two factors enabling the sale of goods and services are price and quality. These
two principles (which are also the basis of Michael Porter's (1980) theory of
generic strategies) serve as guidelines for managers determining their firms'
competitive strategies and enable them to make conclusions beyond the given
concrete situations.
If conceptual thinking is a skill business schools want students to acquire,
change s are necessary in both curricula and methods of teaching.
Curriculum
Most of the subjects in business schools provide students with specialized
knowledge and skills, such as marketing, accounting and human resource management. While these specialized skills are important, the future managers also
need an ability to integrate the specialized knowledge. Integration is left to a
few business policy courses, and these often do not suffice because the students'
ability to think conceptually, which is essential for integration, is deficient.
Thinking skills are essential for problem-solving and decision-making, and
business schools should offer courses that would improve conceptual thinking
(cf. House, 1975).
Two kinds of courses would improve conceptual thinking. The first is to
teach courses in philosophy; this would require instructors trained in
84 Jaana Woiceshyn
philosophy, particularly in epistemology. Exposure to Objectivist epistemology
would facilitate students' thinking skills because of the views on concept formation and principles in Objectivism. The need for conceptual thinking and formation of principles is often visible in business ethics courses. A grab bag of topics
from "social responsibility" of business to employee "whistle blowing," or
worse yet, a collection of cases to which "there are no right answers"
(Beauchamp, 1983; Cavanagh & McGovern, 1988; Velasquez, 1988), may
build awareness of ethical issues but not teach a conceptual approach to ethics
(George, 1988).
The second option is to demonstrate conceptual thinking along with the specialized subjects. The application of Objectivist epistemology to specific topics
means that instructors would structure their courses hierarchically so that simple
concepts and principles lead to more complex ones. Students would be able to
identify particular pieces of knowledge, relate similar pieces, and integrate to
form concepts and identify principles based on similarities. This would enable
students to retain what they have learned, by letting them integrate knowledge
into bigger "chunks." Integration also would help students to see the effects of
their decisions by revealing cause-effect linkages and relationships among various concepts and principles. The application of Objectivist epistemology is discussed more in the section "Objectivist principles as applied to teaching."
Methods of Teaching
Perhaps the most widespread method of teaching in business schools in North
America is the use of cases (Freedman & Stumpf, 1982; Cohen, 1982). Case
study as a sole method was criticised above for often being too concrete and
failing to integrate the abstract and the concrete. Case study as a component of a
course can, however, be a vehicle for illustrating concepts (Mintzberg, Quinn,
James, 1988). Good teaching consists of a right balance of the abstract and the
concrete, and cases can represent the concrete. Too much abstraction is difficult
for the human mind to grasp because the connection to reality is lost; but at the
same time, the mind cannot retain too many concretes either (see Rand, 1990).
The use of business cases has shaped classroom techniques. The case method
relies heavily on discussion where the onus is on the students. This can be a
tremendous waste of time from the point of view of learning something
unless students are mature enough, well prepared, and have reached a sufficient
level of knowledge (see also Cohen, 1982). This combination of conditions is
rarely reached until the Ph.D. or the executive program levels. Even MBA
A Philosophical Approach to Business Education 85
students are struggling to form the basic concepts and principles. The discussion
method is widely adopted, though, because of the pragmatist position that there
are no right answers, and that everything is a matter of opinion.
Objectivism would involve more directed methods such as lecturing and the
combining of lecturing and discussion. Lecturing can be a very effective
method of teaching if it is done by a trained mind. Because it requires communicating the structure of the subject matter to the students, integration becomes
possible. Discussion is needed to monitor students' learning; and during a case
discussion the instructor must take a directive role in order to help the students
to think about the consequences of the decisions they recommend.
Objectivist Principles As Applied To Teaching
Objectivism maintains the position that there are certain principles of teaching
that facilitate conceptual thinking. In a broad integration, three principles can be
identified, as outlined below.10
1) Motivation. Before anything can be taught, the students should be
interested in learning. Their minds do not function automatically; they must
choose to focus their attention, and therefore any course should start with motivation. The instructor would show how his or her specific subject helps the students to achieve the skills they need or want. This may sound self-evident, but
motivation is a challenging task in a course about general management principles or about strategic management of a firm, when students are years away
from general management positions and when they need to learn abstract concepts about business firms and their interactions rather than engage in the "treasure hunt" for the solution of the case of the day.
