The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of Individuals' Ethical Reasoning in Organizations (Cross-cultural...

ABSTRACT. While models of business ethicsincreasingly recognize that ethical behavior variescross-culturally, scant attention has been given tounderstanding how culture affects the ethical rea-soning process that predicates individuals’ ethicalactions. To address this gap, this paper illustrates

howculture may affect the various components of indi-viduals’ ethical reasoning by integrating findings fromthe cross-cultural management literature with cogni-tive-developmental perspective. Implications for futureresearch and transnational organizations are discussed.

KEY WORDS: cognitive-developmental, cross-culture, decision-making, ethical reasoning, ethics

In an increasingly global business environment,one of the central challenges facing firms is howto balance the desire for standardized globalpolicies, with appropriate consideration of thespecific norms of various cultural contexts(Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1998; Enderle, 1997).Different cultural backgrounds lead to differentways of perceiving the world and cultural

differences affect individuals’ ethical reasoning(MacDonald, 2000). Research shows that indi-viduals from diverse cultures differ in theirsensitivity to ethical situations (Cohen, Pant andSharp, 1992), perceptions (Dubinsky, Jolson,Kotabe and Lim, 1991; Jackson and Artola,1997), ethical values, and ethical behaviors(Becker and Fritzche, 1987; Izraeli, 1998;Lysonski and Gaidis, 1991). However, scantattention has been given to understanding howculture affects the ethical reasoning process thatpredicates ethical behavior.

To address this gap, this paper illustrates howculture may affect the various components ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning process. The focusof this paper is on the differential effect ofculture, as defined as the difference in the valuestructure of individuals belonging to a particularsociety, on individuals’ ethical reasoning process.This paper recognizes the importance of envi-ronmental and contextual factors on individuals’ethical reasoning (cf., Ford and Richardson,1994; Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1985); however, itis argued that given an organizational environ-ment, individuals’ ethical reasoning may varydepending upon cultural background. Thisunderstanding of how individuals’ ethicalreasoning may vary according to cultural back-ground is important if transnational corporationswish to inculcate ethical core values throughouttheir organization (Desai and Rittenburg, 1997;Robin and Reidenback, 1987).

The concept of culture may generally bedefined as the shared beliefs and symbols of a

The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of Individuals’ Ethical Reasoning in Organizations(Cross-cultural Ethics)

Journal of Business Ethics

35: 1–14, 2002.© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Linda ThorneSusan Bartholomew Saunders

Dr. Linda Thorne is an Associate Professor at the SchulichSchool of Business, York University. She is the authorof 13 publications accepted in referred journals includingContemporary Accounting Research, BehavioralResearch in Accounting, Journal of BusinessEthics, and Research on Accounting Ethics.

Dr. Susan Bartholomew Saunders is an Assistant Professorin the Faculty of Business, University of Alberta. Herthesis examined cross-cultural factors that influence thebiotechnology industry globally.

group of individuals (McDonald, 2000). Theconcept of culture is often distinct from that ofthe concept of nation as several cultures may existwithin one nation (e.g., in Canada there is aFrench-speaking and an English-speaking sub-culture) and a culture may cross national bound-aries (e.g., the gypsies of Eastern Europe) (Bhagatand McQuaid, 1982). However, Adler (1997,p. 40) observes that “national boundaries areimplicitly accepted as operational definitions ofculturally distinct units” in cross-cultural man-agement research. To attempt to address thepotential limitation associated with the use ofnation as a surrogate for culture, we specificallyconsider how the various components of theethical reasoning process vary according to thestructural elements of culture as defined byHofstede (1991) and Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars (1993). Nonetheless, to illustratehow culture may affect particular components ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning process, we drawupon empirical research that may rely upon oper-ational definitions of nation as a distinct culturalentity (e.g., Lee and Sirgy, 1999; Lu, Rose andBlodgett, 1999; Murphy, 1999; Woolliams andTrompenaars, 1998).

This paper explicitly relates the findingsfrom the cross-cultural management literature(Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars, 1993) with an applied cognitivedevelopmental perspective to ethical reasoning(Rest, 1979, 1994). Accordingly, this paper isorganized as follows. First, we briefly introduceRest’s (1994) four component model of theethical reasoning process. Next, we investigatethe different structural dimensions of culture asidentified by Hofstede (1991) and his colleaguesand Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1993)to develop an integrated understanding of thedimensions of culture as described by theseresearch teams. The third section of the paperdiscusses how culture may influence the fourdifferent components of the ethical reasoningprocess. In the final section, implications for thepolicies and practices of transnational corpora-tions and for future research are considered.

Rest’s model of moral action

This paper uses Rest’s Model of Moral Action(1979, 1994) to describe the four componentsof individuals’ ethical reasoning process. Rest’sModel of Moral Action is based upon a cogni-tive-developmental perspective, which definesmorality as an individual’s cognitive conceptionof what is “good or right”. According to cogni-tive-developmental theory, an individual’s cog-nitive conception of morality progresses througha series of developmental levels in reachingmaturity.

The cognitive-developmental approach hasbeen successfully used in applied research toprovide insight into factors that influence indi-viduals’ ethical actions in the workplace (e.g.,Ford and Richardson, 1994; Ferrell and Gresham,1985; Jones, 1991; Robertson and Ross, 1995;Trevino, 1986). Although some have criticizedthe cognitive-developmental perspective as beinginapplicable across gender and culture (e.g.,Gilligan, 1982; Simpson, 1974), this criticism hasnot been empirically substantiated (Rest, 1983;Rest et al., 1998; Nisan and Kohlberg, 1982;Snarey, 1985). Rest et al. (1986) and Snarey(1985) conclude the empirical evidence is over-whelming is support of the existence of a generaldevelopmental trend in ethical cognitive capa-bility across cultures. Rest’s Model of MoralAction describes four components of the ethicalreasoning process, each involving a psychologicalprocess and outcome, which lead to an indi-vidual’s ethical action. These four componentsare summarized in Table I.

