A prominent recent theme in behavioural business ethics is that people’s decisions are significantly influenced by the way they cognitively construe the type of choice situation in which they find themselves. In particular, there are two distinct streams of scholarship that can be broadly characterized in this way.

One stream of research goes under the label of decision frames (Goffman 1974). Of particular interest for the current context is research that shows that people who are making a decision in a business frame, i.e. they think of their decision as a ‘business decision’ are rather prone to making choices that are widely considered unethical (Kouchaki et al. 2014), especially when compared to people construing an analogous choice situation as an ‘ethical decision’ (Tenbrunsel and Messick 1999). Call this the Business Frame literature. Another stream or research claims that unethical behaviour in business is often the result of an economistic mindset that construes the world of business along the lines of a (caricature of) neoclassical economics (Ghoshal 2005). The idea is that businesspeople often think that everyone in business is solely reacting to material incentives without any regard for ethical considerations, and that this gives them an excuse to behave that way themselves (von Kriegstein 2019). Call this the Business Ethics Denial literature.

The current proposal is aimed at bringing those two streams of research together. Note that, while they are similar in that both posit a cognitivist explanation for unethical behaviour in the business context, there is a subtle difference as to where the pernicious construal of the situation is to be found. According to the business frame literature, the problem is that people are construing a choice as a business decision. According to the business ethics denial literature, the problem is that people are thinking about business decisions in a certain way. To put the point very bluntly, if the business ethics denial literature is right, we could reduce unethical business conduct by making people think about business differently; by contrast, if the business frame literature is right, we would need to get people to stop thinking of their choices as business decisions altogether.

Our proposed research is to replicate some prominent studies in the decision frame literature and see whether the business ethics denial construct can shed further light on what happens when people make decisions in an ethics frame. Concretely, we would administer a measure of business ethics denial (von Kriegstein and Scott 2023) to our subjects before replicating studies that show that the incidence of unethical decision making increases when subjects are in a business frame (e.g. Tenbrunsel and Messick 1999; Kay et al. 2004; Lieberman et al. 2004). We hypothesize that subjects scores on the business ethics denial scale will be correlated with unethical decision making while in the business decision frame. In other words, subjects who think both “this is a business decision” and “business is an ethics-free zone” are more likely to make an unethical choice than subjects who have only the former thought.

References:

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), 75-91.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern UP.

Kay, A. C., Wheeler, S. C., Bargh, J. A., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 95(1), 83-96.

Kouchaki, M., Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A. P., & Sousa, C. (2013). Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 53-61.

Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 30(9), 1175-1185.

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 684-707.

von Kriegstein, H. (2019). Oxymoron: Taking Business Ethics Denial Seriously. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 16, 103-134.

von Kriegstein, H., & Scott, K. A. (2023). Business ethics denial: Scale development and validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 210, 112229.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (popularly referred to as Mahatma Gandhi) was a legendary proponent in the history of social and political change. Gandhi’s name became synonymous with his struggle for Indian freedom, equality and social justice for the citizens of India. He adopted a purely non-violent way to protest the colonial rule and succeeded in freeing the country in 1947. Since then, Gandhi became a role model for several renowned political leaders across the world such as Caeser Chavez, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela. These leaders have studied and implemented some of his principles such as non-violence (Ahimsa), equality, diversity, economic and social empowerment, truth (Satya) and transparency, commitment to freedom, and self-reliance (Swaraj). Gandhi’s philosophical principles, moral methods, and tactics remain relevant today not only in India but across the United States and other countries and could serve as powerful guiding forces in various aspects of life including business school pedagogy and research.

Scholars from various academic disciplines such as Religious Studies, Ethic Studies, Peace Studies, and Theology have analyzed a few of Gandhi’s principles and their applicability to their disciplines, However, there is scarce literature on why and how the main Gandhian principles of truth and transparency, non-violence, social justice, self-reliance, and trusteeship could be guiding forces in shaping pedagogy and research on Social Entrepreneurship in the context of a Business School. This research will examine and describe how Gandhian philosophy, and values could be applied for social entrepreneurship teaching, research, and community engagement within a business school setting.

The main research question is: How could Gandhian philosophical principles and values be applied to the broader realm of business pedagogy and research that lead to deeper community engagement and well-being?

Methodology will involve semi-structured interviews with students, staff, faculty members, and actors in the local entrepreneurial ecosystem including non-profits, and social enterprises. Engaging with communities through participatory research methods can ensure that the voices and needs of local populations are considered. This can result in more relevant and impactful research outcomes that align not only with social entrepreneurship but also with corporate social responsibility and inclusivity (Narula et al., 2019). This could allow us to rethink our research methods to mitigate the current crises, and wicked problems in our communities (Harrison, 2024).

