Social Responsibility and Ethics: Clarifying the Concepts Author(s): Josie Fisher Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.

52, No. 4 (Jul., 2004), pp. 391-400 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123269 . Accessed: 09/07/2013 11:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social Responsibility and Ethics: Clarifying the Concepts

Josie Fisher

ABSTRACT. ethics meaning motivated management nation sistencies way the of their course of me

Students I teach the to and terms

into a third-year business coming are often the use and confused about social responsibility look at and a ethics. of This the

and the way the concepts employed some cases the two terms are used while some texts on business

are defined.

In

interchangeably ethics do not have the

take business

a closer ethics I found two

literature that are

sample for an are

confusion. the are the has

there employed

expla incon and the the

in the way concepts ways

terms This

term social responsibility in their indices at aU.More both in descriptive over, these terms are employed and normative ways often with no discussion of the difference situation the two uses. What makes between the even more not is it is that compUcated Uterature treating simply a case of the management one in these concepts way and the business ethics literature

defined.

paper

identifies social

different bility these and two

ethics terms,

between relationship been represented, the contrasting and difficult clarity critical

the various

responsi uses of the this ques first with

and

views ethics.

regarding While

connection analysis tions, step the does it does towards substantive

between not provide facilitating issues.

morality resolve any

substantive as a necessary engagement

conceptual students'

there are treating them in another way, inconsistencies within the disciplines. This paper provides an overview of the different uses and definitions as a first step in terms of these the confusion addressing In the foUowing sections demonstrated by students. I identify the different ways the connection between social responsibility and I then go on to consider ethics has been represented, the various ways the term social responsibility has been next the relationship between moraUty employed, is considered terms of the and, finaUy, I canvass the ethics and business ethics. In the

KEY

WORDS: normative

business ethics,

ethics, social

descriptive responsibility

ethics,

ethics,

morality,

and ethics Introduction Students into a third-year business ethics coming course I teach are often confused about the use and of the terms social responsibility and ethics. meaning me to take a closer look at a sample This motivated of the management and business ethics literature for an explanation I found that there of their confusion.
are inconsistencies in the way the two terms are

uses

some practical conclusion, steps that teachers of to business ethics could take address the confusion are identified.

Social The social

responsibility evolution

and

ethics of corporate by Archie to CarroU, a to be devel of and and

of the modern

concept

New England Business School at Josie Fisher is a lecturerin the the University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Aus
tralia. Her research interests include business ethics, corporate

CarroU

has been mapped responsibility (1999). In the 1950s, according formal Uterature on the subject began

governance and bioethics. She has published in a variety of refereed journals including the Journal ofBusiness Ethics, The
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, the

the 1960s and 1970s definitions During were social responsibility corporate expanded on A focus research proUferated. empirical oped.
alternative themes such as corporate social

Journal ofMedical Ethics andMedicine, Health Care and Philosophy.

perfor

mance

and

stakeholder

theory marked

the

1980s.

?M r*

Journal of Business Ethics 52: 391-400, 2004. ? 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

392 Josie Fisher This present focus with continued the through of the 1990s to the Social responsibility According is ethics in an organisational found context

responsibiUty providing ture for related concepts research into

concept corporate the basis or point of depar and themes. ParaUel to the social man

social

to the first view

in some man

corporate responsibility, researchers began studying business ethics agement in the 1960s and at first itwas claimed that this was

ethics and agement literature, the difference between is that people social responsibility "have" ethics a to while social "have" organisations responsibility protect operate. and enhance the This view appears which is adapted from Griffin (2000), (1999). To to identify how this view it is necessary understand Davidson and Griffin define social responsibility and ethics. similar Their to many definition of social others writers: is responsibility set of obliga "The in which society they in Davidson and Griffin

interest in fad, however, just another management business ethics has increased ever since (Trevino and ethics the 1970s business Nelson, 1999). During a on as of the foun field emerged study building dation During formed which
ses, conferences

(FerreU et al., 2000). provided by theologians ethics were the 1980s centres for business pubUshed
and

research

and offered
only been

cour
since

seminars.

It has

tions an organisation has to protect and enhance the it in functions" is which society (p. 127). Ethics defined as "... regarding what (p. 114). This more beliefs personal or or bad" and wrong good in of ethics is discussed definition is right an individual's

that the study of business ethics has been in business curricula. school Today, promoted issues ethics is stiU an evolving field. The business the 1980s can be approached from various including spectives philosophy or they can be treated ences, to specific looking for solutions et al., 2000). From a business been on corporate losophers have per disciplinary and the social sci pragmaticaUy problems the main by

detail below. For the purposes of this section, to Davidson the important point is that according and Griffin, individuals within have organisations
ethics however, organisations themselves do not.