Ethical sensitivity initiates the ethical reasoningprocess through the identification of an ethicaldilemma. Ethical sensitivity reflects an awarenessthat the resolution of a particular dilemma mayaffect the welfare of others (Rest, 1994). Oncean ethical dilemma has been identified, individ-uals enter a process of prescriptive reasoning inwhich they evaluate the ideal outcomes thatought to occur in a given situation (Kohlberg,1969, 1976; Rest, 1979). The outcome of anindividual’s prescriptive reasoning process is aprescriptive judgment of what ought to be done toresolve an ethical dilemma (Rawls, 1971). Next,an individual deliberates on the formulation of

2 Linda Thorne and Susan Bartholomew Saunders

his or her intention to act on an ethical dilemma.Deliberative reasoning involves a value assessmentof the “ethical” choice versus other decisionalternatives. Finally, an individual’s ethical action isa function of one’s deliberative choice andpersonal characteristics, such as ego strength andlocus of control (Rest, 1994; Trevino, 1986). Forexample, a weak-willed person may choose to actin a given manner, but is unable to followthrough in the decision choice due to lack ofethical character.

Rest’s (1994) model and prior research inethical decision-making ( Jaccard and Wan, 1986;Macdonald, 2000) suggest that the ethicalreasoning process is universal across cultures.However, it does not necessarily follow that thecomponents of individuals’ ethical reasoningprocess are culture-free. Macdonald (2000) arguesthat the circumstance that activate and affect theethical reasoning process may differ acrosscultures. Accordingly, the objective of this paperis to demonstrate that like other environmentaland contextual factors (cf., Ford and Richardson,1994; Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1985), culture mayinfluence every component of individuals’ ethicalreasoning. In so doing, this paper explores theinfluence of culture on all four components ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning as described byRest’s Model (1994) to expand our knowledgeof the pervasive influence of culture on individ-uals’ ethical reasoning.

Integrated dimensions of culture

Previous ethics research has generally relied uponHofstede’s (1980, 1991) work to capture thevarious structural dimensions of culture that may

influence individuals’ ethical reasoning (i.e. Desaiand Rittenburg, 1997; Ferrell and Gresham,1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1992; Vitell et al., 1993).Nevertheless, how particular components ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning process are influ-enced by culture has been explicitly consideredonly by Vitell et al. (1993). Vitell et al. (1993)describe how culture differentially affects indi-viduals’ formation of teleological and deonto-logical norms; hence, individuals’ prescriptivereasoning. Vitell et al.’s model, however, does notspecify the effect of cultural variation on otherkey components of individuals’ ethical reasoningnor does it go beyond the dimensions of cultureas identified by Hofstede (1980) and his col-leagues. This paper continues the work initiatedby Vitell et al. by using an integrated frameworkof cultural dimensions to consider the influenceof culture on all four components of the ethicalreasoning process. The framework is summarizedin Table II.

Although the most influential of the workidentifying cross-cultural dimensions are thoseof Hofstede (1980, 1991) and Hofstede andBond (1988), other more recent and compre-hensive work is that of Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars (1993). This study uses two dif-ferent models of culture clustering developedby comparative management research teams(Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars, 1993) to develop an integratedframework of cross-cultural dimensions. Bothmodels provide a systematic, empirically foundedbasis on which some central differences in culturemay be defined. Accordingly, we briefly compareand contrast the cultural dimensions as presentedby Hofstede (1981) and Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars (1993) in the development of an

The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of Individuals’ Ethical Reasoning in Organizations 3

TABLE IRest’s (1994) model of the ethical decision-making process

Psychological process Outcome

1. Ethical Sensitivity Identification of an ethical dilemma2. Prescriptive Reasoning Prescriptive judgment of the ideal solution to the ethical dilemma3. Deliberative Reasoning Intention to act.4. Ethical Character Ethical action or behavior.


TABLE IIIntegrated framework of the dimensions of national culture

Dimension, source Definition Illustrative example

Individualism/collectivism, The degree of integration Individualists tend to believe that personal Hofstede (1980); between members of society interests are more important than group Hampden-Turner and and the relative value of interests are. In contrast, collectivists value Trompenaars (1993). individual over collective group interests, reciprocation of favors, a

needs. sense of belonging and respect for tradition.

Power distance, The degree to which an Individuals with high power distance perceive Hofstede (1980); unequal distribution of that superiors are entitled to special privileges. Equality/hierarchy, power is accepted in society. In contrast, individuals with low power Hampden-Turner and distance are more likely to prefer democratic Trompenaars (1993). participation.

Uncertainty avoidance, The degree to which a Individuals with high uncertainty avoidance Hofstede (1980). society’s members tolerate feel a need for written rules and procedures

ambiguity or uncertainty. and are intolerant of deviations from these rules.In contrast, individuals with low uncertainty avoidance are less concerned with codified rules.

Masculinity/femininity, The relative emphasis in Masculine individuals are interested in materialHofstede (1980). society on achievement and success whereas feminine individuals are more

accomplishment vs. overall concerned with human relationships.quality of life.

Universalism/particularism, The relative emphasis in Universal individuals would tend to apply “theHampden-Turner and society on rules of wide golden rule” to all situations/others whereas Trompenaars (1993). generality vs. consideration particularistic individuals recognize obligations

of special exceptions. to special relationships and particular circumstances.

Analysis/integration, The relative emphasis of High-integrated individuals tend to consider Hampden-Turner society’s members to consider factors and implications beyond a specific and Trompenaars (1993). organizations or event in domain, whereas high analysis individuals

terms of separable parts vs. tend to focus on a specific domain or realm.consideration of the whole.

Achievement/ascription, The relative emphasis in In an achievement culture, your status is basedHampden-Turner and society on achieved status vs. upon what you have accomplished. In contrast,Trompenaars (1993). ascribed status (e.g. by role, in an ascription culture, your status is a function

age, class etc.). of your position in society and at birth.

Orientation toward The relative emphasis of When the source of motivation/values are the the environment, society’s members on sources external environment, individuals strive to Hampden-Turner and of motivation and values remain in harmony with their environment. Trompenaars (1993). stemming internally from In contrast, when the source of motivation/

the individual versus the values are “internal,” individuals attempt to external environment. control their environment.

Confucian dynamism, The relative emphasis in High Confucian dynamism individuals Hofstede (1980); society on others’ perceptions are more concerned with social norms, Orientation towards time, and viewing events along “saving face” and time along a continuum Hampden-Turner and a time continuum (i.e., including the past, present and future Trompenaars (1993). short-term vs. long-term). (Schwartz, 1992).

integrated framework that describes the dimen-sions by which individuals’ value structure mayvary cross-culturally.

