Surface and deep approaches to business ethics
Josie Fisher
Keywords
Business ethics, Self-esteem,
Leadership, Motivation
Abstract
Despite the attention being paid to
business ethics, it seems the
behaviour of business leaders and
employees has not improved. This
paper takes a different approach
to understanding why this is the
case. A distinction made in the
higher education literature
between surface and deep
approaches to learning is adapted
to provide an insight into the
reason for the difference between
the rhetoric concerning ethics and
actual business practice. It is
argued that a surface approach to
ethics, which is associated with
self-interest, will not promote
ethical behaviour, while a deep
approach, motivated by the desire
to do the right thing, does have
the potential to do so. The
difference between the rhetoric
and business practice suggests
that most businesses either
intentionally or unintentionally
adopt a surface approach to
ethics.
Received: August 2001
Revised: March 2002,
October 2002
Accepted: October 2002
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 96-101
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[DOI 10.1108/01437730310463288]
[ 96 ]
School of Marketing & Management, University of New England, Armidale,
Australia
Introduction
Recent management textbooks all have
sections dealing with business ethics, and
more and more organisations are developing
codes of ethics and making public
commitments to ethical practice; however, it
seems that the behaviour of business leaders
and employees has not markedly improved.
This paper draws on a distinction made in
the higher education literature between
surface and deep approaches to learning to
provide an insight into the difference
between the rhetoric concerning ethics and
actual business practice. A particular
business can be thought of as taking either a
surface or a deep approach to ethics
depending on its leaders' motivation for
being concerned about ethics. This approach
is then implicitly and explicitly
communicated to employees through the
actions of management, policies and
procedures, training programs, and the
organisational culture, thereby strongly
influencing the behaviour of individuals
within the organisation. It is argued that a
surface approach to ethics will not encourage
ethical behaviour. A deep approach, on the
other hand, has the potential to do so because
this approach promotes organisational
conditions that are conducive to ethical
behaviour. The distinction between surface
and deep approaches to business ethics is not
an alternative account of what is right or
wrong, good or bad (normative ethics).
Rather, the distinction provides an insight
into understanding the connection between
business leaders' motivation for making a
commitment to ethical behaviour and the
behaviour of individuals within
organisations.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
Why are business leaders
interested in ethics?
There are essentially two schools of thought
about why business should or ought to be
ethical. The first school is that being ethical is
good for the bottom line. The second school
argues that business should be ethical
because being ethical is the right thing to do
(Harrison, 2001, p. 3).
The first view links ethics with self-interest.
It has been pointed out that businesses ignore
ethics at their peril. In order to survive, a
business must make a profit; however, in
doing so it must comply with the law and
with society's moral values (Kitson and
Campbell, 1996, p. 6). According to Davidson
and Griffin (2000, p. 114) ``[e]very society
proscribes certain types of behaviour, and
organisations that violate these social
expectations may face consequences
including public humiliation, loss of
business, and legal penalties.'' There are,
therefore, prudential reasons for business
leaders to be concerned about ethics; in other
words, the motivation for being ethical is
instrumental.
The second view takes a different focus.
According to this view the reason why
businesses should be ethical is not to
promote self-interest; rather, there is an
intrinsic motivation for doing the right
thing. Businesses should be ethical because
this is the right way for them to behave:
Goodness does not guarantee winning. And
unless we can teach that to people, they are
always going to look for the angle . . . . Ethics
is a moral perspective that asks you to judge
your conduct in terms of what's right and
wrong, what's decent, what's good, what's
honest, what's honorable. The reason to be
ethical is simply that it's the right thing to do
(Josephson quoted in Trevino and Nelson,
1999, p. 34).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Josie Fisher
Surface and deep approaches
to business ethics
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 96-101
Ethics and self-interest
It is uncontroversial to claim that ethical
behaviour can promote self-interest and good
ethics is often simply good business sense. In
these cases doing the right thing (from an
ethical perspective) coincides with what is
good for business, but is there more to
business ethics?