(FerreU focus has

Presumably perspective, social responsibiUty, involved phi in applying ethical structure of the discipUne while

this is because beliefs" about

organisations

cannot have

been

1987; FerreU et al., 2000). have taken concepts leaders Unsurprisingly, from these various approaches "with Uttle interest in so intriguing to scholars" niceties the definitional business (Epstein, 1987, p. 103). The current situation is that and ethics are often concepts of social responsibility each used interchangeably having a distinct despite for 1987; FerreU (see, meaning example, Epstein, et al., 2000). There are four views between identified is ethics social the relationship concerning and ethics that can be responsibiUty

theory and analysis to business ethics (Epstein,

the Interestingly "personal anything. do relate to authors say (p. 127) "... organisations in ways that often involve ethical their environment and The way dilernmas decisions". they respond, social responsibility however, must have to do with
not ethics.

In discussing organisations and social responsibil Griffin Davidson and (2000) take a descriptive ity, The demon level of social responsibility approach.
strated by an organisation is represented on a con

social social obstruction, identifies It contribution. and social social response obligation, is only organisations whose actions and decisions fall tinuum that on the continuum that do social obligation more the law. Organisations than comply with any that adopt a social response approach meet their basic in selected and do more legal and ethical obligations above that adopt a social contri cases, while organisations are in promoting the bution proactive approach of society. good a very limited definition text provides of This ethics and does little more ethics, sations do not have than assert that organi rather they have social the authors referring to go on to the ethical

in the Uterature. First, social responsibiUty in an organisational context; second, social on the impact that business focuses responsibility ethics is concerned activity has on society while of those within the conduct organisations; there and is no connection between ethics; and, various dimensions foUowing and the most sections fourth, one of which these different view with third, social responsibility has social responsibiUty views is ethics. are discussed In the

plausible

is identified.

Furthermore, responsibility. contradict this statement

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social Responsibility dimension environment Another merhorn definition their of organisations' interactions with and ethical obUgations of organisations. text by Scher popular management

and Ethics

393

and social responsibility has the actions of employees to do with the consequences of business activity. to (2000, pp. 360-361), According Boatright
[corporations in the are conduct Unlike which society addresses and attention increasingly paying at all levels of of employees the emphasis on the focuses at the to large, need the to an on corporate to the

The takes a similar approach. (2002) he provides of ethics is "... the code of that sets standards of good or bad, moral principles or right or wrong, in one's conduct and thereby or a of the behaviour person group" (p. guides 146). In the introduction to he states "[i]t is now responsibility interest in ethical behavior from individual corporate obligation serve both to of that of social social corporate time to shift our the level of the

ethics

organization. responsibility, on

social

impact

of business ethics individual workplace

activity movement decision

corporate guide ethical

making environment.

develop

and "... the organization" as an is defined responsibility

to act in ways that the organization its own interests and the interests of its

it external stakeholders" many (p. 157). However, the been that ethics has already claimed guides behaviour of both persons and groups so it is un means by his introduction clear what Schermerhorn responsibility. ImpUcitly individual saying that ethics has to do with behaviour while social responsibility has to do with to be to social at least he seems

a chapter in this text titled "Ethics an opening case study with ? which details the treat Campbell Soup Company ment of farm workers who are employed by suppliers There is however and Corporations" contracted cussion to Campbell is not confined this dis (p. 336). Clearly, to activities or people within Another chapter in this text is titled

this is inconsistent behaviour, yet organisational with the way he goes on to discuss social respon and Griffin, Schermerhorn, sibiUty. Like Davidson as can be described claims that organisations adopting one of four responsibility the slightly strategies for addressing social and although the terminology differs same: is the scale obstructionist,

Business", which again has the impact of organisational activities in a context. Moreover, broader when the defining social of concept (2000, p. responsibility, Boatright in 340) identifies the view that social responsibility to do with
volves "... the selection of corporate goals and the

the organisation. "Ethics in International

solely by the criteria of and but by profitability organizational well-being ethical standards or judgments of social desirability". evaluation The distinction made is not between ethics and social responsibility sustained.

of outcomes

not

and proactive. The accommodative last defensive, two strategies include fulfiUing ethical responsibili
ties.