Initial motivation, however, is not sufficient, since it is easy to lose the students' interest during a long semester. The instructor should provide continuous
motivation by showing that he or she is delivering what was promised at the
beginning, and that it is important. Again, continuing motivation is more critical
when one is trying to teach and integrate concepts such as a business firm, competitive strategy and organizational design rather than conduct problem-solving
exercises through case discussion where integration is not necessary.
2) Integration. Integration is a central process of human cognition. The
mind can only hold so many concrete perceptions and integrating them into
concepts is crucial (see Rand, 1990, pp. 62-74). Teaching conceptual thinking
is to teach the subject matter in a certain way, by integrating the parts of a subject into a whole or a unit. In contrast to today's education, the emphasis should
86 Jaana Woiceshyn
be on similarities, not differences; this goal is accomplished by pointing out
common denominators and giving overviews. Differentiation is also important,
however, but less difficult.
Integration implies not only relating the parts of a whole but also connecting
the abstract and concrete. Abstractions can be difficult to grasp, and they must
be connected to reality by giving concrete examples and showing how principles can be applied. Education should be like a shuttle: from concrete to abstract
and back to concrete to illustrate the abstractions. Ideally, a student should be
able to reduce every principle to a concrete situation and to identify and apply
principles to any situation.
At present, a typical business policy course suffers from lack of integration.
It consists of different cases to which a number of solutions are acceptable.
Finding the similarities and common denominators among them is rarely
attempted. Moreover, the cases represent only the concrete; the abstract is missing. In other words, few concepts and principles are identified. Increasingly,
business policy courses have started to present a number of key concepts in the
field and to integrate them into a common framework (e.g., Montanari, Morgan
& Bracker, 1990). Yet, the problem of integrating the abstract and concrete
remains. Cases are supposed to provide the concretes, but they are often overly
long and full of detail to "provide realism" (Kirkpatrick, 1989). This "realism"
also makes them difficult to retain, and the illustrations of concepts and principles, if present, are lost under the detail.
3) Structure. Knowledge in any field forms a hierarchy with concrete
facts as the base. The instructor should determine the proper organization for
teaching his or her specific topic, since facts are unintelligible if taught in a
wrong sequence. Interest, however, cannot be the organizing principle because
students may be interested in questions they are not ready to learn. Instead, the
hierarchical nature of the subject determines the structure of a course. A course
should proceed from lower level concepts to higher ones. For example, in business policy, the concept of the firm should be clear before one discusses formulating or implementing business strategy. Every subject has inner
logic. Pinpointing that inner logic and organizing a subject properly to facilitate
conceptual thinking is often the most challenging part of teaching.
For example, business policy courses have been structured around the size of
the firm or the complexity of financial information provided in cases. The case
selection logic has been to analyse cases on small firms first and then move on
to larger ones, or to discuss the cases with the most complex financial information last. If the courses were designed to teach concepts and principles,
A Philosophical Approach to Business Education 87
however, they would start with the most fundamental concepts such as the business firm and managerial work, and then proceed to next level of concepts, such
as strategy and organizational structure.
An Illustration
As an illustration only, let us compare two hypothetical graduates. One of them,
Mr. A, has graduated with an MBA from a prestigious business school that
emphasises practising problem-solving through case analysis and discussion. In
none of the approximately two hundred cases Mr. A analysed and discussed
with his classmates was there ever a right answer; everyone's opinion was considered equally valid. No concepts and principles were offered to integrate the
cases. The other graduate, Mr. B, has graduated with an MBA from a school that
had adopted a very different philosophy. Courses provided many concepts and
principles, and they were integrated into easily retainable frameworks. Short
cases were used to apply the concepts and principles to various business situations.
Upon graduation, both Mr. A and Mr. B were hired as general managers of
small firms. They need to decide how to start working in their new positions
and what to do. Mr. A polls the few other managers, performs a SWOT analysis
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats), a tool that was always used in
case analysis at school and scrutinises financial statements. The SWOT analysis and the financial statements do not give any reason for concern or changes,
but the plant manager and the marketing manager give him contradictory information and advice. This doesn't puzzle Mr. A. since he knows there are no right
answers and everybody's opinion is equally valid. He takes the plant manager's
advice because operations management was his favourite subject at school; and
he devotes his time to improving the production process and creating a pleasant
atmosphere in the firm by improving the physical facility and reward systems.