Hofstede (1981) and Hofstede and Bond(1988) identify and describe five dimensions ofculture: individualism/collectivism; power distance;uncertainty avoidance; masculinity/femininity and,Confucian dynamism. Individualism/collectivismdescribes the degree of integration betweenmembers of society and the relative emphasis onindividual needs over the needs of the commu-nity. Power distance describes the degree to whichan unequal distribution of power is accepted insociety. Uncertainty avoidance characterizes thedegree to which a society’s members tolerateambiguity and uncertainty. Masculinity/femininityis the relative emphasis a society places onachievement versus overall quality of life. Finally,Confucian dynamism reflects the degree to whicha society takes a long-term versus a short-termorientation in life.

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1993)identify and describe seven dimensions of culture:individualism/collectivism; equality/hierarchy; orien-tation toward time; analysis/integration; achieve-ment/ascription; universalism/particularism; and,orientation toward the environment. The first threeof Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars dimen-sions listed above are conceptually similar to threeof the dimensions from Hofstede (1980) andHofstede and Bond (1988). First, similar toHofstede’s individualism/collectivism dimension,Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars’ (1993)dimension of individualism/collectivism describesthe degree of integration between members ofsociety and the relative value of individual overcollective needs. Second, similar to Hofstede’s(1980) power distance dimension, Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars’ equality/hierarchydimension describes the degree to which asociety accepts an unequal distribution of power.Third, similar to Hofstede and Bond’s Confuciandynamism dimension, Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars’ orientation toward time describes theemphasis a society places on the relative timeframe of events.

In addition, the Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars (1993) framework depicts a furtherfour dimensions of culture that are distinct from

those discussed above: universalism/particularism;analysis/integration; achievement/ascription; and,orientation toward the environment. Universalism/particularism is the relative emphasis a society hason rules of wide generality versus considerationof special exceptions. Analysis/integration is therelative emphasis individuals in a society use toconsider events in terms of separable parts versusconsideration of the whole. Achievement/ascriptionis the relative emphasis a society has on achievedstatus versus ascribed status (i.e., role, age, andclass distinctions). Finally, orientation toward theenvironment is the relative emphasis a societyplaces on individuals’ inner direction versus(control over the environment) versus outerdirection (being controlled by one’s environ-ment). Accordingly, we will include these in ourframework as separate dimensions.

As shown in Table II, the integrated frame-work of culture in this paper consists of the ninespecific dimensions: 1) individualism/collectivism;2) power distance; 3) uncertainty avoidance; 4) mas-culinity/femininity; 5) orientation toward time; 6) uni-versalism/particularism; 7) analysis/integration; 8)achievement/ascription; and, 9) orientation toward theenvironment.

The influence of culture on individuals’ethical reasoning

This section discusses how each of the four com-ponent of individuals’ ethical reasoning, asdescribed by Rest’s Model, is influenced byseveral dimensions of culture as described inTable II. For each component, we draw links tothe cross-cultural and comparative managementliterature where empirical evidence suggests arelationship between a particular culturaldimension and the particular component ofethical reasoning. Although comprehensive, thisexamination is not exhaustive, as evidence sup-porting the differential influence of all ninedimensions of culture for each component ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning process has notbeen identified nor examined. Nevertheless, foreach component of the ethical reasoning process,empirical evidence does suggest there is culturalvariation. Thus, it may be inferred that the


cultural influence on individuals’ ethical rea-soning is pervasive.

Component 1: culture and the identification of anethical dilemma

The ethical reasoning process is initiated with theidentification of an ethical dilemma. This reflectsan awareness that the resolution of a particulardilemma may affect the welfare of others. AdamSmith (1759, 1776) discusses in The Wealth ofNations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, thevariety of motivations, principles, and groundrules that may be involved in commerce, “eventhe general reliability of the exchange mechanismand the use of implicit contracts . . . turns ulti-mately on a rich history of norms, mores, trust,and convention” (Sen, 1997). While the creationof wealth may be universally viewed as a socialact, the particular norms, mores and conventionsof wealth creation are clearly not universal. Forexample, as Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars(1993, p. 14) observe, Americans and Britishfollow Smith’s logic almost as physical law,believing that “if each individual pursues his ownself-interest, an invisible hand will automaticallyserve the common interests of the larger society.”French, Germans and Japanese, however, wouldturn that logic upside down, believing that “ifneeds of the group are considered first, then theinvisible hand will . . . reach down and auto-matically take care of the desires of the indi-vidual.”

A wealth of empirical evidence suggests cross-cultural differences on the degree of individu-alism/collectivism that characterizes societies, theirinstitutions, and the values that individuals hold(e.g. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, 1993;Hofstede, 1980; Lodge, 1990). Individualisticsocieties, such as the U.S. and U.K., implyloosely knit social frameworks, self-determina-tion, and responsibility primarily towards oneselfand one’s immediate family (Adler, 1997). At theinstitutional level, government assumes a limitedrole in industrial development, allowing the mar-ketplace to regulate competition among firms(Lodge, 1990). By contrast, more collectivistsocieties, such as Japan and Germany, are char-

acterized by more tightly knit social groups,responsibility towards the broader community,and collective determination regarding what isbest for the community. At the institutional level,in nations with a more communitarian orienta-tion, government takes a more direct role indefining the needs of the community and settingthe direction of industrial development to helpmeet these needs (Lodge, 1990).

As applied to the identification and the sensi-tivity to the existence of an ethical dilemma, indi-vidualism/collectivism refers to the degree to whichmanagers perceive that “the collective” has avested interest the affairs of the enterprise. Thegreater number of interested parties (multiplestakeholders) perceived, the more likely an indi-vidual is to identify an ethical dilemma in a givensituation, as an ethical dilemma is based on thepremise of a conflict of interest between stake-holders. This in turn suggests that managers fromcultures with collective orientations are likely toidentify the existence of an ethical dilemma in abroader range of situations than are managersfrom cultures with individualistic orientations.