The with

view

the activities Davidson

that social responsibility has to do with of organisations while ethics has to do

of individuals expressed by both and Griffin, is clearly and Schermerhorn In social the inadequate. discussing responsibility term ethics is used to organisations' in relation leads to confusion is unhelpful. and suggests that

the actions

and Nelson (1999) refer to Similarly, Trevino in ethics within and the organisations considering to stake role of business in society and obligations holders they refer to social responsibilities. However this ismisleading since, in the same discussion, they make reference to ethical They and Consumers" stakeholders. towards all responsibilities also have sections headed "Ethics (p.

activities, which this distinction

and the 181) and "Ethics which contradict their earlier Community" (p. 187) use distinction. Given the inconsistencies in the of the terminology of the second by proponents there is no reason to accept this distinction. view

Social responsibiUty focuses on the impact that business activity has on society while ethics is concerned with the conduct of people within The second view organisations

Social responsibility and ethics are unrelated concepts This view, referred to as the classical view of social

(found in the business ethics Ut the distinction between ethics erature) concerning and social responsibility is that ethics has to do with

is commonly associated with Milton responsibility, and Theodore Friedman Levitt. The social only

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

394 Josie Fisher responsib?ity profits while On is to maximise managers with "rules of the game". the complying this view, firms have a moral duty to maximise of business their own overaU self-interest economic they welfare Social of Corporate is cited (1991, p. 42) (see, for widely Responsibility" the following business ethics texts: Kitson example, and Campbell, 1996; Ferrell et al., 2000; Trevino thropic. Carroll's "Pyramid 1991). This pyramid places economic at the foundation and moving up the responsibilities are and ethical respon philanthropic legal, pyramid to discharge its sibilities. Society requires business and Nelson, ness it expects busi and legal responsibilities, to fulfil its ethical responsibilities and it desires its philanthropic that business meet responsibilities (2000) (Ferrell et al., 2000). Interestingly, Boatright in also includes this account of social responsibility economic to his claim that ethics has to do with social the has actions this that there seminal business is another article, which has broad for the most it is social part of employees while to do with the consequences This view of the responsibility of business activity. between social relationship

profits and by pursuing will thereby maximise

(Shaw and Barry, 2001). Of course the rules of the game need to be clarified and a quote from Fried man's article, first pubUshed in 1970, is often cited
... there is one to use to increase of and one only its resources social and so of responsibiUty activities in engage as it stays within engages or in open fraud

business designed the and rules free

its profits the game, which without

long is to say,

competition

deception

(2000, p. 12). However claimed within denies

addition

responsibilities,

of the "rules of the game". ignored explication Friedman (2000, p. 9) claims a corporate executive's in is to "... conduct the business responsibility with desires, which [his/her employer's] as possible as to will much be make money generaUy to rules of the while the basic society, conforming accordance both those embodied in law and those embodied in in (emphasis added). Levitt, writing 1958, put it this way: "[i]n the end business has only ? to canons two responsibilities obey the elementary and so of face-to-face faith, civiUty (honesty, good ethical custom"

the ap and ethics is consistent with responsibility texts. The taken business ethics many by proach on the rela focus of these texts is predominantly businesses and their stakeholders, between tionship it and outside both within the organisation environment and natural the society). (including (1987, p. 104) claims that social responsi to achieving outcomes relates primarily bility decisions from concerning specific organizational stan issues or problems which (by some normative Epstein "... dard) have beneficial
pertinent corporate

rather than adverse

stakeholders".

effects upon

on) and to seek material gain" (quoted in Shaw and Barry, 2001, p. 204). constraint has without While profit maximisation never been seriously advocated, the classical view is to meet is required the moral mini that business the rules of the game as that is, comply with mum, this determined by society. Despite first appearances, re of business account of the social responsibility society's ethical norms, so it quires compUance with cannot correctly be claimed that social responsibiUty and ethics are unrelated concepts.

This

view

is also

texts. For example, (2003, p. 147) that are a part decisions

spect to the

in some management to Samson and Daft according internal values "[e]thics deals with found of culture and shapes corporate re with social responsibility
environment". Carroll's pyra

concerning
external

mid

is included

in this text.

view identified this as the most common Having ethics social and the relationship between of aware to be it is nonetheless important responsibility, of the other ways the relationship has been charac In the following section more in detail before responsibility terised. I consider turning social to ethics.