There are different ways in which ethical
behaviour and a business's self-interest can
be connected. The following summary is
based on Grace and Cohen's analysis (1998,
pp. 25-30):
1 There is a straightforward coincidence
between ethical behaviour and the
enhancement of self-interest. Ethical
decisions will coincide with decisions that
are straightforwardly good for business in
either the short- or the long-term.
2 Self-preservation motivates businesses to
act ethically. On this view doing the right
thing will best promote the self-interest of
the business because society has
engineered this coincidence. The risks to
self-interest and the penalties that could
be imposed outweigh any potential
benefits of acting unethically. Thus, it is
good business sense to do the right thing.
3 It is in a business's self-interest to do the
right thing, but only if it does more than
simply act ethically. For example, a
business could publicise its ethical
actions, thereby increasing profits
(assuming that without the publicity there
would be either no benefit or a cost).
4 Doing the right thing can be augmented
(or protected) so that it serves a business's
self-interest; however, the business has to
act in order to prevent the ethical
behaviour from actually being
detrimental to its self-interest. The
example provided by Grace and Cohen
(1998, p. 28) is a building company that had
a reputation for accurate quoting and
completing jobs on time; however, its
competitors were understating both costs
and completion times in order to win
contracts. When the jobs were started the
prices and construction times were
(legally) increased. In order to protect its
ethical behaviour, the company offered a
bond with its quotes. If they failed to meet
the quoted price or construction time the
bond would be forfeited. In addition, they
suggested their potential customers ask
their competitors to do the same. In this
way the building company was able to
engineer protection for its ethical
behaviour and promote its self-interest.
5 Ethical behaviour might be opposed to the
short-term self-interest of a particular
business while nevertheless enhancing
the practice of business. On this view
ethical behaviour can help to define good
business practice. One argument for
recognising business as a profession is
that ethical behaviour would be regarded
as benefiting the self-interest of the
profession. Here ethical behaviour and
self-interest will coincide but not in the
simple way suggested in position 1.
6 The opposite of position 1 is when doing
the right thing is contrary to self-interest.
Grace and Cohen (1998, pp. 29-30) claim
that, while some have denied that this is a
genuine possibility (the Hobbesian view),
there are cases where the right thing for a
business to do requires forgoing self-
interest simply because this is what ethics
requires.
These six ways in which self-interest and
ethics can be connected do not lead directly
to ethical positions; however, they provide
guidance in identifying different approaches
to ethics. In the positions described at 1-4
above, there is no incommensurability
between ethical behaviour and self-interest.
In the first situation ethical decisions and
good business decisions coincide; in 2 there is
a cost attached to not doing the right thing;
and in 3 and 4 doing the right thing can be
used to promote self-interest. In each of these
situations the primary motivation for doing
the right thing could be simple self-interest.
Those business leaders who believe
businesses ought to be ethical because being
ethical is good for the bottom line, the first
school of thought identified above, have an
instrumental motivation for paying attention
to ethics.
There are, however, other situations in
which self-interest is best promoted by acting
unethically. Such situations demonstrate
that promoting self-interest is neither a
necessary nor a sufficient condition for
ethical behaviour. As Solomon (1998, p. 37)
points out:
The fact ± sad, perhaps ± is that unethical
business, like crime, sometimes pays. In any
system based on trust, a few deceivers will
prosper. There is no guarantee that ethics is
good for the bottom line. There is no
guarantee that those who do wrong will get
caught or feel guilty. There is no guarantee ±
in business or elsewhere ± that the wicked
will suffer and the virtuous will be rewarded
(at least, not in this life). But, that said, we
can nonetheless insist without apology that
good ethics is good business. Where
immorality is so easily identified, we can be
sure that morality is the general rule, not
merely an accessory or an exception. The
point of doing business is to do well by
providing the best service or product at a
reasonable cost. Those businesses that exploit
the possibility of getting away with less are
merely parasitic on the overwhelming
number of businesses that are doing what
they are supposed to do (italics in original).
[ 97 ]
Josie Fisher
Surface and deep approaches
to business ethics
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 96-101
[ 98 ]
In the positions described at 5 and 6 above,
there is no direct connection between ethical
behaviour and a business's self-interest. At 5,
it is recognised that, taken on a business-by-
business basis, self-interest and good ethics
will not always coincide; however, good
ethics is nonetheless good business practice.
On this view doing the right thing will not
necessarily promote the self-interest of
individual businesses, however, it will
promote the greater good.
Finally, at 6, it is acknowledged that doing
the right thing may actually be contrary to a
business's self-interest; good ethics is bad for
the bottom line. In these situations business
leaders who choose to do the right thing at
the expense of the business's self-interest
must have a different motivation from
business leaders who subscribe to the first
school of thought. Those who believe that
businesses should do the right thing simply
because this is the right thing to do have an
intrinsic motivation for being ethical. This is
the second school of thought identified above.
Analogy with surface and deep
approaches to learning
In the above discussion the motivation of its
leaders is important in understanding why a
particular business does the right thing. I
believe a distinction made in the higher
education literature can be adapted to
provide an insight into the different
approaches that businesses take to ethics.
Two very different approaches to learning
by university students have been identified
and labelled ``surface'' and ``deep'' (see, for
example, Biggs, 1991; Biggs and Collis, 1982;
Entwhistle, 1992; Gibbs, 1992; Marton and
Saljo, 1976; Ramsden, 1992). The approach a
particular student will adopt depends, in
large part, on whether his or her motivation
for learning is instrumental or intrinsic.
Briefly, students who adopt a surface
approach to learning have an instrumental
motivation. They want to do just enough
work to, for example, pass an end-of-year
examination with the minimum of work.
These students reduce what is to be learned
to the status of unconnected facts that are
passively accepted and memorised for the
purpose of reproducing them at the
appropriate time. Learning for these students
is a reproductive activity. Students who take
a deep approach, on the other hand, have an
intrinsic motivation for learning. These
students study in order to satisfy their
curiosity and desire to know more.
Importantly, these students construct their
own interpretation of the material by
critically engaging with it and integrating it
with pre-existing knowledge. Learning for
these students is a constructive activity.
According to the literature, these different
approaches to learning lead to qualitatively
different learning outcomes. A surface
approach to learning results in a limited
understanding of concepts, an inability
to distinguish principles from examples,
difficulties in developing a logical
argument, difficulties in identifying the key
ideas, and information is forgotten quickly.
In contrast, a deep approach to learning
results in the development of relational
responses to tasks, long-term retention of
understanding, the ability to apply
knowledge to novel situations, the ability to
generate new meanings, and encourages self-
directed learning (see, for example, Ramsden,
1992; Van Rossum and Schenk, 1984).
The connection between students'
motivation, their approach to learning and
their learning outcomes is analogous to, and
provides an insight into, the connection
between business leaders' motivation for
being ethical, their approach to ethics and
the outcomes that will be achieved. Just as
motivation is central in determining a
student's approach to learning, motivation is
also central in determining the approach a
business takes to ethics. The approach taken
by its leaders is implicitly and explicitly
communicated to employees through the
actions of management, policies and
procedures, training programs, and the
organisational culture. This claim connects
with research into implementing ethics
programs. McDonald and Nijhof (1999)
identify conditions at both the organisation
and individual levels for morally responsible
behaviour. They claim that internally
motivated ethics programs tend to be built
upon the core values of the leaders of the
organisation and are intended to ensure that
behaviour is consistent with these values.
Implicit in their discussion of the conditions
for morally responsible behaviour at the
organisational level is a commitment to the
second school of thought: an intrinsic
motivation for being concerned with ethics.
A surface approach to business
ethics
According to the first school of thought
identified above, the reason for businesses to
do the right thing is that their leaders believe
that good ethics is good for the bottom line.
The situations described in 1-4 above suggest
an instrumental motivation for being ethical.
Just as students who have an instrumental
motivation take a surface approach to
learning (they learn in order to pass an exam,
for example), businesses whose leaders have
this motivation take a surface approach to
ethics (they do the right thing in order to
protect or promote their self-interest). For
Josie Fisher
Surface and deep approaches
to business ethics
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 96-101
these businesses, being ethical is viewed as a
means to an end.
A business that takes a surface approach to
ethics will be concerned with working out
what is ethically required and doing the right
thing but only as a means to increase profits
or to avoid costs. This approach connects
with the position to which Goodpaster (2001)
refers as strategic stakeholder synthesis:
A management team, for example, might be
careful to take positive and (especially)
negative stakeholder effects into account for
no other reason than that offended
stakeholders might resist or retaliate . . . It
might not be ethical concern for the
stakeholders that motivates and guides such
analysis, so much as concern about potential
impediments to the achievement of strategic
objectives (Goodpaster, 2001, pp. 68-9, italics
in original).
A business led by people who are motivated
to do the right thing only because they
believe this is the best way to promote the
business's self-interest will communicate
their view both explicitly and implicitly
throughout the organisation. It will be
evident in the actions of management that
policies and procedures will reward
behaviour that promotes self-interest and
punish behaviour that harms it, training
programs will reflect a surface approach, and
the organisational culture will condone the
promotion of self-interest, thereby strongly
influencing the behaviour of individuals
within the organisation.
Just as a student who takes a surface
approach to learning will be concerned to
minimise the effort required to achieve the
desired outcome, a business that takes a
surface approach to ethics will be concerned
to obtain the benefits at the lowest cost. One
way such an organisation might demonstrate
this approach is to draw up a prescriptive
code of conduct resembling a list of rules. In
the same way that students taking a surface
approach memorise unconnected pieces of
information to be reproduced at the
appropriate time, employees would be
expected to memorise and act on the specific
rules in their roles within the organisation.
As with student learning at this level, there
would be no need for an understanding of the
concepts and underlying principles that
might be used to justify particular rules, and
there would be no sense of the individual
rules combining to form a particular view
about acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour. Employees would not be
encouraged by this approach to critically
reflect on the various aspects of the code, nor
to integrate it into their own world views. In
this example, the term ``surface''
appropriately describes the relationship
between the business's approach to ethics
and the way this is communicated to its
employees.
What this approach would not do, however,
is to equip employees to think through
situations not explicitly covered, or covered
only partially by the code. Providing a list of
rules cannot take the place of ethical
deliberation. No code of conduct, no matter
how detailed, can remove the need for
interpretation and adaptation by the
employees whose behaviour it is supposed to
regulate. A surface approach to ethics does
nothing to develop the skills required for
identifying the right thing to do in situations
other than those explicitly addressed in the
code.
Another difficulty for this first school of
thought is that, although self-interest will not
necessarily be at odds with what would be
judged to be the right thing to do (positions 1-
4 above), this is not always the case. If it is
only because good ethics is thought to be
good for the bottom line that an organisation
becomes involved in ethics, and employees
understand this, then it seems that the
surface approach could condone, or be seen
to condone, unethical actions. One common
reason given to explain unethical actions is
that the employees involved thought that,
since they were acting in the best interests of
the organisation, what they did was
acceptable. This is a clear example of the self-
interest of the organisation overriding other
considerations. Moreover, it has been
pointed out that ethical failure on the part of
leaders can sometimes be attributed to their
willingness to sacrifice morality for self-
interest (Price, 2000, p. 179). In many
situations, however, the individual self-
interest of people at all levels within
organisations can also be conceptualised as
coinciding with the interests of the
organisation, thereby providing a
justification for actions that would be
considered unethical.
A deep approach to business ethics
For those who believe a surface approach,
tied to a business's self-interest, does not
capture all there is to business ethics, an
alternative view, the second school of
thought identified above, argues that
businesses should be ethical because being
ethical is the right thing to do. On this view
business leaders' motivation for doing the
right thing is intrinsic. Just as students who
have an intrinsic motivation take a deep
approach to learning, a business led by
people with this motivation would take a
deep approach to ethics. Of course those who
subscribe to this view do not deny that in
many situations the right thing to do will
coincide with self-interest. What they do
[ 99 ]
Josie Fisher
Surface and deep approaches
to business ethics
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 96-101
[ 100 ]
deny is that the primary reason for doing the
right thing is to promote self-interest.
One of the main features of a deep
approach to business ethics is that all
stakeholders are seen as being morally
considerable. This approach connects with
the position for which Goodpaster (2001)
argues. He claims that managers have both
fiduciary and non-fiduciary obligations.
``Management may never have promised
customers, employees, suppliers, etc. a
`return on investment', but management is
nevertheless obliged to take seriously its
extra-legal obligations not to injure, lie to, or
cheat these stakeholders quite apart from
whether it is in the stockholders' interests''
(Goodpaster, 2001, p. 74, italics in original).
A business led by people who have an
intrinsic motivation for being ethical will
communicate their view both explicitly and
implicitly throughout the organisation. It
will be evident in the actions of management,
policies and procedures will reward ethical
behaviour and discourage unethical
behaviour, training programs will be
developed that promote a deep approach, and
there will be an organisational culture that
supports ethical behaviour.
Probably the most often cited example of a
business putting ethics above self-interest is
Johnson and Johnson and its handling of the
Tylenol crisis (see, for example, Shaw and
Barry (2001, p. 216)). Their response has been
cited as `` . . . the benchmark for how
organisations should react to a crisis''
(Trevino and Nelson, 1999, p. 184). Johnson
and Johnson developed their ``company
credo'' in 1943 and since then it has guided
the organisation's activities. This one-page
document identifies four responsibilities: to
those who use Johnson and Johnson's
products, to their employees, to the
communities in which they operate and their
stockholders. What is striking is the
difference between this credo and a
prescriptive code of conduct. According to
their Web site:
. . . [t]he Corporation has drawn heavily on the
strength of the Credo for guidance through
the years, and at no time was this more
evident than during the Tylenol crises of 1982
and 1986, when the company's product was
adulterated with cyanide and used as a
murder weapon. With Johnson & Johnson's
good name and reputation at stake, company
managers and employees made countless
decisions that were inspired by the
philosophy embodied in the Credo . . . . Today
the Credo lives on in Johnson & Johnson
stronger than ever. Company employees now
participate in a periodic survey and
evaluation of just how well the company
performs its Credo responsibilities. These
assessments are then fed back to the senior
management and, where there are
shortcomings, corrective action is promptly
taken[1].
Implications for ethical behaviour
within organisations
A commitment to self-interest is not
necessarily incompatible with ethical
behaviour; however, whether or not there is
coincidence is contingent. If the primary
motivation for a business to do the right
thing is considered by its leaders to be
instrumental, then there is no guarantee
that, when self-interest and ethical behaviour
conflict, ethical considerations will override
self-interested ones. An organisation that is
motivated primarily by self-interest, if it is
successful in communicating this message
throughout the organisation, is unlikely to
have a significant impact on the standard of
ethical behaviour of its employees.
A business led by people with a
commitment to acting ethically because this
is the right thing to do, on the other hand, has
the potential to influence behaviour. Of
course whether or not ethical considerations
are overriding will depend on how well the
message about doing the right thing is
communicated throughout the organisation.
Moreover, even a business that does all it can
to promote a deep approach to ethics cannot
guarantee all its employees will always act
ethically. For example, in 1995 Johnson &
Johnson `` . . . agreed to pay $7.5 million in
fines and costs after admitting that wayward
employees had shredded papers to hinder a
federal probe into the marketing of an acne
cream'' (Shaw and Barry, 2001, p. 216).
Four key elements that foster a deep
approach to learning in higher education
have been identified (Gibbs, 1992, p. 155-6). A
business wanting to promote a deep approach
to ethics could incorporate aspects of these
elements into its ethics training programs.
First, a positive emotional and motivational
climate is a necessary condition for fostering
a deep approach. Second, employees need to
be actively engaged in their ethics training.
They need to be encouraged to make links
between past experiences and new concepts,
and be given the opportunity to critically
reflect on the material. Third, interaction
with others assists individuals to negotiate
meaning and manipulate ideas. Finally, it is
vital that employees' existing knowledge and
experiences are brought to bear in ethics
training. An organisation that incorporates
these elements into its ethics training is
more likely to have a positive influence on
the behaviour of its employees.
Josie Fisher
Surface and deep approaches
to business ethics
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 96-101
Conclusion
Despite the attention being paid to business
ethics, it seems that the behaviour of people
within organisations has not markedly
improved. This paper suggests one way to
understand approaches to business ethics
and suggests one reason why there has been
little change in the standard of ethical
behaviour within businesses.
A deep approach to business ethics
requires a belief that there is an intrinsic
motivation for businesses to be ethical. A
commitment by business leaders to this view
can form the foundation for a deep approach
to business ethics. However, it is the way that
the ethics program is developed and
implemented that will determine whether it
will have an influence on the behaviour of
individuals.
A surface approach to business ethics
identifies the promotion of self-interest as the
primary motivation for doing the right thing.
This approach by business leaders fails to
promote ethical behaviour for two reasons.
First, self-interest and doing the right thing
are not always commensurable, so a business
that is primarily concerned with promoting
self-interest would be likely to give priority
to behaviour that improves the bottom line in
situations where profit and ethics are in
conflict. Second, the surface approach is not
concerned with developing employees'
ability to make ethical choices; rather, it
takes a narrow focus aimed at prescribing
behaviour in particular identified situations
with the goal of protecting or promoting self-
interest. A surface approach to business
ethics does not aim at significant
behavioural change.
The difference between the rhetoric
concerning ethics and business practice
suggests that most business leaders either
intentionally or unintentionally promote a
surface approach to ethics. If there is to be a
significant change in the behaviour of
individuals within organisations, a deep
approach to ethics is needed.
Note
1 Available at: www.jnj.com/who_is_jnj/
cr_index.html (accessed 30 September 2002).
References
Biggs, J.B. (1991), ``Teaching design for learning'',
in Ross, B. (Ed.), Teaching for Effective
Learning, Research and Development in
Higher Education, Vol. 13, pp. 11-26.
Biggs, J.B. and Collis, K. (1982), Evaluating the
Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Davidson, P. and Griffin, R.W. (2000),
Management: Australia in a Global Context,
Wiley, Brisbane.
Entwhistle, N. (1992), The Encyclopedia of Higher
Education, Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Gibbs, G. (1992), ``Improving the quality of student
learning'', in Burnet, R. (Ed.), Learning to
Effect ± The Society for Research into Higher
Education, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Goodpaster, K.E. (2001), ``Business ethics and
stakeholder analysis'', in Beauchamp, T.L.
and Bowie, N.E. (Eds), Ethical Theory and
Business, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, pp. 66-85.
Grace, D. and Cohen, S. (1998), Business Ethics:
Australian Problems and Cases, 2nd ed.,
Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Harrison, J. (2001), Ethics for Australian Business,
Prentice-Hall, French's Forest.
Kitson, A. and Campbell, R. (1996), The Ethical
Organisation, Macmillan, Houndmills.
McDonald, G. and Nijhof, A. (1999), ``Beyond codes
of ethics: an integrated framework for
stimulating morally responsible behaviour in
organisations'', Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 133-46.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976), ``On qualitative
differences in learning: I: outcome and
process'', British Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 4-11.
Price, T.L. (2000), ``Explaining ethical failures of
leadership'', Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 177-84.
Ramsden, P. (1992), Learning to Teach in Higher
Education, Routledge. New York, NY.
Shaw, W.H. and Barry, V. (2001), Moral Issues in
Business, 8th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Solomon, R.C. (1998), ``It's good business'', in
Shaw, W.H. and Barry, V. (Eds), Moral Issues
in Business, 7th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA,
pp. 33-41.
Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A. (1999), Managing
Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to
Do It Right, 2nd ed., J. Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Van Rossum, E.J. and Schenk, S.M. (1984), ``The
relationship between learning conception and
study strategy and learning outcome'', British
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 54,
pp. 73-8.
Further reading
Banerji, P. and Krishnan, V.R. (2000), ``Ethical
preferences of transformational leaders: an
empirical investigation'', Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 405-13.
Josephson, M.S. (1989), ``Ethics in a legalistic
society'', Exchange, Fall, pp. 3-7, quoted in
Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A. (1999),
Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk
about How to Do it Right, 2nd ed., J. Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
[ 101 ]