Potential findings and outcomes: Effectively teach our students to think like social entrepreneurs through examples of Gandhi’s thinking, experimentation, and real-world case examples. Familiarity with scenarios where businesses face choices that impact social welfare and the environment and the ability to consider non-violent and ethical solutions (Gandhi, 1927). Conducting real-world case studies of social enterprises, and class exercises to critically analyze corporate reports and assess their adherence to truthful disclosure can reiterate Gandhi’s principle of truth and transparency (Parel, 2007). Inculcation into our business and entrepreneurship students as they think of launching their businesses such that a social (and environmental) goal is embedded from the start.

Research findings could reveal how the sustainability orientation of entrepreneurial ecosystem actors facilitates the growth of entrepreneurship in the ecosystem (Audretsch et al., 2024). Gandhi’s emphasis on collaboration and collective action can guide community engagement via partnerships with local organizations, NGOs, and businesses. These efforts can focus on addressing wicked problems (e.g., homelessness, poverty, education, environmental conservation) to align with the broader goals of social responsibility (Vedula et al., 2022; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011; Parel, 2007).

When Anne Mulcahy was considered for the Xerox CEO position, there was concern about her capability and experience in financial matters. Indeed, when she was appointed CEO, two Xerox board members resigned their positions because of her perceived lack of financial acumen. When she asked Jack Welch to mentor her, he refused, telling her that he was sure she was going to be a failure.

Evaluation of individuals for advancement or a new position at a company is a normal day-to-day activity. Generally, one attempts to identify the needs of a leadership position, which might involve capability in operations, finance, information systems, marketing, communication, strategic planning, etc., and then goes about finding an individual who matches those requirements. For organizations who consider ethics and integrity a core value, or who have deficits in that area that they are sensitive about correcting, a potential leader’s capability concerning ethics should be a core requirement for a leadership position.

While there are various professional designations and experiences that generally help identify those who have requisite knowledge and experience in a discipline, to date, there is very little in the scholarly literature to help identify a leader who has the requisite knowledge and experience to be an effective, ethical leader. While several concepts and constructs related to moral leadership and ethical capacity exist, such as ethical leadership (Brown & Trevino, 2006), moral leadership (Solinger et al., 2020), ethical expertise (Dane & Sonenshen, 2015), moral potency (Hannah & Avolio, 2010), and moral maturation/conation (Hannah et al., 2011), the extant literature does not contain a comprehensive model for understanding what specific competencies and skills are requisite for identifying a leader’s ethical capacity.

Thus, this paper develops a new construct called moral leadership capacity, provides a definition and model of it, differentiates it from other leadership constructs, and develops specific aspects of such a construct.

We define moral leadership capacity as the extent to which a leader possesses the moral self-concept, positive character traits, and ethical skills necessary to influence others to behave morally. Leaders with high moral leadership capacity have intrinsic desires, intentions, and values that motivate them to act and lead ethically. They also exhibit positive character traits such as empathy, humility, compassion, and courage. While some leaders may desire to do what is right but not know how, leaders with moral leadership capacity also possess the necessary skills to structure and influence their organization to act in morally appropriate ways. Moral leadership capacity is, in essence, the aim of all ethics education: to prepare leaders who possess the necessary desires, traits, and skills to lead organizations ethically.

Mental health issues significantly challenge organizations and society, affecting millions globally. The World Health Organization reports that one in four people will experience a mental health disorder in their lifetime, with anxiety and depressive disorders rising sharply. These conditions cause the loss of 12 billion working days annually and are expected to become the leading cause of disability worldwide by 2030 (WHO, 2022a, 2022b).

Individuals with mental illness face stigmatization, low social status, and discrimination, earning lower wages, experiencing higher rates of underemployment, and having limited opportunities for career advancement despite possessing the necessary knowledge, skills, and capabilities (Biggs et al., 2010; Brohan & Thornicroft, 2010; Cronin et al., 2023). These challenges are often framed through stereotypical narratives emphasizing their limitations and weaknesses (Boysen et al., 2020; Rüsch et al., 2005; Summers et al., 2018).

However, these employees do not live their condition in isolation; their experiences are intertwined with organizational dynamics and interactions with coworkers and managers (Dextras-Gauthier et al., 2012; Kelloway et al., 2022). Social and cultural organizational factors can exacerbate disadvantages through different mechanisms, such as well-intended but discriminatory HR policies, subtle unconscious behaviors, biases, and stigmatizing assumptions (Kalfa et al., 2021; Krupa et al., 2009; Colella & Santuzzi, 2024).

This paper argues for a shift from the dominant focus on individual pathologies and limitations to a more relational and contextual understanding of employees' mental illness experiences, grounded in an ethical perspective (Kalfa et al., 2021). We propose that organizations can nurture an inclusive climate where all individuals, including those with mental illness, can thrive.