Mr. B also starts his new job by analysing financial statements, performing
analyses on the competitive environment and talking to other managers. From
the managers' reports, his analyses, and his observations, he concludes that
there is no reason to make immediate changes. So, what should he do first?
From his MBA courses he learned the principle that the successful firms establish and maintain a relationship of legitimacy with the investors and customers,
and make efforts in capital acquisition and resource allocation. Being the manager of a small firm in a small town, he decides that getting involved with the
Chamber of Commerce is the best way to get his own credibility established and
88 Jaana Woiceshyn
thus, to maintain the company's legitimacy. Although the balance sheet is satisfactory, Mr. B follows the principle of the successful firms and decides to
increase working capital, in order to have some slack resources for any unanticipated events. He arranges a new line of credit at the prime rate through a bank
manager, also a fellow Chamber of Commerce committee member.
After about a year in their jobs, our business school graduates face a crisis: a
foreign firm unexpectedly introduces a revolutionary new process technology
that requires significant investment. Mr. A is left scrambling. His recently
upgraded production system is obsolete, and he has difficulty raising financing.
The company is falling behind in competition; its performance is deteriorating.
Mr. B, on the other hand, uses his additional line of credit and manages to
arrange a private placement through his contacts. Very few competitors have
been able to acquire the new technology, and the company's sales and profits
start to soar.
Of which of our graduates can we be proud? More importantly, to whom do
we want to trust the leadership of the nation's businesses. The choice is
between the one who focuses on the concrete and the short-term, and the other
who acts in the long-range, on the basis of a framework of concepts and principles?
Conclusion
The deficiencies in business education are not necessary and can be overcome.
Philosophy can be blamed for the deficiencies, but it can also come to rescue.
Empiricism, pragmatism and rationalism are not the only alternatives.
Objectivism may be able to overcome the problems caused by the dominant
philosophies, and it could be adopted by researchers and educators in sciences,
humanities, and business alike. Objectivism is based on the notion that reality
exists independently of consciousness, and that humans can obtain objective
knowledge of reality by means of their senses, by integrating their sense perceptions into concepts, and by formulating principles.
Objectivism would imply that business schools do not necessarily need to
add ethics and other current humanities courses but can focus on developing
curricula and teaching methods that facilitate thinking conceptually and developing principles. The more the students learn to integrate, the better they can
understand the various consequences of their decisions. Such an approach
would reveal to them that unethical conduct is also impractical in the long term
(Gandz & Hayes, 1988), and we would witness fewer incidents of unethical
A Philosophical Approach to Business Education 89

The last six months of work
Interviews with corporate partners and university business schools on the needs of philosophical education within business curriculum.

Mapping gaps in existing business curriculum (MBA level and above) to corporate and stakeholder needs.

Embedding curriculum into MBA and above programs at two universities which includes:
• Moral reasoning
• Logic and rationality
• Rhetoric and communication systems
• Ethical frameworks
• Investor relations, activism and values-based business models

Modelling company value and loss of shareholder returns based on
• Decision making issues
• Ethical leadership issues
• Reputational, Regulatory and Sustainability breaches

Developing IP protections around curriculum, teaching and research outcomes.

References
Anderson, David, Fred. L McTier; Lawrimore.Perspectives on Business Ethics in Management Education, K W. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal; Corpus Christi Vol. 55, Iss. 4, (Autumn 1990): 26.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-International. (20004) Ethics Education in Business
Schools: Report of the Ethics Education Task Force Tampa, Fl.
Badaracco, J. (1992) Business Ethics: Four Spheres of Executive Responsibility. California Management
Review, 34(3) pp. 64-79
Beggs, J. and Dean, K. (2007). Legislated Ethics or Ethics Education? Faculty View in the Post-Enron Era.
Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 15-37
Bennis, W.G. and O‟Toole, J. (2005) How Business Schools Lost Their Way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5) ,
pp.96-105.