Social responsibility has various dimensions one of which ethics The fourth, and most widely are four dimensions there economic, supported view, of corporate ethical

is Social

responsibility

is that social While is receiving social performance corporate in management attention, increasing especially

responsibiUty:

legal,

and philan

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social Responsibility Uterature, I have to social my discussion a This is because clear understanding of business is necessary responsib?ity confined has met
of its

and Ethics that ought

395 to be fulfilled (according to society or the this indicates a normative use do have a social

responsib?ity. of the social before

an

particular organisation) of the term. The claim that

turning ticular business

assessment

to the question of how weU its social obUgations,

social performance.

a par that is,

businesses

of social responsib?ity is ambiguous. De George (1999) has identified four different ways a corporation the term is used: First, when is de concept as being sociaUy responsible this can mean meets that it its Second, simply legal obUgations. a corporation as being when is described sociaUy it sometimes means that, in addition to responsible scribed its legal obUgations, the organisation also meeting fulfils its social obUgations. The important point about these two uses of the term is that they refer to the level of commitment
do, in fact, demonstrate,

The

that they ought to act in certain ways responsibility, and refrain from acting in other ways is not new, it has been discussed in the literature for over 50 years used this way, (Carroll, 1999). Social responsibility, refers to the obligations businesses have toward far this is there So uncontroversial, however, society. can be given to the is debate about how content
concept.

reason for there being no consensus A major the social responsibilities of business is that there is no general agreement about the purpose of business nor who has legitimate claims on it. One about way the debate about responsibility views of the role of business in society: competing the classical (or free market view, or narrow view) and the socioeconomic view (or broader view) (see, for example, Kitson and Campbell, 1996; Robbins et al., 2000; Schermerhorn, to the 2002). According former view, attributed to Friedman and Levitt, the social responsibility of business is to maximise was It that this profits. pointed out above, however, only is a misrepresentation. Profit maximisation is con strained by the "rules of the game", which require with the law and other social norms. compliance Thus, the game" identify the social to Friedman of business. According responsibilities (2000) these are to engage in open and free com the "rules of has been the requirements of social framed is in terms of two

that particular
thus

organisations
uses are

these

descriptive. The possible

represented that, at one

levels

of

commitment
texts as a resistance

have
to

been
social

in management extreme, identifies

continuum

demands, proach

then

a defensive

(the organisation foUowed by accommodation legal responsibilities), or a social response approach (in addition to meeting its economic and legal responsibilities, the organi sation also fulfils society's ethical expectations) and, at the other extreme, a proactive, social contribution

or social obUgation meets its economic

ap and

and Griffin, (see, for example, Davidson approach 2000 and Schermerhorn, 2002 (discussed above), and Samson and Daft, sim?ar scale is 2003). A adopted
commodates,

by Black

and Porter
and

(1999):
anticipators.

defenders,
Robbins

ac

reactors

et al. (2000) identify four stages of social responsi to whom the orga b?ity based on the stakeholders nisation sees itself as having a responsib?ity. At stage one management is responsible only to stockholders,
at stage two employees are added, at stage three

and fraud, and to con petition without deception form with the norms of society. Levitt is less specific, he identifies the responsibility of business however, to act honestly, in good faith "and so on" (cited in more 2001, p. 204). This view might be identified as the minimalist ap accurately to social Business has a social proach responsibility. to do what is demanded by society and responsibility
no more.

Shaw

and Barry,

stakeholders tomers society The

in the specific environment (e.g. cus and suppUers) are included, and at stage four as a whole is added.

The of business

socioeconomic

view

offers a broader to

account

term social responsibility is also used to stand for the obUgations themselves ? either those imposed by society, or those assumed by a particular organi sation (whether or not these reflect society's con cerns). These are the third and fourth uses identified by De George (1999). Since these are obUgations

responsibility. According has obligations that go beyond pursuing and include and improving profits protecting society et al., 2000; Shaw and (see, for example, Robbins Barry, 2001). "The is often concept expressed of responsibility social corporate as the voluntary

social

this view,

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

396 Josie Fisher the of responsibilities that go beyond assumption and legal responsibilities of business purely economic firms" (Boatright, 2000, p. 340). Boatright goes on to say that by implication businesses must be wilUng
"... to forgo a certain measure of profit in order to

reason society can make demands on business is because business functions by public consent and The its purpose is to serve society (see for, example, Grace and 1999; Carroll, Cohen, 1998; Robbins et al., 2000). to be "We can expect organisations that is part of the con because were of created, a condition they the permission that society granted that they exist in the first place" (Kitson and Campbell, 1996, p. 98). Since society does expect business firms to demon socially responsible tract out of which strate genuine social receive expectations are prudential reasons for businesses their social responsibility. Since the 1960s it has been responsibility responsibility, a lot of public and stakeholder there attention, to take seriously that social are not

achieve FerreU

noneconomic et al. (2000)