The inclination to see multiple stakeholderswithin a given business scenario also relatesto Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars’ (1993)cultural dimension of analysis/integration.Analysis/integration refers to the relative orienta-tion a society’s members to the consideration ofthe larger, integrated perspective versus specific,and often reductive, consideration of separableparts. As applied to sensitivity to the existenceof ethical dilemmas, analysis/integration refers tothe tendency of individuals to consider factorsand implications beyond the specific domain orrealm that they are responsible for. For example,in exploring cultural differences on managers’perceptions of the central goal of a company,Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1993, pp.31–33) found that American managers, whoscore the highest of any cultural group onanalysis, had a stronger tendency to view thecompany as primarily a profit-making entity. Bycontrast, Japanese, Singaporean, French andGerman managers, who are all comparativelymuch more integrative in their information pro-cessing than are Americans, were more likely toview the company as having the goal, besides


making a profit, of attaining the well being ofvarious stakeholders, such as employees andcustomers. A relative orientation towards con-sidering a situation in relation to other domainsimplies that individuals may identify ethicaldilemmas in a broader range of situationsthan counterparts with an orientation towardsregarding issues and events as singular and self-contained.

An individual’s basic perception of ethicaldilemmas also may be influenced by the relativeorientation of his or her society on whatHofstede (1980) termed the masculinity/femininitydimension. Masculinity/femininity is the relativeemphasis a society places on achievement versusoverall quality of life. Masculine culturesencourage individuals to achieve and accomplishmaterial, concrete objectives, whereas infeminine cultures, relatively greater value isattached to overall quality of life (Hofstede,1980). The implications for organizations inrelatively more “feminine” societies, such as theScandinavian countries, are greater awareness andacceptance in the organization of the timedemands of family responsibilities for both menand women. Organizational benefits and prac-tices reflect this value resulting in comparativelyshorter work hours per day and longer parentalleave than offered by organizations from moremasculine societies such as Japan or Austria(Adler, 1997). Research suggests that in femininecultures, managers are more likely to be sensi-tive to ethical issues involving family-workconflicts than are managers from masculinecultures whose identification of corporate ethicaldilemmas may be confined more exclusively tothe domain of organizational life (Vitell et al.,1993, p. 758).

Finally, orientation toward time may also play arole in the identification of ethical dilemmas.Orientation toward time is a long-standing anthro-pological construct that refers to whethersocieties tend to focus relatively more on the past,present, or future, and whether time is seen assynchronic or sequential. Orientation towardtime effects the nature of the planning processin organizations, and the relative consideration ofshort-term or long-term implications attached toactions in the present (Hampden-Turner and

Trompenaars, 1993; Lane and DiStefano, 1988).Cultures with a synchronic view of time tend tosee the future as engaged with the present; thisunderpins a longer-term perspective in corporatedecision making, and a consideration of futuregenerations as being affected by a firm’s actionsin the present. By contrast, cultures with asequential view of time tend to see outcomes inthe future as farther away and less directly con-nected to actions in the present; this underpinsa shorter-term perspective in corporate decisionmaking, and a myopic focus on the immediate,near-term effects of one’s actions. The perceivedmorality of actions with very long term effects,such as pollution, loss of the ozone layer ordestroying the rain forest, should thus beinfluenced by the orientation towards time thatcharacterizes an individual’s society. For example,managers from cultures with a sequential, shorterterm orientation toward time may be less likelyto identify pollution of the environment as anethical dilemma, than would managers fromcultures with a synchronic, longer term orienta-tion toward time.

Component 2: culture and prescriptive judgment

Once an ethical dilemma has been identified,individuals enter a process of prescriptive rea-soning in which they formulate the ideal ethicaljudgment that ought to occur in a given situa-tion. In the stage of prescriptive reasoning,individuals draw on multiple sets of guidelinesfor evaluating a given situation. The prescriptivereasoning of managers is shaped by their ownlevel of moral sophistication and the ethicalclimate in which they operate (Trevino, 1986).According to Victor and Cullen (1988), ethicalclimates are a subset of the broader concept ofwork climate. Ethical climates delineate a groupof prescriptive climates regarding organizationalpractices with moral consequences and giveworkers guidance when faced with a ethicaldilemma. Organizations develop structures andnorms that reflect the myths and rules of societyin order to gain legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan,1977). The ethical climates of organizations thatshape prescriptive reasoning may thus be regarded


as the institutionalization of the rules and valuesof the broader socio-cultural context.

In the stage of prescriptive reasoning, individ-uals turn to the guidelines prescribed by societalnorms in order to determine what is the rightthing to do. To understand why managers of acompany may perceive that they have a moralobligation to particular stakeholders, Donaldson(1989) suggests it is necessary to move beyondthe concept of basic social contract to look at thesource of business responsibility that generatesderivative duties that include personal agree-ments, specific obligations and laws. Thesederivative duties vary under different cultures.In cultures where individualism is valued, privateindividual interests are distinct from that of publicinterests. By contrast, in cultures where collec-tivism is valued, public policy is derived from“voluntary and informal coordination of con-flicting objectives through continuous politicalbargaining among interest groups, state bureau-cracies, and political parties” (Katzenstein,1985, p. 32). For example:

Instead of the sharp distinction between the publicand private sectors common to English speakingeconomies, Germany has numerous intermediateinstitutions in the public continental law tradition,charged with the task of reconciling publicand private interests (Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars, 1993, p. 209).

Collectivist societies thus have stronger institu-tional norms and structures that reinforce indi-vidual’s consideration of multiple stakeholderswhen formulating the prescriptive component ofthe ethical reasoning process. This suggests thatmanagers from collectivist cultures are morelikely to consider the broader needs of societyin the formulation of prescriptive judgment,instead of only considering the needs of share-holders and themselves, as narrowly defined.Thus, individualism/collectivism, in addition toinfluencing the identification of an ethicaldilemma, as discussed earlier, should also influ-ences the formulation of prescriptive judgement.

In forming prescriptive judgements, who orwhere individuals turn to for guidance appears tobe influenced by societal norms such as powerdistance (Hofstede, 1980). Power distance describes

the degree to which an unequal distribution ofpower is accepted in society. Societies high inpower distance have greater acceptance ofdiffering degrees of status, power and influence.In high power distance societies such as Japan,greater reverence is given to the opinions of one’ssuperiors than in low power distance societiessuch as the United States. Thus in high powerdistance societies, there is a greater tendency tolook externally towards superiors for guidance inwhat ought to be done than in low power distancesocieties where individuals would be more likelyto look to themselves or to peers for guidance.