Beauchamp, T.L., and N.E. Bowie (2001) Ethical Theory and Business (6
the Edition) Upper Saddle River, N.J.,
Pearson / Prentice Hall
Boatright, J.R. (2009) Ethics and the Conduct of Business (6th Edition) Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson /
Prentice Hall
Ciulla, J.B., C. Martin., and R.C. Solomon (2007) Honest Work New York, New York, Oxford University Press
Conforto, David. (2008) Sexual Harassment Claims in Federal Court: Overcoming the Farragher/Ellerth
Defence, Boston, Mass. Conforto Law Group (Chptr #6)
DeGeorge, R.T. (2006) Business Ethics (6th Edition) Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson / Prentice Hall
Donaldson, T., P.H. Werhane, and M. Cording (2002) Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach.
(7TH Edition) Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson / Prentice Hall
Desjardins, J.R. and J.J. McCall ((2005) Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics (5th Edition) Belmont, Calif.,
Thomson/Wadsworth
Donovan, A. (2009) Can Ethics Classes Cure Cheating? How to Fix Business Schools Harvard Business Review,
pp. 42-46.
Ethics Research Center. (2009) National Business Ethics Survey. Washington D.C.
Ferrell, O.C., J. Fraedrich, and L. Ferrell (2008) Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (7th Edition)
New York, New York, Houghton Mifflin Co.
Friedland, Julian. Where Business Meets Philosophy: The Matter of Ethics - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education 2/28/11 2:05 PM November 8, 2009
Ghillyer, A.W. (2008) Business Ethics New York, New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Gibson, K. (2006) Business Ethics: People, Profits, and the Planet New York, New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Goldberg, Deborah B. 1995. "The Road to Equality: The Application of the Reasonable Woman Standard in
Sexual Harassment Cases." Cardozo Women's Law Journal 2.
Goodpaster, K.E., L. L. Nash, and H. de Bettignies (2006) Business Ethics (4th Edition) New York, New York,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Ghoshal, S. (2005) Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management practices. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 4 (1), pp.75-91
Handy, C. (2002) What‟s A Business For? Harvard Business Review pp. 1-8
Heath, E. (2002) Morality and the Market New York, New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Hill, Eric, (2002) Patents verses Trade Secrets Internet Site
Hosmer, L.T. (2008) The Ethics of Management (6th Edition) New York, New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Jackson, K. (2006) Breaking Down the Barriers: Bringing initiatives and Reality into Business Ethics Education.
Journal of Management Education, 30(1), 65-89
Jacobs, M. How Business Schools Have Failed Business, Wall Street Journal, (24 April 2009 (Downloaded 10
August 2010)
Jennings, M. (2006) In Their Own Words: What We learn About Ethical Lapses and Their Prevention from the
Hindsight of Those Who Committed The. Corporate Finance Review, 10(6), 44-47.
Justia.com (2009) The Supreme Court Centre Washington D.C.
Kerr, S.. (2009) Do Not Blame the Business Schools, How to Fix Business Schools Harvard Business Review,
pp. 20-25.
Kaptein, M. (2009) Ethics Programs and Ethical Culture: A Next Step in Unraveling Their Multi-Faceted
Relationship. Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 89:261–281
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 2 No. 20; November 2011
36
Kaptein, M. (2008), Development of a Measure of Unethical Behavior in the Workplace: A
StakeholderPerspective Journal of Management34, 978–1008.
Kaptein, M. and S. Avelino (2005) „Measuring Corporate Integrity: A Survey-Based Approach. Corporate
Governance 5, 45–54.
Korten, D. (2009) The System Is Broken. Will B Schools Help Fix It? How to Fix Business Schools Harvard
Business Review, pp. 47-49.
Library of Congress, Congressional Research Center, Order Code RS21127 (2002) Federal Securities Law:
Insider Trading Washington D.C.
Merritt, J. (2003, January 27). Ethics is also B-School Business. Business Week, 3817, 105
Mitroff, I.I. (2004) An Open Letter to the Deans and Faculties of American Business Schools. Journal of
Business Ethics, 54 . pp. 185-189
Podolny, J. (2009) Are Business Schools to Blame? How to Fix Business Schools Harvard Business Review, pp.
7-15
Pojman, L.P., (2000) The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature New York, New York,
Oxford University Press
Shaw, W. (2008) Business Ethics (6th Edition) Belmont, Calif., Thomson/Wadsworth
Shaw, W. H. and V. Barry (2007) Moral Issues in Business (10th Edition) Belmont, Calif., Thomson/Wadsworth
Singer, P. (1999) Practical Ethics (2nd Edition) Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press
Sommers, C. and F. Sommers (1997) Vice & Virtue (4th Edition) Ft. Worth, Tx., Harcourt Brace
Stanwick, P.A. and S.D. Stanwick (2009) Understanding Business Ethics Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson /
Prentice Hall
Sutton, R. (2009) Do Economists Breed Greed and Guile? How to Fix Business Schools, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 26-29
Trevin˜o, L. K. and M. E. Brown. (2004) „Managing to Be Ethical: Debunking Five Business Ethics Myths‟,
Academy of Management Executive 18(2), 69–81.