to ends" (p. 340). According a business that is sociaUy

the positive effects it has responsible wiU maximise on society and minimise the negative effects. Writ some examples of identified ing in 1975, Backman social of corporate responsib?ity: "Employment minority in poUution, reduction groups, greater to commu in the programs participation improve industrial care, improved nity, improved medical health and safety" (cited in CarroU, 1999, p. 279). is expected? What level of social responsib?ity

claimed

can be defined Sethi claims that social responsibiUty as "... bringing corporate behaviour up to a level where with the prevaiUng it is congruent social
norms, values, and expectations" (quoted in Boat

right,

2000, p. 340). Social those passes expectations

responsib?ity

encom

and long-term profits was it in Drucker however, writing incompatible, a "new idea" 1984 who claimed he was proposing that being socially responsible could be converted into business opportunities (Carroll, 1999). Studies on the relationship social responsibility between are, however, performance ambiguous et In where there is al., 2000). (Robbins examples it is both good financial and social performance to leads unclear whether social good performance increased financial performance
social

(economic, legal, organisations tionary) at a given point in time. They are "... the and norms that society expects business behaviours to foUow businesses (CarroU, to make 1999, p. 283)". Society expects a profit and obey the law and, to behave in certain ways and conform norms of These behaviours

of has society ethical and discre

and financial

or if good financial performance, to fund good the resources provides

In contrast, there is evidence

society. of the and practices the requirements go beyond seem to and be law, (CarroU, constantly expanding view is on 1999). The focus of the socioeconomic to behave, business society beUeves ought it is a normative identifies view. Society therefore to do beyond firms are expected what business a profit, and this varies over time and is making how third use (De George's becoming more demanding of the term). De George (1999, p. 208) sounds a of social responsib?ity the level about warning business can reasonably
we decide

in addition, to the ethical

performance.

that there

is a link between

social returns

stock market and negative Nelson, 1999).

According to an alternative

irresponsibility and (Trevino

view,

a as action, corporate [t]o qualify responsible socially or one for which must be business activity expenditure are less than returns to the the marginal corporation some the returns available from alternative expendi be an actual be purely and must ture, must voluntary, corporate expenditure rather than a conduit for indi

be expected
that

to bear:
should be

vidual largesse (Carroll, 1999, p. 276). with Boatright's (2000) claim, a business should be prepared that above, non to sacrifice some profit in order to promote This identified economic out
rather

If as a society

is consistent

corporations

forced to rebu?d the inner city, should not be aUowed

to close to train down the unprofitable hard-core plants, unemployed, or should these be made demands

should be thought
forum, versial what and social is moraUy then

through, discussed

in the political

goals. Of course, of good the possibility

it claims that maximum

this view financial of

does not

rule

performance,
returns

are contro They legislated. clearly not be confused with and should demands required.

economic

have
social

not

been

achieved

because

the focus

on

performance.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social Responsibility on the one views expressed by Drucker, on and and CarroU the other, hand, Boatright, represent diverse opinions about social responsib?ity. The The former can be made suggests that being sociaUy responsible to serve the economic interests of the

and Ethics

397
and and the rules are that

right importantly those activities; fostered, The or

wrong; the values

govern

that

embedded,

morality customs that

the latter claims that it is only when business, while economic interests are sacrificed that an action or decision The
ious ways

counts above
?

as being discussion

those activities and practices. by or the to its mores, is related society a as or group accepts society being right as well as those and wrong, laws of a society that add to many and sanctions activities legal prohibitions to be considered immoral. ethics Hence, presupposes pursued of a the existence of morality, as well as the existence of

sociaUy responsible. to the var draws attention

and normative ? the term

moral
erally

people who
act in accordance

judge right from wrong

with norms they

and gen
and to

descriptive

accept

social responsibility is employed easy to see how these different unfamiUar

confused.

in the literature. It is uses can cause readers concepts to become

which This

they and the rest of society hold others. notion

with

these various

is the subject of ethical that morality is also found in (2000), Ferrell enquiry Boatright et al. (2000), Iannone (1989), and Petrick and Quinn

(2001).
Ethics Just as there are several ways the term social respon in the literature, so too are there sibility is employed in the use of the terms ethics and business ambiguities not to argue that any par is ethics. It my purpose ticular use is to be preferred, rather, it is to draw to the differing uses and the resulting po attention tential views for confusion. First, I focus the relationship concerning I turn my attention and moraUty, then to business ethics. competing ethics between to ethics and, on It is, however, ethics to be used Some authors without common for the terms morality and in public debates. interchangeably these while

terms interchangeably others do address the issue. comment, Shaw and Barry that some (2001) acknowledge and ethics on the philosophers distinguish morality refers to human basis that morality conduct and values while
on: "[e]thics

also use

ethics
does,

is the study of morality.