The Ethics of Care (Held, 2005; Tronto, 1993) is particularly useful for this purpose, as it emphasizes relational interdependence, empathy, and responsibility in addressing others' needs—elements crucial to ensuring that individuals with mental illness do not struggle at work. This framework serves as a foundation for delineating the characteristics of a caring organization, a concept already discussed in various contexts (Arnold & Ross, 2023; Kahn, 1993; Liedtka, 1996; Simola, 2003; Tronto, 2010; Vijayasingham et al., 2018), but which requires further conceptual development to address the specific needs and characteristics of employees with mental illness.

More specifically, we draw on core Ethics of Care themes, such as recognizing the ubiquity of human vulnerability (Jennings & Wasunna, 2005; Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012), debunking the false dichotomy between private and public spheres (Held, 2005; Tronto, 1993), the redefinition of equality and fairness (White & Tronto, 2004), the consideration of power relationships (Hankivsky, 2014), and the understanding of human experiences as situated and contextual (Clement, 1996; Hawk, 2011).

Through the lens of these themes, we identify and discuss some of the underlying causes, dynamics, interactions, and assumptions of discriminatory mechanisms suffered by employees with mental illness and propose processes to reduce them. Furthermore, these processes can help organizations reshape their ethical foundations, moving toward a caring organization and creating a more inclusive and supportive work environment for all employees.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) dimensions have emerged as critical aspects of corporate performance, extending beyond traditional financial metrics. As global regulatory pressures intensify, particularly in the European Union (EU) through directives like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), companies are increasingly expected to integrate these principles into their internal governance to ensure transparency and accountability (Eccles et al., 2019). Internal corporate governance refers to the structures, processes, and relationships within a company, with key components including shareholders, the board of directors, management, and core operational functions that are interconnected (Iskander & Chamlou, 2000). ESG integration is especially important in highly regulated EU sectors such as energy, utilities, manufacturing, and consumer goods, where addressing environmental and social challenges is key to long-term sustainability and competitiveness.

Despite the growing importance of ESG, the existing literature remains fragmented, often focusing on isolated governance elements such as board composition, ownership structures, or executive compensation and their impact on ESG performance without considering how these elements interact (Ludwig & Sassen, 2021; Karn et al., 2023; Jain & Jamali, 2016). This narrow scope overlooks the interconnected nature of corporate governance systems that must be addressed for meaningful ESG integration. Moreover, given the fragmented understanding, researchers have increasingly called for qualitative studies that examine internal governance structures in the ESG context (Lau et al., 2016; Aguilera et al., 2021).

Thus, the central research question of the study is: How can ESG be anchored in the internal governance of companies?

To explore this question, the study uses Eisenhardt’s (1989) multi-case, theory-building methodology, which is well-suited for identifying patterns and developing theoretical insights in complex governance environments. Each case is represented by a single company, serving as an embedded unit of analysis. The research focuses on companies from the energy, utilities, materials, and consumer sectors with headquarters in the EU, which are highly regulated and face increasingly complex environmental and social challenges that require robust ESG integration. By systematically selecting approximately ten companies with polar-typed ESG performance based on their MSCI rating, the study will explore key internal governance practices that drive or hinder ESG integration (Eisenhardt, 2021). Data collection will include in-depth interviews with key stakeholders (e.g., from the sustainability, procurement, or HR departments), document analysis (e.g., sustainability reports, policies), and MSCI rating data.

The study’s theoretical development will draw on Puranam et al.’s (2014) organizational theory, which identifies four essential problems of organizing: task division, task allocation, reward provision, and information management. This theoretical framework provides a structured lens through which we can analyze the complexities of ESG integration. We aim to identify patterns across cases and articulate governance configurations that effectively anchor ESG principles within organizations.

This study makes three key contributions: (1) advancing corporate governance literature by providing a comprehensive view of ESG integration; (2) contributing to ESG performance literature through comparative analysis of high- and low-performing companies; and (3) offering actionable insights for corporate leaders and policymakers to enhance governance mechanisms and promote long-term sustainability.

References

Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V., & Tashman, P. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1568–1602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321991212

Eccles, R. G., Lee, L.-E., & Stroehle, J. C. (2019). The social origins of ESG: An analysis of Innovest and KLD. Organization & Environment, 32(4), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619888994

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really? Strategic Organization, 19(1), 147-160.

Iskander, M. R., & Chamlou, N. (2000). Corporate governance: A framework for implementation. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/831651468781818619/pdf/30446.pdf

Jain, T., & Jamali, D. (2016). Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12164

Karn, I., Mendiratta, E., Fehre, K., & Oehmichen, J. (2023). The effect of corporate governance on corporate environmental sustainability: A multilevel review and research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 2926-2961. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3279

Lau, C. M., Lu, Y., & Liang, Q. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A corporate governance approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2513-0

Ludwig, P., & Sassen, R. (2022). Which internal corporate governance mechanisms drive corporate sustainability? Journal of Environmental Management, 301(2), 113780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113780

Puranam, P., Alexy, O., & Reitzig, M. (2014). What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0436