Trevino, L.K., and K.A. Nelson (2007) Managing Business Ethics Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wicks, A. and B. Palmer (2009) An Introduction to Ethics. University of Virginia, Darden Business Publishing
UV1040
Weiss, J.W. (2006) Business Ethics Mason, Ohio, Thomson/Southwest

Second level references (merge ?)
Cavanagh, G.F., Moberg, D.J., & Velasquez, M. (1981). The ethics of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review,
6, 363-374.
[2] Hunt SD, Vitell S. A general theory of marketing ethics. Journals of Macromarketing 1986; 8. 5-16.
[3] Fritzche, D.J., & Becjer, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy- an empirical investigation, Academy of
Management Journal, 27,166-175.
[4] Ford, R.C and W.D. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical Decision Making: A Review of the Empirical Literature’, Journal of Business
Ethics. 13, 205-221.
[5] Loe, T.W., L. Ferrel and P. Mansfield: 2000, ‘A Review of Empirical Studies Assessing Ethical Decision Making in Business’,
Journals of Business Ethics 25,185-204.
[6] O’Fallon, M.J., & Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision – making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of
Business Ethics, 59(4), 375-413.
[7] Craft.J.L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision making literature: 2004-2011. Journal of Business ethics. 117(2),
221-259.
[8] Ferrell, O.C., & Gresham, L.G. (1985). A Contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. The
Journal of Marketing, 49, 87-96.
[9] Rest, J.R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York; Praeger.
[10] Trevino, L.K.(1986), Ethical decision making in organization. A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 601-617.
[11] Dubinsky, A.J., & Loken, B. (1989). Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 19(2), 83-
107.
[12] Jones, T.M.(1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of
Management Review, 16, 366-395.
[13] Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business; Reasoning, interaction and rational moral principles,
Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 311-323.
[14] Hegarty, W. Harvey and Henry P.Sims (1978), ‘Some Determinants of Unethical Behavior: An Experiment’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 451-457.
[15] Singh Apakdi, A., and S.J.Vitell.1990. Marketing ethics: Factors influencing Perceptions of ethical problems and alternatives,
Journal of Macro marketing 10(1): 47-65.
[16] Cyriac, K. and R. Dharamraj: 1994, ‘Machiavellianism in India Management’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 281-286.
[17] Verbek, W., C.Ouwerkerk and E.Peclen; 1996, ‘Exploring the contextual and Individual Factors on Ethical Decision Making of
Salespeople’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1175-1187.
[18] Bass, K., T. Barnett and G.Brown:1999, ‘Individual Difference Variables, Ethical judgments, and Ethical Behavior intentions,
Business Ethics Quarterly 9(2), 183-205.
[19] Razzaque, M.A. and T.P. Hwee: 2002, ‘Ethics and Purchasing Dilemma; A Singaporean View’, Journal of Business Ethics
35(4), 307-326.
[20] Rotter, J.B.: 1966, ‘Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External control of Reinforcement’, Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied 80, 1-28.
[21] Klebe-Trevino, L., and S.A.Youngblood.1990. Bad apples in Bad Barrels; A Causal analysis of ethical decision making
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 75(4): 378-385.
[22] Jones, G.E. and M.J. Kavanagh: 1996, ‘An Experimental Examination of the effects of Individual and situational factors on
unethical Behavior Intention in the work place’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(5), 511-523.
[23] Zahra, S.A.1989. Executive values and the ethics of company politics: some preliminary findings, Journal of Business Ethics 8:
15-29.
[24] Marris, M.H., A.S. Marks, J.A. Allen and N.A. Peery Jr: 1996, ‘Modeling Ethical Attitudes and Behaviors under conditions of
Environmental Turbulence; the case of South Africa’, Journal of Business Ethics 5(10), 1119-1130.
[25] Rallapalli, K.C., S.J.Vitell and J.H.Barnes:1998, ‘The influence of Norms and Ethical Judgment and Intentions: An Empirical
Study of Marketing Professionals’, Journal of Business Research 43, 156-168.