of course, denote

They
an

go
aca

finaUy,

inter subject, but in everyday parlance we to and "ethical" "moral" describe change people we consider good and actions we consider right. And we to "unethical" and "immoral" interchange demic describe wrong what actions. we This consider book bad follows and people that cornmon

Ethics Some and

and morality authors make ethics. claim For a distinction moraUty and Bowie Beauchamp refers to the principles or by society. An and poUtical between

usage" (p. 4). For Grace and Cohen

... there is no reason and

example,

(1998, p.4),
a distinction There could in meaning no is certainly to be attributed moral phi

that morality (2001) as defined rules of moral conduct is drawn analogy constitutions and prior between

to make "moral". which roots.

between difference their

"ethical" in meaning

morality "... exists language. [M]orality to the acceptance of its standards (or rejection)

etymological

Sometimes

some

In this respect morality individuals. by particular cannot be purely a personal poUcy or code" (p. 1). on the other Ethical theory, a branch of philosophy, to on has do nature and with the hand, reflecting of and wrong. justifications right A similar view is expressed by De George (1999,

losophers or "ethicists" distinguish them from each other, but not all philosophers do; and those who do distinguish them from each other do not all distinguish
them in the be same way... considered It is recommended as synonymous... here that the words

P- 19):
Ethics cover studies those morality. practices and Morality activities is that a term are used to

considered

not explicitly stating that the terms morality ethics are used Trevino and interchangeably, as Nelson define ethics "... the (1999, p. 12) prin an ciples, norms, and standards of conduct governing individual or group" and Schermerhorn (2002, p. While and

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

398 Josie Fisher a sim?ar definition: 146) provides "[E]thics can as defined the code of moral that principles standards as to what is good or bad, or right in one's and thereby guides conduct wrong
behavior of a person or group".

be sets or the

individuals' right group

beliefs

different uses of the terms morality and ethics highUght the need for care when trying to understand are what authors just particular saying. For example, The for those who nificant tion norms) (which wanting maintain a distinction claiming difference between there is a sig that some ac

and assumptions about a and and bad held wrong, right good by particular that a group. In these two uses, ethics are something a or term ethics refers to person group has. Third, the an activity; it involves critical inquiry issues. The first two uses are connected tive ethics, while
ethics.

and wrong, ethics are the beliefs

and assumptions is about what or social good and bad. Second,

into

ethical

the third is connected

to descrip to normative

is immoral

(it contravenes and the claim that some could mean according

society's accepted action is unethical

that society's norms are found to some ethical theory).

(2000, p. 114) define ethics individual's beliefs "[a]n regarding personal or good and bad". They is right and wrong what constitutes behaviour claim that what ethical as can vary from person to person, however, that is consistent with usually be behaviour it will widely to the by a

Davidson

and Griffin

Descriptive

and normative ethics

accepted first two

Iannone.

social norms. uses of the

This term

definition

relates

ethics as identified

Just as the term social responsibility can be employed

either in a descriptive or a normative way, so too can

Schermerhorn similar definition:

For moral our purposes, principles

(2002,

pp.

146-147)

provides

ethics refers to the "Descriptive general beUefs, values, attitudes, and standards that, ... as a matter of fact, guide behavior descriptive or the typical beUefs ethics examines values that the ethics. determine is customarily done" (Desjardins and Bowie and McCaU, 2000, p. 4). Beauchamp (2001, p. 6) define the descriptive approach as the of moral actual and "[f] description explanation what and beUefs". This carried out by anthropologists,
torians.

term

ethics that

can sets

be

defined of and group.

as the good thereby Ethics

code or

of bad,

standards conduct or

or wrong, right the behaviour

in one's of a person

guides provide

principles
moral practice, "good" in the

that guide behaviour

among alternative ethical and "right" of a behaviour as opposed

and help people make

courses is what to "bad" moral code. is of action. In as accepted or "wrong"

choices

behaviour

is typicaUy and his sociologists activity

context

governing

Normative moral ues, iour,

or

also referred to as (sometimes contrast to the val in describing phUosophy) beUefs and norms that influence actual behav ethics evaluates
that

The way horn define

behaviour
are

by appealing
of custom.