Another dimension of culture that may shapethe stage of prescriptive reasoning is uncertaintyavoidance (Hofstede, 1980). Uncertainty avoidanceconcerns the degree to which members ofsociety seek to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty.In order to reduce uncertainty in high uncer-tainty avoidance cultures, professional, industry,and organizational norms of conduct tend to behighly developed and highly shared. Vitell et al.(1993) suggest that managers in high uncertaintyavoidance cultures will be more likely to considerformal professional, industry, and organizationalethical standards and codes in forming their owndeontological norms than are managers from lowuncertainty avoidance cultures. This in turnsuggests that managers from high uncertaintyavoidance cultures will be more likely to considershared norms in the formulation of prescriptivejudgments than managers from low uncertaintyavoidance cultures.

A third dimension of culture that may influ-ence prescriptive reasoning is universalism/partic-ularism (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars,1993). Universalism/particularlism describes theorientation of a society’s members to value andhold sacred universal rules versus the orientationto confer significance and legitimacy to the par-ticularities of a situation that may call for specialexception to rules. For example, Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (1993, p. 105) notethat:

Americans and Northwestern Europeans like tostate universal truths and rules, and then requirethat particular situations and human relationshipssubmit to those universals and be guided by them,


the Japanese reverse these priorities. For them, theparticular relationships of honne, a spirit of intimacybetween persons, is the moral cement of society,and to the extent that such relationships aretrusting, harmonious, and aesthetic, rules of widergenerality can be derived from them.

In the formulation of a prescriptive judgment,members of a particularistic society will placemore emphasis on the specifics of a given situa-tion, including the claims of a friendship, whereasuniversal codified rules would have more legiti-macy to members of a universalistic society. Thissuggests that members of a particularistic societywould be more likely to engage in teleologicalreasoning, which considers how society wouldbe better off, than members of a universalisticsociety, which considers what is the fundamentalduty or obligation as universally applied (deon-tological reasoning). More specifically, whenforming a judgement regarding what is the “rightthing to do,” more attention will be paid to thesituation and the people involved in particularisticcultures, as compared to universalistic cultureswhere the same rules are expected to apply toeveryone. Correspondingly, universalistic societiestend to place high value on and confidence inthe legal system for administering the “one rulefor all” policy. The United States, for example,which ranks high on universalism, has more than23 times the number of lawyers per capita asJapan, a nation which is much comparatively farmore particularistic (Hampden-Turner andTrompenaars, 1993, pp. 101–102).

Component 3: culture and ethical intention

Ethical intention involves an individual deliber-ating on which course of action he or she intendsto take to resolve a particular ethical dilemma.An individual’s ethical intention is based uponthe weight an individual gives ethical valuescompared to other non-ethical values. Discrepanciesbetween an individual’s ethical intention and hisor her prescriptive judgment occur when non-ethical considerations are more important thanethical considerations. Ethical intention may beinfluenced by culture in a number of ways. In

this paper we describe how ethical intention mayvary according to the dimensions of individu-alism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoid-ance, and universalism/particularism.

First, the dimension of individualism/collectivismmay again play a significant role in this compo-nent of ethical reasoning. Moon and Woolliams(2000, p. 108) suggest that the individualism/col-lectivism dimension captures the differentmeanings ascribed to work and private life. Forexample, “in individualistic societies, such as theU.S. and U.K., it is maintained that work andprivate life are emotionally distinct whereas insome collectivist societies such as Japan the orga-nization is a source of emotional and materialsupport”. As a result, the individualism/collectivismdimension captures the degree to whichmanagers may be prepared to sacrifice their ownself-interests for that of the common good. Inan individualistic culture, the responsibility is toone’s immediate self and family whereas in a col-lectivist culture the responsibility is to one’sextended family, clan, and community. Tayeb(1996, p. 85) argues:

. . . in (individualistic) cultures, organizations tendto follow a narrow set of goals, have few stake-holders to whom they are accountable, and are lessresponsive to the needs and interests of theiremployees and their communities alike. In (collec-tivist) cultures, organizations cater for the interestof a large number of stakeholders, and are expectedto be part of the society at large and take respon-sibility for its well being (brackets added).

Thus, as Vitell et al. suggest (1993), the individ-ualism/collectivism dimension captures the relativevalues individuals place upon their own indi-vidual interests when compared to that of thecollective interests of the groups to which theybelong or have a moral obligation. Becausesuccess in collectivist cultures is evaluated interms of the welfare of the group, collectivistmanagers are more likely to adhere to prescrip-tive norms than individualistic managers are. Forexample, empirical research shows that Chinese(more collectivist) are more inclined to recallfaulty products than Canadians (more individu-alist) (Lee and Sirgy, 1999; Tse et al., 1988). Thismay be interpreted according to Ralston’s (1992)


position that individualists tend to view ethicalobligations as a constraint while collectivists aremore concerned with maintaining their moralideals of maintaining harmonious relationshipand social justice.

Another dimension of culture that may beassociated with individuals’ tendency to complywith their prescriptive judgement is uncertaintyavoidance. Uncertainty avoidance is the degree towhich members of society seek to reduceambiguity and uncertainty. Uncertainty avoidancemay manifest in the degree to which individualstend to be tolerant of deviation from the pre-scriptive “ideal” when formulating their inten-tion to act (Hunt and Vitell, 1992). In highuncertainty avoidance cultures where deviancefrom prescriptive norms is less tolerated, we mayinfer greater intention of individuals to complywith their prescriptive judgment of the ideal (i.e.less deviation between “the ought to” and the“intention to act”) than in low uncertainty avoid-ance cultures where deviance from prescriptivenorms in more tolerated. For example, Nakano(1997) found that Japanese employees (highuncertainty avoidance) are more likely to act inaccordance with their company’s Code ofConduct than their American counterparts (lowuncertainty avoidance), as Americans would bemore tolerant of deviations from the prescriptivenorm as represented by the Code of Conduct.