[26] Beams, J.D., R.M. Brown and L.N. Killough: 2008, ‘An experiment testing the Determinants of Non-compliance with Insider
Trading Laws, Journal of Business Ethics 45(4), 309-323.
[27] Nonis, S. and C.O. Swift: 2001, ‘Personal Value Profiles and Ethical Decisions’, Journal of Education for Business 76(5), 251-
256.
[28] Watson, G.W., & Sheikh, F. (2008), Normative self interest of moral Hypocrisy? The importance of context, Journal of Business
Ethics, 77(3), 259-269.
[29] Valentine, S.R., & Bateman, C.R. (2011). The impact of Ethical ideologies, moral intensity and social context on sales based
ethical reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 155-168.
[30] Sims, R.I. and T.L. Keon: 1999, ‘Determinants of Ethical Decision Making: The Relationship of the Perceived Organizational
Environment’, Journal of Business Ethics 19(4), 393-401.
[31] Weaver, K. M., and O.C.Ferrell, 1977. The impact of corporate policy in reported ethical beliefs and behavior of marketing
practitioners. In AMA proceedings 477-481.
[32] Peterson. D.K.: 2002, ‘The relationship between unethical behavior and the dimensions of the Ethical climate questionnaire’,
Journal of Business Ethics 41(4), 313-326.
[33] Greenberg, J.:2002, ‘Who stole the money and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft’, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Process 89, 985-1003.
[34] Schwartz, M: 2001, ‘The Nature of the Relationship between Corporate Codes of Ethics and Behavior’, Journal of Business
Ethics 32(3), 247-262.
Ethical Behaviour in Organizations: A Literature Review
*Corresponding Author: Marmat Geeta1
6 | Page
[35] Baumhart, R: 1961, ‘How Ethical Are Businessman? Harvard Business Review 39(4), 6-19.
[36] Hegarty, W.H. and H.P. Sims, Jr.: 1978, ‘Some Determinants of Unethical Behavior; an Experiment’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 63, 451-457.
[37] Hunt, S.Dand A.Z. Vasquez-Parraga: 1993, ‘Organizational Consequences, Marketing Ethics and Sales force Supervision’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 30(Feb), 78-90.
[38] Delaney, J.T. and D. Sockell: 1992, ‘Do Company Ethics Training Programs Make a Difference? An Empirical Analysis,
Journal of Business Ethics 11, 719-727.
[39] Hunt S.D., P.L. Kiecker, and L.B. Chonko. 1990. Social responsibility and personal success: A research note. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 18(3): 239-244.
[40] Dubinsky, A.J., and T.N. Ingram. 1984. Correlates of Sales People’s ethical Conflict; An Exploratory Investigation. Journal of
Business Ethics 3: 343-353.
[41] Verbeke, W., C.Ouwerkerk and E.Peelen, 1996. Exploring the contextual and individual f

Third level references
Behling, O. (1980). The case for the natural science model for research in organizational
behavior and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 4, 483-490.
Behrman, J.I., & Levin, R.I. (1984). Are business schools doing their job? Harvard
Business Review, 62 (2), 140-147.
Cavanagh, G.F. & McGovern, A.F. (1988). Ethical dilemmas in the modern corporation.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A.R. (1982). The teaching of organizational behavior. In R.D. Freedman & S.A.
Stumpf (Eds.), Management education (pp. 135-153). New York: John Wiley.
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover.
Freedman, R.D., & Stumpf, S.A. (1982). Management education: its theory, research and
practice. In R.D. Freedman & S.A. Stumpf (Eds.), Management education
(pp.3-20). New York: John Wiley.
Gandz, J., & Hayes, N. (1988). Teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 7,
657-669.
George, R.J. (1988.) The challenge of preparing ethically responsible managers: closing
the rhetoric-reality gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 715-720.
Harre, R. (1970). The principles of scientific thinking. London: MacMillan.
Hayes, R.H., & Abernathy, W.J. (1980). Managing our way to economic decline.
Harvard Business Review, 58 (4), 67-77.
Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business Horizons, 31
(4), 9-15.
House, R.J. (1975). The quest for relevance in management education: Some second
thoughts and undesired consequencies. Academy of Management Journal, 2,
323-333.
James, W. (1955). Pragmatism and four essays from the meaning of truth. New York:
The New American Library.
Jones, W.T. (1969). History of Western philosophy: From Hobbes to Hume (volume III).
New York: Harcourt, Race & Yovanovich.
Kast, F. & Rosenzweig, J. (1972). Contingency views of organization and management.
Chicago.
Kirkpatrick, J. (Speaker). (1989). Pragmatism and the Harvard case method. A talk
given at the Jefferson School summer conference in La Jolla, California. (Also on
audiotape. Oceanside, CA: Second Renaissance Books).
Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B., & James, R.M. (1988). The strategy process. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Montanari, J.R., Morgan, C.P., & Bracker, J.S. (1990). Strategic management: A choice
approach. Hinsdale, II.: Dryden Press.
Mulligan, T.M. (1987). The two cultures in business education. Academy of Management
Review, 4 , 593-599.
Peikoff, L. (1982). The ominous parallels. New York: Stein & Day.

Fourth set of references
AACSB. (2015). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Report available online at http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Docs/Accreditation/Standards/2013-bus-standards-update-jan2015.ashx.
Alsop, R. (2006). Business ethics education in business schools: a commentary. Journal of Management Education, 30(1), 11–14.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. (2015). List of Canadian universities by endowment. Wikipedia. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_universities_by_endowment.
Baxter, G., & Rarick, C. (1987). Education for the moral development of managers: Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and integrative education. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(3), 243–248.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beggs, J., & Dean, K. (2007). Legislated ethics or ethics education?: faculty views in the post-Enron era. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(1), 15–37.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertini, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility. Wikipedia. Available online at http://www.twine.com/item/11g8zfw5b-b/corporate-social-responsibility-wikipedia.
Boote, J., & Matthews, A. (1999). Saying is one thing; doing is another: the role of observation in market research. Journal of Qualitative Market Research, 2(1), 15–21.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buff, C., & Yonkers, V. (2004). How will they know right from wrong? A study of ethics in the mission statements and curriculum of AACSB undergraduate marketing programs. Marketing Education Review, 14(3), 71–79.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, S. (2003). Individual moral philosophies and ethical decision-making of undergraduate athletic training education students and instructors. Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Ohio University.
Google Scholar
Christensen, L., Peirce, E., Hartman, L., Hoffman, W., & Carrier, J. (2007). Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 347–368.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinard, M., & Yeager, P. (2005). Corporate crime. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.
Google Scholar
Commons. (2015). Commons, from Wikipedia. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons.
Crane, F. (2004). The teaching of ethics: an imperative at business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 79(3), 149–151.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, K., & Beggs, J. (2006). University professors and teaching ethics: conceptualizations and expectations. Journal of Management Education, 30(1), 15–44.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehaas, J. (2014). 32 Canadian universities in top 1,000 ranking. Maclean’s. Available at http://www.macleans.ca/education/unirankings/32-canadian-universities-in-top-1000.
Denning, S. (2013). How modern economics is built on the world’s dumbest idea. Forbes, available online at http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/22/how-modern-economics-is-built-on-the-worlds-dumbest-idea/.
Enquist, B., Johnson, M., & Skalen, P. (2006). Adoption of corporate social responsibility—incorporating a stakeholder perspective. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(3), 188–207.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felton, E., & Sims, R. (2005). Teaching business ethics: targeted outputs. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 377–391.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. (2004). Social responsibility and ethics: clarifying the concepts. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 391–400.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, W. (2006). Corporation be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing.
Google Scholar
Gentile, M., & Samuelson, J. (2005). Keynote address to the AACSB International Deans Conference, February 10, 2003: the state of affairs for management education and social responsibility. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(4), 496–505.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone, R., & Thompson, K. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: shifting the worldview. Academy of Management & Learning, 5(3), 266–277.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. (2000). Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting & attestation. International Journal of Auditing, 4(3), 247–268.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.). (2005). Corporate social responsibility across Europe. Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2014). Can you teach businessmen to be ethical? The Washington Post, available online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/13/can-you-teach-businessmen-to-be-ethical/.
Harmon, S., Harrison, D., Jones, C., Ritchie, C., & Stiebinger, P. (2015). Curricula practices and directions in sustainability: Survey of deans of AACSB mid-sized U.S. business schools. Paper presented at the Cambridge Business & Economics Conference.
Google Scholar
Harris, H. (2001). Content analysis of secondary data: a study of courage in managerial decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 191–208.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, T. (2002). Unequal protection: the rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights. New York: Rodale.
Google Scholar
Hoffman, W., & Moore, J. (1982). Results of a business ethics curriculum survey conducted by the Center for Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 1, 81–83.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, K. (2009). Is it time to retrain B-schools? New York Times, March 15, 158(54615), BU2.
Google Scholar
Hosmer, L. (1985). The other 338: why a majority of our schools of business administration do not offer a course in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 17–22.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, T. (2009). Limits without growth. London: Earthscan.
Google Scholar
Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 277–295.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lair, D. (2015). Normative and descriptive approaches to organizational ethics post-crisis: a review essay. Organization, 22(1), 139–149.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, M., & Schaupp, D. (1989). Ethics in education: a comparative study. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(12), 943–949.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, C. (2010). A step forward: ethics education matters! Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 565–584.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, Y., Rechner, P., & Olson-Buchanan, J. (2005). Shaping ethical perceptions: an empirical assessment of the influence of business education, culture, and demographic factors. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(4), 341–358.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, C. (2014). Three simple reasons to teach ethics in business schools. Canadian Business, available at http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/are-ethics-courses-useful-chris-macdonald/.
MacPhail, F., & Bowles, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility as support for employee volunteers: impacts, gender puzzles and policy implications in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 405–416.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, K. (2002). The ethics of business schools. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(4), A14–A17.
Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 323–337.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Mick, D. (2007). The end (s) of marketing and the neglect of moral responsibility by the American Marketing Association. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 289–292.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkes, J., & Minkes, L. (2008). Corporate and white collar crime. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Google Scholar
Mitroff, I., Alpaslan, C., & O’Connor, E. (2015). Reflections: what’s wrong with business schools and why they need to change. Journal of Change Management, (ahead-of-print), 1–7.
Google Scholar
Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. Handbook of moral development, 703–733.
Google Scholar
Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools. A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 108–123.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J., Hair, J., Ragland, C., & Schimmel, K. (2013). Ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability education in AACSB undergraduate and graduate marketing curricula: a benchmark study. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(2), 129–140.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Riordan, L., & Fairbass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745–758.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2009). Responsible leaders as agents of world benefit: learnings from ‘Project Ulysses’. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 59–71.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, B. (2006). Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(2), 153–164.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundle-Thiele, S., & Wymer, W. (2010). Stand-alone ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability course requirements: a snapshot from Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 5–12.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, T., & Bisson, J. (2011). Can ethics be taught? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 44–52.
Google Scholar
Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 413–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Sims, R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Business ethics curriculum design: suggestions and illustrations. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(1), 69–86.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleeper, B., Schneider, K., Weber, P., & Weber, J. (2006). Scale and study of student attitudes toward business education’s role in addressing social issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 381–391.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorsa, V. (2008). How to explain socially responsible corporate actions institutionally: theoretical and methodological critique. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 13(1), 32–41.
Google Scholar
Stewart, C. (2004). A question of ethics: How to teach them? The New York Times, (March 21).
Google Scholar
The Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education. (2015). Cloud EFS standards & performance indicators. Available at http://cloudinstitute.org/cloud-efs-standards/.
Universities Canada. (2014). Universities/Facts and stats: Enrolment by university. Available at http://www.univcan.ca/universities/facts-and-stats/enrolment-by-university.
Vardi, Y. (2001). The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(4), 325–337.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S. (2007). Leadership integrity in a fractured knowledge world. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 543–557.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WBCSD. (2001). The business case for sustainable development: Making a difference towards the Johannesburg Summit 2002 and beyond. (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland). Available online at http://www.earthprint.com/productfocus.php?id=WBCSD0035&q=business%20case%20for%20sustainable%20development.
Wilburn, K. (2008). A model for partnering with not-for-profits to develop socially responsible businesses in a global environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 111–120.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C., & Aguilera, R. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in a comparative perspective. In A. Crane et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 452–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: what is it and where does it come from. Ivey Business Journal, 67(6), 1–5.
Google Scholar
Wymer, W., & Polonsky, M. (2015). The limitations and potentialities of green marketing. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(3), 239–262.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zingales, L. (2012). Do business schools incubate criminals? BloombergView, online at http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-07-16/do-business-schools-incubate-criminals.

Sample Solution