to standards
"Rather

norms

independent

and Schermer and Griffin, the term ethics implies that the standards and good and bad can be known of right and wrong, the beliefs and values of a particular by identifying person or group. This use of the term ethics connects Davidson descriptive ought beliefs view ethics. to act people If, however, in accordance it is claimed with these that ac

the actual beUefs, values, and atti than describing normative should ethics prescribes what we tudes, or value. The difference between descriptive beUeve is the difference ethics, therefore, to is and what be" (Desjardins between what ought in 5 and McCaU itaUcs 2000, p. original). Beau Bowie the same and (2001, pp. 6?7) make champ and normative point: aims moral "[n]ormative ph?osophy to be which needs what done, determining ought be distinguished from what is, in fact, practiced". Iannone term (1989) distinguishes ethics ethics: First, personal three uses of (or morals) at to the are

with

cepted mative

and values, then that implicitly relativism

it becomes

a nor ethical

theory an action is right if it is accepted to which according (see for example by the relevant person or group and Bowie, 2001). Boatright (2000, p. Beauchamp 9), in contrast, claims that "[m]oral rules should not they are a part of the on his view, is con Ethics, prevailing morality." a critical examination cerned with of the rules of be accepted merely because

relativism.

Ethical

endorses is a contested

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Social ResponsibiUty moraUty

term.

and Ethics
Whether ethical holders, employees, or a

399
is right behavior required is often determined unethical, specific as the investors, legal system, customers, and the interest community. or wrong, by stake groups,

and represents

Iannone's

third use

of

the

such

Business The

ethics uses of the term ethics carry over of business ethics. An example the distinction Petrick between ethics into that and (1999) define eth as conforming to the prin norms and that standards ciples, society accepts as to Fer business behaviour. According constraining rell et al. and Trevino and Nelson, and wrong right are identified to what is considered by reference ical business behaviour behaviour for business; the question acceptable to what ought be considered acceptable behaviour
not canvassed.

Likewise

Trevino

and Nelson

different

discussions highUghts moraUty 55-56) MoraUty forming

wh?e "...

comes from who

management

and Quinn (2001, pp. of claim that at times the morality are ethics in conflict. and management

of is

to succeed by con may permit managers to current social norms and behaviours,
management ethics caUs for a sensitive,

reflective, norms only

lenge".

and

systematic after they have withstood between

endorsement

of critical

those chal

The business

distinction

tive accounts

of ethics

and norma descriptive is also found in discussions of to Desjardins context,

actual customs,

ethics. According (2000, p. 4), in a business

with "... the

and McCaU ethics

of normative ethics ethics, business the rules, standards and moral principles in descriptive For example, identified approaches. and McCall (2000) claim that a normative Desjardins analysis could suggest that a policy of workplace of justice. drug testing violates rights or principles evaluates Epstein
account: value-based

As

a form

(1987,
"Business

p.

104)
ethics ...

also provides
concerns on the moral the

a normative
systematic, significance

descriptive within sense

is concerned

attitudes,

reflection

values Business home which

and mores ethics in fields describe

that operate in this descriptive such as sociology for us what

business. is most at

and Bowie Beauchamp "Harvard Business Review

and management, goes on in business." (2001, p. 6) refer readers to

and organizational business action and its for stakeholders." societal consequences Similarly, Malachowski (2001, p. 1) defines business ethics as of personal
"... a critical, normative ? discipline one which

stands back and the behaviour

from

the whirlwind

of commercial ethical

fife

poUs that report what moraUy acceptable and unacceptable". et al. (2000, p. 183) also Robbins descriptive
[a]re cultural

articles and Forbes magazine business executives beUeve is a

tries to establish

account

of ethics when
universal? between

provide they ask

Shaw and Barry is ethics the (2001, p. 4), "[bjusiness study of what or constitutes right and wrong, good and bad, hu
man conduct in a business context".

impartial of business". For

standards for

The
ethical standards differences Social and Hardly! are countries important determine ethical and actions in, are considered but countries. are

above

discussion

illustrates

that the relation

environmental unethical unethical considered

factors behaviour. (and often

that Some iUegal)

and ethics has been charac ship between morality terised in different ways. In some cases the terms are used interchangeably while other authors claim there is a fundamental difference between morality and ? most to ethics that relates commonly morality and of rules conduct ethics while accepted principles is the study of morality. Compounding for confusion is the different ways this potential the terms ethics

say, Australia other

standard

practice

in many

Other normative 6) claim

[m]ost standards, wrong

authors view. that

definitions

ethics to a descriptive For example, FerreU et al. (2000, p. sUde from

of

business

ethics as

relate

to

rules, or in

and moral in specific

principles situations. For

to what purposes

is right and

and business ethics are employed. In some instances the terms are used descriptively while in others a normative meaning is intended. Moreover, there are a use in which examples descriptive slips into a
normative use. Because authors often do not make

our

business ethics terms, simple standards that guide behaviour

and comprises principles in the world of business.