Furthermore, power distance also appears to beassociated with the degree to which individuals’ethical intention complies with their prescrip-tive judgement. For example, Lu, Rose andBlodgett (1999) show that Taiwanese (higherpower distance) placed greater value on thecompany and fellow employees than did theirAmerican counterparts (lower power distance).This suggests that employees with high powerdistance tend to place a greater weight on orga-nizational prescriptive norms, which results in atendency to place the organization interests aheadof their own, when determining their behaviour.In contrast, employees with low power distance,tend to place greater weight on their ownpersonal, ethical codes when determining theirbehaviors (Vitell et al., 1993).

Finally, ethical intention to act may also varyaccording to the dimension of universalism/

particularism, which is the degree to which toindividuals’ adhere to rules of wide generalityversus special circumstances. Moon andWoolliams (2000) argue that individuals’ incli-nation to adhere to a code of ethics may berelated to their degree of universalism/particularism.Moon and Woolliams suggest that universalindividuals desire to treat everyone similarly;therefore, they would tend to consider a codeof conduct paramount in their formulation of anintention to act. In contrast, particularistic indi-viduals attempt to uphold special circumstancesand relationships in their deliberations; therefore,they would tend to first consider special rela-tionships while adherence to an ethical codewould have a secondary influence on theirformulation of an intention to act.

Component 4: culture and ethical action

The final component of Rest’s (1983, 1994)model of ethical reasoning recognizes that anindividual’s ethical behavior is not always con-sistent with his or her ethical intention to act.Cultural differences may influence individualstendency to comply with their ethical intentions.In this paper we describe how this tendency toact in accordance with ethical intentions mayvary according to the dimensions of Confuciandynamism and orientation to the environment.

The dimension of Confucian dynamism mayinfluence the degree to which individuals’ ethicalactions comply with their ethical intentions.Individuals with a high degree of Confuciandynamism are more concerned with socialnorms, “saving face” and time along a con-tinuum including the past, present and future ascompared to their counterparts with lowConfucian dynamism (Schwartz, 1992). Generally,Asian cultures have higher Confucian dynamismthan Western cultures (Hofstede, 1991).

Several studies suggest that individuals withhigh Confucian dynamism are more likely act inaccordance with their ethical intentions thanindividuals with low Confucian dynamism. Thismay be due to the decreased emphasis of the timeas a continuum and “saving face” found inindividuals with high Confucian dynamism as


compared to individuals with low Confuciandynamism. With respect to the relative emphasison time, Lee and Sirgy (1999) found that indi-viduals with low Confucian dynamism are moretask oriented and more likely to view ethicalobligations as constraints than individuals withhigh Confucian dynamism who are more likely tobe concerned with maintaining harmoniousrelationships. Furthermore, individuals with highConfucian dynamism appear to be more concernedwith “saving face” than acting ethically than theircounterparts with low Confucian dynamism.For example, Yao (1987) found that Chinesemanagers are more concerned with “saving face”than honesty, and MacDonald and Kan’s (1997)found that Western managers were more likelyto engage in “whistle blowing”, and less likely toprotect dishonest subordinates than their HongKong counterparts.

Furthermore, individuals’ ethical actions maybe a function of one’s personal characteristics,such as ego-strength and locus of control (Nisanand Kohlberg, 1982) that generally differ alongcultural dimensions. Orientation to the environment,or locus of control, concerns the sources of moti-vation and values that guide an individual’sactions. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars(1993) contrast inner-directed cultures whichplace greater emphasis on inner-directed judg-ments, decisions and commitments as guides toaction, with outer-directed cultures, which lookmore towards the signals, demands and trends inthe outside world to which individuals andorganizations must adjust. Hampden-Turnerand Trompenaars (1993, pp. 168–170) found amajority of American managers (76%) to have aninternal locus of control (Rotter, 1966),“believing that each man and woman has chargeof his or her own destiny and moral direction”while only 44% of Japanese managers were asinternally-directed. Individuals with higherinternal locus of control are more likely to fulfilltheir intentions to act ethically than individualswith lower internal locus of control (Trevino,1986; Tsui and Gul, 1996). This in turn suggeststhat managers from inner-directed cultures aremore likely than managers from outer-directedcultures to engage in ethical actions that areconsistent with their ethical intentions.

Conclusion: contributions and implications

The main contribution of this paper is to high-light the pervasive influence of culture on indi-viduals’ ethical reasoning, and to show thatcultural orientations have differential effects ondifferent components of individuals’ ethical rea-soning. The former is illustrated by demon-strating that each component of individuals’ethical reasoning process may be potentiallyinfluenced by culture, and the latter is illustratedby identifying how nine different cultural dimen-sions may potentially influence various compo-nents of individuals’ ethical reasoning process.In so doing, this paper contributes to the streamof research that has identified the dimensions ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning that vary acrossculture (i.e., Vitell et al., 1993; Jackson andArtola, 1997; Izraeli, 1988) by broadening ourconsideration of how critical facets of the socio-cultural system influence different components ofindividuals’ ethical reasoning beyond thoseprevious identified. Although empirical substan-tiation of the influence of culture on ethicalreasoning remains to be established, the discus-sion presented in this paper suggests research inethical reasoning may consider the influence ofculture on each component of the ethical rea-soning process. This understanding will be usefulto transnational corporations in their develop-ment of corporate values and standards and, moreimportantly, in communicating and imple-menting corporate values and standards acrosscultural contexts.

It is neither feasible nor desirable for trans-national organizations to ignore the culturaldimension of ethical reasoning due to thediversity of culture in the workplace today. Amajor challenge for transnational organizationsis in integrating systems and routines acrossgeographically dispersed subsidiaries to underpinfirm’s worldwide corporate goals, while at thesame time remaining responsive to the localorganizational norms and routines, in order forsubsidiaries to operate effectively and smoothlyin the local environment (Bartlett and Ghoshal,1998; Prahalad and Doz, 1987). To the extentthat such routines vary across different countries,a subsidiary thus faces conflicting models of


behavior, and simultaneous isomorphic pulls,from both parent firm and local environment(Westney, 1995). Recent perspectives in inter-national business ethics address this issue bycalling for transnationals to develop global codesof ethics that would transcend the bounds of anysingular cultural referent point (cf., Desai andRittenburg, 1997; Jackson, 1997; Payne et al.,1997; Thompson, 1997). Such a trans-culturalcode of ethics would be required to represent “asincere attempt to articulate the underlyingessence of trans-cultural agreement to moralprinciples” (Thompson, 1997, p. 202). Similarly,Jackson (1997) calls for a globalization of cor-porate ethics programs, suggesting that althougha certain amount of cultural relativism needs tobe accommodated, there is a substantial core ofethical norms for business that can be appliedworldwide. This view implies that ethicalbehavior “transcends the legal, political, oreconomic climate established by culture orcountry” (Payne et al., 1997, p. 1729), andunderscores the possibility of corporate ethics asa transcultural phenomenon. In order to developtranscultural codes of corporate ethical conductthat could be implemented globally, Thompson(1997) suggests the participation of host nationalsin the formulation of ethical codes of conduct iscritical. In other words, the key managementteam responsible for the development of theglobal code of conduct would need humanresource representation as transnational as thecompany’s business operations (Adler andBartholomew, 1992).

