This study focuses on examining the thematic landscape of the history of scholarly publication in business ethics. We analyze the titles, abstracts, full texts, and citation information of all research papers published in the field’s leading journal, the Journal of Business Ethics, from its inaugural issue in February 1982 until December 2016—a dataset that comprises 6308 articles and 42 million words. Our key method is a computational algorithm known as probabilistic topic modeling, which we use to examine objectively the field’s (...) latent thematic landscape based on the vast volume of scholarly texts. This “big-data” approach allows us not only to provide time-specific snapshots of various research topics, but also to track the dynamic evolution of each topic over time. We further examine the pattern of individual papers’ topic diversity and the influence of individual papers’ topic diversity on their impact over time. We conclude this study with our recommendation for future studies in business ethics research. (shrink)

This article considers the relationship between business ethics and philosophy, specifically in relation to the field and persons working in it. The starting point is a grammatical one: business ethics by the rules of grammar belongs to ethics. In terms of academic disciplines, it belongs to applied ethics, which belongs to ethics, which belongs to practical philosophy, which belongs to philosophy. However, in the field of business ethics today one will seldom meet colleagues from philosophy; instead, they will come from (...) business, applying business studies perspectives, approaches, and increasingly quantitative methods. This article provides empirical evidence that today the three top journals with “business ethics” in their titles are mostly run by business scholars with PhDs in business. The article compares the three journals today with their inaugural issues and finds that at their inception all three were run by a majority of philosophers. The article discusses six possible explanations for this shift and provides suggestions for how to bring business ethics back to philosophers. (shrink)

Business Ethics: A European Review, EarlyView.

Research on the legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) continues to thrive, however, the vague distinction between descriptive and normative legitimacy seems to cause growing confusion. In our paper, we identify three problems in the literature on MSI legitimacy: lack of precision regarding which of the two forms is used; blurring of boundaries between them; and ambiguity of assessment when assessing MSI legitimacy with the help of fine-grained criteria. These three problems, we argue, are not only detrimental to construct clarity but (...) they can also lead to an erosion of normativity, by which we mean the increasing lack of normative grounding or (unintentional) deconstruction of the normative elements of legitimacy. We introduce a framework that addresses these three problems, ultimately demonstrating how scholars can use the concept of MSI legitimacy in a manner that enhances construct clarity and avoids erosion of normativity. (shrink)

Responding to climate change and avoiding irreversible climate tipping points requires radical and drastic action by 2030. This urgency raises serious questions for energy companies, one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs), in terms of how they frame, and reframe, their response to climate change. Despite the majority of energy companies releasing ambitious statements declaring net zero carbon ambitions, this ‘talk’ has not been matched with sufficient urgency or substantive climate action. To unpack the disconnect between talk (...) and action, this paper draws on the literature on framing, organisational hypocrisy, and collective moral responsibility. We conduct a longitudinal qualitative content analysis of the framing of climate change used by the ten largest European investor-owned energy companies and the actions they have taken to shift their business practices. Our findings reveal three main categories of energy companies: (i) deflecting, (ii) stagnating, and (iii) evolving. We show key differences in the relationship between framing and action over time for each category, revealing how deflecting companies have larger and persistent gaps between green talk and concrete action and how stagnating companies are delaying action despite increased green talk, while evolving companies exhibit a closer link between talk and action that tends to be realised over time. Our analysis reveals how competing approaches to framing collective moral responsibility help understand the trajectories of talk and action across the different categories of energy companies. This research makes several contributions to the literature on organisational hypocrisy and collective moral responsibility in the context of climate change. Our analysis highlights the complex relationship between collective moral responsibility, organisational hypocrisy and climate action, revealing how different collective framings—diffuse, teleological, or agential—can both enable and offset substantive climate action. The study also enriches our understanding of the performative nature of collective moral responsibility by examining its temporal dimensions and showing how an agential, backward-looking focus is associated with more meaningful climate action. (shrink)

Recent conceptualization of built‐in versus bolted‐on corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives has offered a much‐needed distinguishing framework to sophisticate our understanding of why different CSR initiatives yield varying corporate social performance (CSP) and associated recognition from stakeholders. One of the major roadblocks in conducting research on these two types of CSR initiatives is the absence of a valid and reliable measure. We address this void by developing a measure for bolted‐on versus built‐in CSR that relies on coding publicly available content. (...) Our measure of these two types of CSR initiatives tests favorably for both convergent and discriminant validity and inter‐rater reliability. Advancement of such a measurement instrument will positively contribute to CSR research, enabling scholars to better theorize the linkage between CSR and reputation, and other aspects of firm performance. (shrink)