clear the way is hardly

they are employing surprising that confusion

the terminology can result.

it

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

400 Josie Fisher Conclusion The demonstrated by stu use terms the and of the concerning meaning at least social responsibility and ethics can be explained, in part, by inconsistencies in the way the two terms of the confusion and defined ethics in both The literature. the management above analysis source
Davidson, P. and R. W. Griffin: 2000, Management:

dents

in a Global Context (W?ey, Brisbane). De George, R. T.: 1999, Business Ethics, 5th Edition (Prentice HaU, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Desjardins, J. R. and J. J. McCaU: 2000, Contemporary Australia
Issues in Business Ethics (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).

are employed and business identifies

Epstein,
Process: sibiUty,

E. M.:
Beyond and

1987,
Business Corporate

'The Corporate
Ethics, Social

Social Policy
Respon Cali

Corporate Responsiveness',

the different ways the relationship between social responsibility and ethics has been represented, to the distinction it draws attention between and normative descriptive and the contrasting views between uses of these two terms, the connection

fornia Management Review 29(3), 99?114.

FerreU, O. C, J. Fraedrich and L. FerreU: 2000, Business

Ethics, 4th Edition (Houghton Mifflin, Boston). 'The Social ResponsibiUty 2000, Friedman, M.:
Business and Ethics Grace, D. is to Increase its Profits', J. J. McCaU (Wadsworth, and

of

regarding and ethics are identified. Wh?e morality this analysis does not solve any difficult substantive it does

in Desjardins, J. R. Issues in Business (eds.), Contemporary Belmont, CA), pp. 8-12. 1998, Business Ethics: Australian

questions,

first necessary critical engagement One

provide conceptual clarity as a towards students' step facilitating with the substantive issues.

S. Cohen:

Problems and Cases, 2nd Edition

Press, Melbourne).

(Oxford University 6th Edition

Moral Press,

ethics step teachers of business practical be to could take to address any confusion would an overview uses and of the different provide terms of social and the ethics in meanings responsibility an introductory of the business Throughout opportunities of meanings implications To another. lecture, and clearly identify the focus ethics course they wiU be teaching. the semester there would also be to make the

Griffin, R. W.: 1999, Management, ton Mifflin, Boston).

Iannone versies A. P. (ed.).: 1989, (Oxford in Business

(Hough
Contro New

Contemporary University

York). Kitson, A and R. CampbeU:

tion (MacmiUan, A. R.: HoundmiUs). 2001, Malachowski, and Business Ethics: Vol. andj.

1996, The Ethical Organisa

'Introduction: in Malachowski, Perspectives on Business A. Business pp. 1-3. of Ethics (ed.), and

expUcit particular uses and to the terms, and draw attention of using a term in one way rather than illustrate the a

Practice', Critical 4

Business Management, J. A. Management ness Ethics: ment, Robbins, 2000, ney). Samson, D. Vol.

differences, part of to session be could devoted practical identifying and uses in a selection and different discussing meanings to In of excerpts from various addition readings.
addressing any confusion about the terms, such an

Petrick,

(Routledge, F. Quinn: 2001,

London), 'Nature A.

and Value (ed.), Busi

Ethics', Critical

in Malachowski, Perspectives on Business pp.

S. P.,

1 (Routledge, R. Bergman, 2nd

London),

and Manage 55?75.

Management,

I. Stagg and M. Coulter: Edition HaU, (Prentice Syd

students with insights into provide approach would not otherwise be possible. the subject that would

and R.

L. Daft:

2003,

Management:

Pacific

Rim

Edition
Schermerhorn,

(Thomson,
J. R.:

Southbank, Victoria).
2002, Management, 7th edition

References (eds): 2001, Ethical Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie, Theory and Business, 6th Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Black, J. S. and L. Porter: 1999, Management: Meeting New

(W?ey, New
Shaw, W. H.

York).
V.: 2001, Moral Issues in Business,

and Barry,

8th Edition
Trevino, L. K.

(Wadsworth, Belmont,
and D. A. Nelson:

CA).
Business

1999, Managing

Ethics, 2nd Edition

(W?ey, New

York).

Challenges (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Boatright, J. R.: 2000, Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 3rd Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Carroll, A. J.: of 1999, Evolution 'Corporate a Definitional Social Construct', Responsibility: Business and

New England Business School, University ofNew England, Armidale NSW 2351,
Australia E-mail: jfisher@une.edu.au

Society 38(3), 268-295.

This content downloaded from 121.54.54.59 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:33:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions