Since Uber’s founding in 2009, individuals associated with Uber have engaged in (or been accused of engaging in) numerous categories of corporate malfeasance: failure to protect data privacy, theft of trade secrets, sexual misconduct (including sexual assault and sexual harassment), lack of worker safety, lack of consumer safety, and racial discrimination. Thus, Uber is a good test case for the question of whether corporate behavior can provide moral justification for a boycott. More specifically, an examination of the 2017 #deleteUber controversy (...) will invite the reader to consider questions such as the following: When is a personal boycott morally justified, and when (if ever) is a personal boycott morally obligatory? How are personal boycotts related to larger-scale organized boycotts? What are the factors that make an organized boycott morally justified (or unjustified)? Is there a sound argument for the conclusion that we should #deleteUber? (shrink)

A growing body of business ethics research has shown that firms are beginning to embrace the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community with internal organizational policies and temporary activism activities. Despite these positive developments, little research has examined firms’ LGBT inclusion strategy at the product level and whether adding LGBT representation to products helps, hurts, or has no impact on corporate products’ market performance. Prior studies have examined LGBT-themed and LGBT-vague representations and identified limitations of both. The current research (...) presents an alternative LGBT-inclusive representation in which heterosexual and LGBT imagery are both presented, with the former receiving more exposure than the latter. A secondary analysis of 4216 movies and a controlled experiment reveal converging evidence: movies with LGBT-inclusive representation outperform those with no LGBT representation or with LGBT-themed representation. The superiority of LGBT-inclusive representation comes from its ability to appeal to consumer segments holding favorable and unfavorable LGBT attitudes. While cultural and entertainment products often play profound roles in changing society’s ethical standards and moral attitudes, they are rarely studied in the business ethics literature. Our findings fill this gap while answering a multimillion-dollar question for the entertainment industry. (shrink)

Alan Tomhave and Mark Vopat have argued that organized boycotts against the expressive acts of companies and their leaders are pro tanto morally wrong because they constitute an attempt to silence voices in the marketplace of ideas. I argue that such boycotts are not best viewed as attempts to silence, but rather as a morally permissible form of withdrawal of support of certain expressive acts.

The purpose of this study is to examine how faith-led practices in family firms affect organizational stewardship. Current studies highlight the relevance of religious adherence for family businesses, yet provide limited understanding of how this shapes the key traits of these organizations. Drawing on six autobiographies of family business leaders who openly express their adherence to their faith, and adopting an open-systems analysis of these autobiographies, we demonstrate that faith-led values influence organizational and leadership practices. Overall, our study suggests that (...) the influence of religious beliefs in the organizational practices of family businesses have greater repercussions than previously thought. By introducing a faith-led approach to stewardship, we enrich the theoretical discussion around stewardship and the relevance of religion in family business. (shrink)

This article explores the moral permissibility of sweatshop boycotts. We build explicitly on Tomhave and Vopat’s (2018) framework for evaluating the moral permissibility of boycotts in general for the specific case of sweatshop labor. We argue that sweatshop boycotts are more likely to be morally justified when targeting forced labor compared to free labor and we explore the relevant moral tradeoffs associated with boycotts of free labor sweatshops. We analyze the morality of three cases of sweatshop boycotts—Indonesia in the 1990s, (...) Bangladesh following the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster, and the Uyghur region in China—and then discuss how insights from these cases might provide a model to guide activists and business ethicists in analyzing the morality of other sweatshop boycotts. (shrink)