However, even if a universal agreement couldbe reached on what to place in a global code forethical conduct, the global code does not resolvethe problem of the multinational in ensuringuniform ethical behavior across multiple foreignoperations. The presumed effectiveness of aglobal code of ethics is built on the assumptionthat a code of conduct is equally meaningful asa guide to action in different cultures (Langloisand Schlegelmilch, 1990). The factors thatindividuals consider at different elements of thedecision process, and their relative power ofinfluence, may vary with culture. In other words,while agreement may be reached upon the content

of a global code of conduct, the processes andmechanisms through which a corporation mayeffectively ensure global compliance with thiscode are not universal. In considering the culturalembeddedness of ethical reasoning, we thusunderscore the practical importance of taking anexplicit process perspective so that transnationalorganizations can begin to build knowledge onthe mechanisms that which would be mostappropriate in different cultures for generatingcompliance to desired ethical norms.

References

Adler, N.: 1997, International Dimensions ofOrganisational Behavior, 3rd ed. (SouthWesternCollege Publishing, Cincinnati, OH).

Adler, N. and S. Bartholomew: 1992, ‘ManagingGlobally Competent People’, Academy ofManagement Executive.

Bartlett, C. and S. Ghoshal: 1989, Managing AcrossBorders: The Transnational Solution (Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston).

Becker, H. and D. Fritzche: 1987, ‘Business Ethics:A Cross-Cultural Comparison of ManagersAttitudes’, Journal of Business Ethics 6, 289–295.

Bhagat and McQuaid: 1982, ‘The Role of SubjectiveCulture in Organisations: A Review and Directionsfor Future Research’, Journal of Applied PsychologyMonograph 67(5), 63.

Cohen, J., L. Pant and D. Sharp: 1992, ‘Cultural andSocio-economic Constraints on InternationalCodes of Ethics: Lessons from Accounting’, Journalof Business Ethics (11), 687–700.

Desai, A. and T. Rittenburg: 1997, ‘Global Ethics: AnIntegrative Framework for MNEs’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 16, 791–800.

Donaldson, T.: 1989, The Ethics of InternationalBusiness (Oxford University Press, New York).

Dubinsky, A., M. Jolson, M. Kotabe and C. Lim:1991, ‘A Cross-national Investigation of IndustrialSalespeople’s Ethical Perceptions’, Journal ofInternational Business Studies 22, 651–670.

Enderle, G.: 1997, ‘Five Views on InternationalBusiness Ethics: An Introduction’, Business EthicsQuarterly 7(3), 1–5.

Ferrell, O. and L. Gresham: 1985, ‘A ContingencyFramework for Understanding Ethical DecisionMaking in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 3,87–96.


Ford, R. and W. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical Decision-Making: A Review of the Empirical Literature’,Journal of Business Ethics 13, 205–221.

Gilligan, C.: 1982, In a Different Voice (HarvardUniversity Press, Boston).

Hampden-Turner, C. and A. Trompenaars: 1993, TheSeven Cultures of Capitalism (Currency: Doubleday,New York).

Hofstede, G.: 1980, Cultures Consequences: InternationalDifferences in Work Related Values (Sage Publications,Beverly Hills CA).

Hofstede, G.: 1991, Cultures and Organizations:Software of the Mind (McGraw Hill, London).

Hofstede, G. and M. Bond: 1988, ‘The ConfuciusConnection: From Cultural Roots to EconomicGrowth’, Organisational Dynamics 16(4), 4–21.

Hunt, S and S. Vitell: 1992. ‘A General Theory ofMarketing Ethics: A retrospective and Revision’,in J. Quelch and C. Smith (eds.), Ethics in Marketing(Irwin, Chicago, IL).

Izraeli, D.: 1988, ‘Ethical Beliefs and Behavior AmongManagers: A Cross-cultural Perspective’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 7, 263–271.

Jackson, K.: 1997, ‘Globalizing Corporate EthicsPrograms: Perils and Prospects’, Journal of BusinessEthics 16, 1227–1235.

Jackson, T. and M. Artola: 1997, ‘Ethical Beliefs andManagement Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Com-parison’, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 1163–1173.

Jacward, J. and C. Wan: 1986, ‘Cross-CulturalMethods for the Study of Behavioral DecisionMaking’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 17(2),123–149.

Jones, T.: 1991, ‘Ethical Decision-Making byIndividuals in Organization: An Issue-contingentModel’, Academy of Management Review 16(2),366–395.

Katzenstein, P.: 1985, Small States in World Markets,Industrial Policy in Europe (Cornell University Press,Ithaca, NY)

Kohlberg, L.: 1979, The Meaning and Measurement ofMoral Development (Clark University Press).

Kohlberg, L.: 1958, ‘The Development of Modes ofMoral Thinking and Choice in the Years Ten toSixteen’, Doctoral Dissertation, University ofChicago.

Kurtines, W. and E. Grief: 1974, ‘The Developmentof Moral Thought: Review and Evaluation ofKohlberg’s Approach’, Psychological bulletin 81,453–470.

Langlois, C. and B. Schlegelmilch: 1990, ‘DoCorporate Codes of Ethics Reflect National

Character? Evidence from Europe and the UnitedStates’, Journal of International Business Studies 21,519–539.

Lee, D. and M. Sirgy: 1999, ‘The Effect of MoralPhilosophy and Ethnocentrism on Quality-of-lifeOrientation in International Marketing: A Cross-cultural Comparison’, Journal of Business Ethics 18,73–89.

Lodge, G: 1990, Comparative Business-governmentRelations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Lu, L., G. Rose and J. Blodgett: 1999, ‘The Effectsof Cultural Dimensions on Ethical DecisionMaking in Marketing: An Exploratory Study’,Journal of Business Ethics 18, 91–105.

Lysonski, C. and G. Gaidis: 1991, ‘A Cross-culturalComparison of the Ethics of Business Students’,Journal of Business Ethics, 27–44.

Macdonald, G.: 2000, ‘Cross-cultural MethodologicalIssues in Ethical Research’, Journal of Business Ethics27(1/2), 89–104.

McDonald, G. and P. Kan: 1997. ‘Ethical Perceptionsof Expatriate and Local Managers in Hong Kong’,Journal of Business Ethics 15, 973–996.

Meyer, J. and B. Rowan: 1977, ‘Formal Structure ofOrganizations as Myth and Ceremony’, AmericanJournal of Sociology 83, 340–363.

Moon, C. and P. Woolliams: 2000, ‘Managing CrossCultural Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics27, 105–115.

Murphy, P.: 1999, ‘Character and Virtue Ethics inInternational Marketing: An Agenda for Managers,Researchers and Educators’, Journal of BusinessEthics 18, 107–124.

Nakano, C.: 1997, ‘A Survey Study on JapaneseManagers’ Views of Business Ethics’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 16, 1737–1751.

Nisan, M. and L. Kohlberg: 1982, ‘Universality andCross-cultural Variation in Moral Development: ALongitudinal and Cross-sectional Study in Turkey’,Child Development 53, 359–369.

Payne, J., R. Raiborn and B. Askvik: 1997, ‘A GlobalCode of Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics,1737–1751.

Prahalad, C. and Y. Doz: 1987, The MultinationalMission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision(The Free Press, New York).

Ralston, D.: 1992, ‘Eastern Values: A Comparison ofManagers in the United States, Hong-Kong andthe People’s Republic of China’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 77(5), 664–671.

Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA).


Rest, J.: 1994, ‘Background Theory and Research’,in J. Rest and D. Narvaez (eds.), Moral Developmentin the Professions (Erlbaum and Associates).

Rest, J.: 1979, Development in Judging Moral Issues(University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,MN).

Rest, J.: 1983, ‘Morality’, in J. Flavell and E.Markman (eds.), Manual of Child Psychology:Cognitive Development, Vol. III (Wiley, New York),pp. 556–629.

Rest, J., S. Thoma, Y. Moon and I. Getz: 1986,‘Different Cultures, Sexes, and Religions’, in J.Rest (eds.), Moral Developments: Advances in Theoryand Research (Praeger, New York).

Robertson, D. and W. Ross: 1995, ‘Decision-MakingProcesses on Ethical Issues’, Business Ethics Quarterly5(2), 213–241.

Rotter, J.: 1966, ‘Generalized Expectancies forInternal Versus External Control ofReinforcement’, Psychological Monographs, 609.

Schlegelmilch, B. B. and D.C. Robertson: 1995, ‘TheInfluence of Country and Industry on EthicalPerceptions of Senior Executives in the US andEurope’, Journal of International Business Studies 26,859–881.

Schwartz, S.: 1992, ‘Universals in the Content andStructure of Values: Theoretical Advances andEmpirical Tests in 20 Countries’, in M. Zanna(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.25 (Academic, Orlando, FL), pp. 1–65.

Sen, A.: 1997, ‘Economics, Business Principles andMoral Sentiments’, Business Ethics Quarterly 7(3),5–17.

Simpson, E.: 1974, ‘Moral Development Research:A Case of Scientific Cultural Bias’, HumanDevelopment 17(2), 81–106.

Smith, A.: 1759; republished 1975, The Theory ofMoral Sentiments, edited by D. D. Raphael andA. L. Macfie (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Smith, A.: 1776; republished 1976, An Inquiry into theNature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, editedby R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (Oxford,Clarendon Press), pp. 26–27.

Snarey, J.: 1985, ‘Cross-cultural Universality of Social-Moral Development: A Critical Review ofKohlbergian Research’, Psychological Bulletin 97,202–232.

Thompson, J.: 1997, ‘Ethical Dissonance in Trans-Cultural Management: That’s Not How We Play

the Game Here!’ The Academy of ManagementProceedings, 199–203.

Trevino, L. and Victor: 1992, ‘Peer Reporting ofUnethical Behavior: A Social Context Perspective’,Academy of Management Review.

Trevino, L.: 1986, ‘Ethical Decision Making inOrganizations: A Person-situation InteractionistModel’, Academy of Management Review 11,601–617.

Tse, D., K. Lee, I. Vertinski and D. Wehrung: 1988,‘Does Culture Matter? A Cross-Cultural Studyof Executives Choice, Decisiveness, and RiskAdjustment in International Marketing,’ Journal ofMarketing 52 (October), 81–95.

Tsui, J. and F. Gul: 1996, ‘Auditors’ Behavior in anAudit Conflict Situation: A Research Note on theRole of Locus of Control and Ethical Reasoning’,Accounting, Organizations and Society 21(1)( January), 41–54.

Victor, B. and J. Cullen: 1988, ‘The OrganizationalBases of Ethical Work Climates’, AdministrativeSciences Quarterly 33, 101–125.

Vitell, S., S. Nwachukwu and J. Barnes: 1993, ‘TheEffects of Culture on Ethical Decision-Making: AnApplication of Hofstede’s Typology’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 12, 753–760.

Westney, E.: 1995, ‘Organizational TheoryPerspectives and International Business’, in BrianToyne and Doug Nigh (eds.), International BusinessInquiry: An Emerging Vision (University of SouthCarolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina).

Yao, E.: 1987. ‘Cultivating Guanzi with ChinesePartners’, Business Marketing 72, 62–66.

Linda ThorneSchulich School of Business,

York University,North York, Ontario,

M3J 1P3E-mail: [email protected]

Susan Bartholomew SaundersFaculty of Business,

University of Alberta,Edmonton, Alberta,Canada T6G 2R6

E-mail: [email protected]


Date post:	12-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ichbinleo
View:	2,328 times
Download:	1 times

The Socio-Cultural Embeddedness of Individuals' Ethical Reasoning in Organizations (Cross-cultural...

Documents