Reimagining Business Ethics as Ethos-Driven Practice: A Deweyan Perspective

Introduction: Ethos as Foundation of Ethics?

Different conceptions of ‘ethos’ are recurring but isolated and underrated in business ethics. I propose that when reviewed together, they prompt a reconsideration of the role of business ethics in regard to strengthening ethical practices. First, in terms of the history of ideas, the root of ‘ethics’ itself lies in the ancient understanding of ‘ethos’ (Pieper, 2017, p. 22; Hübner 2018, p. 10). Diverse understandings of ethos implicitly shape our understanding of ethics itself. Second, the term ethos has had a lively career of its own across millennia, cultures and disciplines. Business ethics may be fundamentally enriched by ideas, instruments and insights from an interdisciplinary inquiry into ethos. Third, from a perspective of applied ethics, different ethoi provide the empirical context and exemplary result of past ethical practice, and hence we would get ethics ‘in’ or ethics ‘as’ practice. Fourth, in terms of normative ethics, the diversity of ethoi goes beyond the usual suspects in moral theory based on rules, goods or virtues to offer a rich and diverse empirical fund of normative ideas and conceptions and their historical genesis and efficacy. So, from a metaethical point of view, the course of inquiry into the fund of conceptual and empirical forms of ethos is likely to stimulate ideas for the direction, function and focus of business ethics.

In this conceptual article (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015), I relate four different conceptions of ethos as discussed in interdisciplinary approaches to recent discussions of ethos in business ethics, illustrating insights as well as blind spots. Drawing on John Dewey’s understanding of ethics, moral life, business and economic affairs, I then attempt to integrate these four conceptions into an inclusive framework of ethos pertaining to ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied, and associational conduct’. In consequence, I propose that the task of business ethics is participation in the practical reconstruction of existing ethoi, understood as such valued modes of conduct in business. In conclusion, I summarize the argument, outline larger implications of an ‘ethotical turn’ and point out the necessities of further interdisciplinary inquiry and experiment.

Conceptions of Ethos in Business Ethics

Conceptions of ethos are steadily used in different disciplines, such as rhetoric (Amossy, 2001; Aristotle, 1926; Baumlin & Meyer 2018; Hyde, 2004), political or practical philosophy (Aristotle, 1925; Charpenel, 2017; Cherniss, 2021; Foucault & Rabinow, 1997; Hatzisavvidou, 2016; Höffe, 2008; McNeill, 2006; White, 2009) sociology (Kalleberg, 2007; Merton, 1942; Urban, 2012; Weber, 2001), anthropology (Epstein, 1978; Rabinow, 2009) and educational studies (Cramer & Oser, 2019; McLaughlin, 2010). Ethos has even spawned its own discipline in the twentieth century: Since the 1930s, ‘ethology’ is the study of animal behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait in natural settings, while ‘human ethology’ pertains to the study of human behaviour as shaped by biology, culture and the environment (Calarco, 2018; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989).

A typical etymological approach traces ethos back to two spellings in Greek: (a) ‘éthos’ with epsilon (ἔθος), meaning habit, (external) habituation or custom (in Latin rendered as consuetodo or mos), and (b) more commonly, ēthos with eta (ἔθος), which originally meant place of residence, habitual seat and habitual abode. It later came to denote character, customs, habits, mode of thought or disposition (Düwell et al., 2011; Hatzisavvidou, 2016; Horn & Rapp, 2008). In colloquial use, ethos is often understood to either denote customary practices that constitute a collective, which I call ‘ethos-in-customs’, or a virtuous, trustworthy ‘ethos-in-character’. Below, I will demonstrate the plausibility of the claim that these are predominant in business ethics. Two other conceptions of ethos that may be labelled ‘ethos-as-habitat’ and ‘ethos-as-careful-dwelling’ are sidelined. While each conception may on its own enlighten research and empower ethical conduct, I suggest an integrative framework of ethos is even more relevant than just the sum of four conceptions.

The term ethos is used in 455 articles I reviewed from the Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility (until 2021 Business Ethics: A European Review), the Humanistic Management Journal and the Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics (Poff & Michalos, 2020) for the time between 2012 and 2022. My argument draws on that fund and other pertinent works. A more detailed future survey should account for the fact that ‘ethos’ is sometimes rendered as ‘ethic’, making it challenging to discern with search engines primed on stemming, and important aspects of ethos are often discussed without the term itself or even under the label of ‘ethics’ broadly understood as an approach of typical valuations or value practices. Weber’s ‘protestant ethic’ comes to mind, the original title of which properly translates as ‘protestant ethics’ (Weber, 2001).

Ethos as Habitat (Ethos 1)

The first meaning of ethos is usually traced back to Homer, Hesiod and Herodotus. Here, ethos denoted geographically bound spatiality for animals and humans. In Homer, éthea symbolized familiar locations for animals, such as stables for pigs or domesticated horses. Wild horses yearned for their éthos, the open pastures that symbolized freedom but were also governed by nómos, law (Scott, 1990, p. 143). Hesiod and Herodotus used éthea to describe human abodes, places of association, dwellings, haunts, towns, territories and homeland, and such typical places of certain forms of life correlate with habituation, safety and accustomed behaviour (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 24). This first ancient understanding of ‘ēthos-as-topos’ or ‘ethos-as-habitat’ is mirrored today in (human) ethology, the study of behaviour in certain environments. This gives rise to other notions of ethos: location shapes identities, with dwelling places defining the grounds where ethics and moral character develop (Hyde, 2004, p. xx), and ethos becomes the space where members of a polis project their shared values and customs, their commonality (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 32). Uses of ethos-as-habitat include Meyer’s exploration of the Oglala Lakota’s ethos of the ‘dwelling place’, where cultural identity is deeply rooted in the land, forming an ecology-based ethology (2019). Hans Küng’s (1990) ‘Weltethos Project’ emphasizes ‘planetary consciousness’ that acknowledges the fragile environment of humankind. Like ethologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989), Küng (1990) anticipates a ‘new global ethos’ of human survival in the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Schwägerl, 2011).

While one might expect ethos-as-habitat to feature in business ethics literature on topics like environmental ethics, few works discuss it explicitly. Most articles only contribute to this conversation inadvertently (e.g., Allen et al., 2019; Alcaraz et al., 2021). A rare exception is Alistair Wardrope’s piece on ‘Medical Ethics and the Land Ethic’ (2023) which builds on Aldo Leopold’s (2014) ecology-based ethical extension towards a ‘land ethic’.

Ethos in the Customs of Business Affairs (Ethos 2)

Ethos-as-habitat informs cultural and social consciousness through interpretation of the local environment, shaping epistemic structures (Urban, 2012, p. 127) and creating a formative space of history, socialization, habituation and conscious internalization of socially approved habits (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, pp. 11–12). Where ethos is understood to mean collectively shared worldviews, ideas, values, norms and practices, we find the dominant conception of ethos in business ethics. Ethos as (the spirit of) a collective way of life is a basic concept in moral philosophy and sociology. In a comprehensive philosophical definition, it implies a set of views believed by the majority of a religious, ethnic, civic or professional group about essential matters, expressed in guiding principles and patterns of behaviour, which reveal a certain, clearly established ‘dogmatic form of thought’ and guarantee a predictable and regulated coexistence characterized by trust, reliability and understanding (Funke & Reiner, 1972, pp. 312–313).

A tendency to understand ethos-as-customs can lay claim to Plato’s conception of ethos as obedience to a collective code of moral rules (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 282). Likewise, Bourdieu’s conception of ethos highlights the regulating effect of a collective ethos on individual behaviour. In his view, a collective set of attitudes, behaviours and values is not only expressive but also generative of specific power structures and social hierarchies. These are cultivated, reinforced and reproduced in the internalized dispositions and behaviours, known as the ‘habitus’ of individuals (Grenfell, 2014). Yet, other authors insist that ethos is more than just a behavioural programme of group morality in the sense of the Latin ‘mores’ or Hegel’s Sitten (Gröschner, 2013, p. 45; Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 26; Urban, 2012, p. 134). In an affirmation of that view, I suggest that ‘ethos in customs’ means shared ideas, worldviews, beliefs and values that are expressed in a reflective practice of customs but may also inspire critiques and innovations of ossified customs.

Business ethics research often focuses on two main areas: societal, religious or cultural influences on business conduct and the intrinsic ethos within such conduct. For the first area, Max Weber’s (2001) work on the Protestant ethic’s role in capitalism serves as a foundational reference (Hanemaayer, 2017). Various faith traditions and their impact on capitalism have been studied, from Catholicism and Judaism to Islam and Confucianism (Asutay et al., 2021; Ghafran & Yasmin, 2020; Kahane, 2012; Kornoukhova, 2018; Lew et al. 2011; Melé, 2012; Novak, 1993; Rice, 1999). The Indian ethos is also explored through texts like the Bhagavad Gita (Mulla & Krishnan 2014; Mukherjee & Bhattacharjee, 2022; Sinha et al., 2021). Hans Küng’s (1990) Weltethos Project, inspiring the UN Global Economic Ethic Manifesto in 2009, has similarly garnered attention (Dierksmeier, 2016; Gohl, 2018; Keir 2017; Küng, 1998; Leisinger, 2010, 2018; Wieland, 2010).

For the second area, Melé (2012) suggests the term ‘humanist business ethos’ as an alternative to profit-maximization models (p. 89). Other perspectives range from endorsing a ‘Morality of Profit-Making’ (Padelford & White, 2009; 2010) to exploring ‘institutional ethos’ in decision-making and organizational behaviour (Munro, 2010). Cumulative discussions address ‘organizational ethos’ through an Aristotelian lens on virtues (Caza et al., 2004; Cummings, 2003), while other studies explore ethos in Human Resource Management, public service and academia (Corlett, 2023; Costea et al., 2012; Lozano, 2012; Rayner et al., 2012; Vriens et al., 2018). Lastly, the study of professional ethos, the ethical norms shaping professional engagement (Loacker, 2022), spans from medical and legal fields to management (Khurana & Nohria, 2008; Poff & Michalos, 2020; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2014; Rozuel, 2011; Sullivan, 1990). Loacker’s (2022) exquisite study, for instance, investigates the ethos of lawyers, revealing the intricate interplay between practices, identity and ethics.

Ethos in the Character of Business Actors (Ethos 3)

Ethos-in-character, rooted in Aristotle’s tradition and often transmitted through MacIntyre (1985) and Solomon (1992), involves an individual’s continuous, consciously cultivated moral and ethical conduct in the public sphere, resulting in their perceived ‘character’ (Cherniss, 2021, pp. 31–32). Aristotle’s works offer different interpretations of ethos: In Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, it relates to conduct-guiding dispositions acquired through habituation, while in Rhetoric, it reflects an orator’s moral authority among the audience, integrating practical wisdom, virtue and goodwill into character. This (moral) character, publicly enacted or performed as a self-concept, is proven to be trustworthy through speech and social interaction with those who judge the individual (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, p. 18; Cherniss, 2021, pp. 31–32; Hühn & Meyer, 2023; Kinneavy & Warshauer, 1994, p. 179). Ethos appears in character as ‘an embodied consciousness clothed in culture and “made visible” in language’ (Baumlin, 2020, p. 2), or as ‘the subject’s mode of being and a certain manner of acting visible to others’ (Foucault, as quoted in McNeill, 2006, p. 67). In this conception of ethos, the publicly constructed aspect of ethos-in-character is assumed to be rooted in an inner constitution or habituation, variously described as shaped by natural (aesthetic, temperamental and affective) dispositions, acquired virtues and the capacity for discursive reason, or a combination of dispositional, characterological and doctrinal elements. Unlike external moral codes, this internal ethos informs individual actions without dictating their course (Charpenel, 2017, pp. 106–107; Cherniss, 2021, pp. 32–33).

Influential in interdisciplinary discussions, Heidegger and Foucault stress the importance of freedom and ethical self-care in shaping one’s individual ethos. Heidegger views ethos as a ‘basic stance of dwelling in the world’ requiring ethical cultivation, Foucault as a free and intentional practice of self-care. Both views involve an understanding of selfhood within the context of action, world and historical determination (Foucault & Rabinow, 1997, p. 286; McNeill, 2006, p. 55).

If at all quoted as authors in the works surveyed, Heidegger’s and Foucault’s spin on an individual ethos appears a non-entity. In business education and leadership ethics, the concept of ethos-in-character is largely framed by Aristotelian thought. Van Baardewijk & de Graaf (2021) explore Aristotelian moral development in business school curricula, while the ethos of leaders is discussed by Glauner (2018), Yuan et al. (2022) and Fujimoto & Uddin (2020). For some studies, like Caza et al. (2004), individual virtuousness gives rise to a collective ethos-in-customs. Melé (2012, 2016) and Mea & Sims (2019) integrate Aristotelian virtues with Catholic social teaching to explore a humanistic management ethos. Conversely, Padelford and White (2009) and Segal and Lehrer (2013) offer simpler takes, associating ethos with individual worldviews on profit-making and business ethics, respectively.

Ethos as Careful Dwelling (Ethos 4)

A fourth understanding of ethos might be called ‘ethos-as-careful-dwelling’. It encompasses not only self-care but also care for the shared commons, the world or habitat in which one dwells, including one’s future ways of being in the world. One old approach, influenced by Max Scheler and David Koigen, views ethos as the vital axis of cultural activity, generating social behaviour and directing the nomological ordering of society (Urban, 2012, pp. 127, 128, 134). In this view, ethos-in-customs and ethos-in-character habitually direct the aspirational cultivation of one’s habitat or community. Another approach, suggested by Heidegger’s reading of ethos-as-habitat as ‘the open region in which the human being dwells’, considers ethos a practice of open inhabitation, allowing the possibilities of being to emerge (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, p. 14; Hyde, 2004). Ethos is understood to be a participative practice of care in which the self-engages with the challenges and opportunities of a world that arises, shaping one’s way of being as a human (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 90). Ethotical agents develop diverse judgments, convictions and practices, shifting their modes of dwelling in the world (and in memory, language, history and culture) while embodying responsible continuity of their ways of life (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, p. 22; Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 12). Ethos becomes a creative mode of caring inhabitation, and ethotic action involves co-knowing, co-experiencing and co-acting (Urban, 2012, p. 133).

In a highly perceptive paper, Donna Ladkin (2006) applies Heidegger’s idea of ‘dwelling’ to organizational leadership, linking it to Gilligan’s ‘ethic of care’ and Aristotelian virtue ethics. Her work, which has influenced others like Marsh (2013) and Pérezts et al. (2019), showcases ethos as key to understanding selfhood, leadership and sustainability. Painter-Morland & ten Bos (2016) further expand on how Heidegger’s concept enriches organizational environmentalism. Although numerous articles centre on similar themes like the ethics of care or sustainable development (e.g., Molterer et al., 2020; Gherardi & Laasch, 2022), they rarely engage directly with Heidegger’s ethos or Ladkin’s (2006) contributions (e.g., Elley-Brown & Pringle, 2021; Küpers, 2013).

An Emergent Understanding of Ethos in Business

While exhaustive neither in terms of breadth nor depth, this initial survey of four interdisciplinary ethos conceptions in business ethics discourse plausibly illustrates their varying relevance. Typically, ethos is viewed through the lenses of customs or character rather than habitat or careful dwelling.

Different conceptions highlight different aspects of business life. Ethos 1 underscores how deeply rooted business is in both ecological and sociocultural environments, extending beyond mere context to assert that such conditions inform or even shape (typical or aspirational) behaviour. This viewpoint enriches discussions of context, space, sense of place, socio-materiality, the evolutionary origins and cultural variety of moral pluralism (Graham et al., 2018) and dynamics of the Anthropocene era.

Ethos 2 emphasizes the role of shared ideas, values, perspectives, ways of life and customs in shaping institutions, organizations and communal identities. Here, environing nature and culture instantiate in customs, and ethoi serve both as a basis for ethical discourse and as ongoing practices that influence and guide individual behaviour. This perspective enriches discussions on collective morality, its evolutionary and historical origins, ideological frameworks, power dynamics and educational and relational aspects of business.

Ethos 3 turns to questions of embodied disposition and individual character development, agency and identity. Shaped by ethos-in-customs, individuation integrates traits and moral foundations (Haidt, 2012) with the reflexive acquisition of habits, among them habits of reasonable or prudent judgement, self-awareness and self-care. This perspective carries significant implications for business education and responsible economic behaviour, including individual agency and leadership, teamwork and stakeholder relations.

Finally, Ethos 4 pertains to ethos as a mode of tending to one’s world. In one approach, the habitual practice of Ethos 2 and 3 now appears as automated force of an aspirational reordering of the environing conditions. In the Heideggerian approach, conscious and creative agency realizes emergent possibilities of future conduct within and through the environing conditions which are cared for, safeguarding a process of ‘creative continuity’ that reforms and sustains an ethos in the face of challenges, and that stands in marked contrast to the ‘creative destruction’ of the Schumpeterian kind. Heidegger’s ‘dwelling’ relates to careful, adaptive action via explorative, participative, cooperative and dialogical modes of ‘negotiation’ (Loacker, 2022) or ‘tinkering’ (Molterer et al., 2020) with different goods, means and aspirations in problematic situations, extending into areas like stewardship and sustainable development.

While each conception of ethos deserves deeper study, a unified framework that accounts for the dynamic interplay between different conceptions and their functional, normative and practical implications may offer valuable benefits. Such a unified ethos approach may serve as an adaptive tool that facilitates not only the comparative analysis of diverse real-world ethical and moral practices but could also offer practical guidance for their reconstruction in business settings. Steering clear of single-minded approaches, it would welcome interdisciplinary insights and provide a focused direction for the evolving field of business ethics.

As a point of departure for developing such a unified approach, I propose the continuous feedback process that emerges from the exploration of the four functional conceptions of ethos: Ethos 1 gives rise to typical customs of Ethos 2, while both together shape the individual’s lived Ethos 3 which feeds not only back into the current performance of Ethos 2 but, together with it, feeds into Ethos 4, the (habitual or creative) treatment of one’s habitat, modifying Ethos 1 in ways that promote a change in customs and conduct, and so forth. A habitat habituates (collective and individual) habits which, as they change, change the habitat.

For the purposes of business ethics, any attempt at a unified approach would also have to capture the moral and ethical dimension of practices in business—how moral and ethical factors bear on business affairs, and how business affairs bear on moral and ethical concerns. I attempt to satisfy the ambitions of a unified and comprehensive conception of ethos with a pragmatist reconstruction based on the works of John Dewey.

Towards A Unified Conception of Ethos in Business: A Deweyan Reconstruction

John Dewey flatly identified ethos with customs (LW7, p. 9). ¹ I intend to show, however, that his work on moral life, ethics, economic affairs and business conduct offers a fitting framework to integrate the four conceptions of ethos into a continuous cycle of interdependent influence and to determine a corresponding understanding of business ethics. I read his work as an extended treatise on various interdependent factors of generative moral and ethical practices which I will reconstruct as ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied, and associational conduct’. These are, I claim, the subject matter that should drive the practice of business ethics.

Ethos 1, 2 and 3 in Dewey’s Conception of ‘Habit’

Dewey’s approach to economics and business is commonly rooted in his naturalist ontology of association (MW14; LW3; Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019; Kassner, 2019) and his pragmatist epistemology and methodology of inquiry as action (LW12; Khalil, 2004). Both roots inform the central conception of ‘habits’ (Caruana & Testa, 2020), key for reconstructing interdependencies between habitat, habits and their adaptations to sustain life. In Dewey’s approach, habits are more than acquired patterns of behaviour. They also carry ‘valuations’ into effect, both affective ‘valuings’ and deliberate ‘evaluations’ that mould habits to certain effects, turning them into what Ott calls (2010) ‘value practices’.

In more detail: Human lives are shaped by an association of internal organic elements and external environmental factors (LW3, 41). Initially, our actions are guided by innate impulses, affective-motor attitudes and reflexes which Dewey calls valuings. These include natural drives, appetites, intuitions and instincts that lead us either towards or away from certain things (EW5, 124; Anderson 2023). Dewey refers to these natural dispositions as our ‘first nature’ (LW13, p. 108). In terms of Ethos 3, they are one key component of our inner constitution.

Dewey’s naturalism takes environmental conditions to consist of a continuity of nature and culture. Inspired by Darwin’s evolutionary principles, ecological and natural, as well as social and cultural factors are deeply intertwined with organic life (EW1, p. 49; Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019; Särkelä, 2015). Life sustains itself by converting surrounding (physical) resources and energies into ‘means’ (methods, operations, tools and instruments) for its own survival (MW9, pp. 4–5). Dewey believed that the ability to control these energies made life a self-renewing process (MW9, pp. 4–6). Economic life, then, is the primary social process sustaining organisms within their environment (Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019, p. 11), while values are concrete practices emerging from the interaction of human organisms with their surroundings, an understanding that paralleled Aldo Leopold’s view (Ott, 2010). This view incorporates the role of environmental conditions, or what could be termed ‘Ethos 1’, in understanding economic life.

Marked by association, human life is thus ‘interaction’—a ‘series of related doings and undergoings’ (LW10, p. 109). Such interaction between subject and object, self and world and organism and environing conditions constitutes ‘experience’ within an individual, a stream of conscious activity that links action and consequences and mental and physical factors together (MW9, p. 146; LW10, p. 251). From the experiments of experience come learning, knowledge, and meaning as capacities that empower the self to control and direct future activity (LW11, p. 501). As such activity leaves traces in the world, it is ‘conduct’, a continuous stream of meaningful ‘interaction between elements of human nature and the environment, natural and social’ (MW14, p. 9). Both in personal experience or in worldly conduct, interaction draws on and adds to the material matter and ideal components of ‘culture’, not least in private ‘cultivation’ (LW1, p. 361; MW9, p. 128). All forms of interaction also change the natural, material and ecological parts of the environment (McDonald, 2004, p. 78).

When, in the course of conduct, interaction becomes problematic or uncertain, ‘intelligent inquiry’ seeks to restore a sense of coherence and purpose to conduct (LW5, p. 109–116). Such inquiry is ‘intelligence in operation’, a method that controls and directs transformation of a problematic, indeterminate ‘situation’ into one that is determined as unproblematic and thus a unified whole (LW4, p. 163; LW12, p. 108). An inquiry into the constituent elements of the situation involves imagination and experiments that test facts and ideas as tools of satisfactory resolution (MW12, p. 116). Present material is tested and even accumulated and reshaped into a means (resource, tool and method) to leverage ends possibly achieved with such means (LW12, pp. 381–382), an understanding that suggests the organic continuity of ends and means (MW14, p. 28). Such experiments are guided by practical ‘evaluations’, judging the desirability of the effects of various proceedings with various means. The ‘knowledge’ that emerges in a problematic situation is validated by its effectiveness in guiding actions towards desired ends (LW4, p. 129) and may be synthesized into the general understanding of meaning (LW8, p. 242).

New knowledge then refines existing ‘habits’, the ‘acquired and embodied patterns of behaviour’ formed through the evaluation of past and present experiences (Gregoratto & Särkelä, 2020, p. 444). Habits associate elements of action (among them, instrumental means to operate upon the world) into larger associations of automated behaviour, becoming building blocks of future conduct. In habits, evaluations become automated ‘valuings’ which shape, until actualization in future evaluation, the continuous direction of future activity (Anderson, 2023), forming both conduct and, as self and deed are identical, ‘character’ as ‘the interpenetration of habits’ (MW14, p. 29; EW4: p. 341–342). Thus, ‘every habit introduces continuity into activity; it furnishes a permanent thread or axis’ (LW7, 185), with good habits empowering, and bad habits limiting us (MW14, 48). Habits of reflective intelligence used to explore possibilities and reconstruct habits are especially potent (Ansell, 2011, p. 14).

In Dewey’s framework, habits for individuals are what ‘customs’ are for collectives—not only ‘solidified natural histories of association’ (Gregoratto & Särkelä, 2020, p. 445) but species of valuings that guide efficient and valued conduct without requiring constant conscious judgment (Anderson, 2023; Gregoratto & Särkelä, 2020, p. 444; LW7, 185). Evolving customs express trustworthy expectations and direct future activities among collectives. They may evolve into formal ‘institutions’ when codified by social, legal or moral norms (Dewey, 1973, pp. 86–88). As they are species of collectively dominant valuings, customs and institutions (Ethos 2) channel, shape and crystallize individual impulses into dominant individual habits of conduct and character (Ethos 3), our ‘second nature’ (MW14, p. 86; LW13, p. 108). Dewey’s biosociocultural understanding of how (tangible) places shape social habits and individual dispositions (Gaudelli, 2005; LW13) is a resource to understand Ethos 1 as an originary space of Ethos 2 and Ethos 3.

Ethos 4 as Ethical Practice Within Moral Life

Ethos 4, finally, may be understood as ethical practice. It goes beyond merely resolving problems attendant in the shared public space of environing conditions (Ethos 1) to creatively shaping, through deliberate intelligent reflection (which itself is structured by habits of reflective intelligence), future valued habits, conduct and social customs. This approach to careful inhabitation of one’s place or space encompasses both habitual cultivation and the creative exploration of possibilities of future living.

The dynamic interplay of moral life and ethics is on exhibit in Dewey’s ‘Ethics’ of 1932, written with James Tufts (LW7; Frega & Levine, 2021), an exploration of leading a moral life directed by intelligence (LW7, p. 462). For Dewey, moral life is a complex tapestry woven from human nature and biological needs, socializing and rationalizing agencies, group morality of customs and individual conscience (LW7). Rather than being a separate activity, ethics is deeply embedded in moral life, serving as a reflective process that discovers and carries into effect via intelligent moral judgement, ethical concepts like ends or goods, obligations or duties and social approval or virtues as ‘three independent factors in morals’, each central to a major tradition of moral philosophy (LW5; LW7, p. 462). In effect, ethical reflection and moral judgement generate practical knowledge and wisdom with an eye to shaping conduct, character and customs.

The intelligent moral judgements that advance moral life are ‘a species of judgements of value’ (LW7, p. 264). All such judgements actualize prior intuitive and affective valuings, which themselves are individual and social habits that channel natural impulses and have been moulded by prior practical judgements or evaluations (compare LW13, pp. 191–251). Hence, ethical practice in terms of intelligent moral judgement (Ethos 4) means not only updating Ethos 2 and Ethos 3 but reconstructing the world of our lives, Ethos 1, in a stream of creative continuity.

Towards Business Ethics as Ethos-Driven Practice

Here, then, a Deweyan expectation of the task of ethics for and in business life becomes apparent. As a practice of reflective and reconstructive intelligence (Ethos 4), business ethics sharpens moral judgements as tools to shape conduct through character (Ethos 3), customs (Ethos 2) and ultimately, conditions not only ‘in’ but also ‘of’ business (Ethos 1). In this approach, the purpose of business ethics extends beyond a reconstruction of business life to economic life in general. As laid out above, Dewey tackles economic life as the central process by which human beings draw on surrounding energies and resources for means to sustain and maintain their lives (Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019, p. 11). Satisfying organic wants and evolving human demands requires not only the transformation of resources of nature into serviceable commodities on the supply side but also the economic provision of means (methods, instruments, tools, techniques and equipment) to realize moral and ethical ends (LW4, p. 225–226). As economic conduct operates means to satisfy ends that are both material and moral or ethical (LW1, 359; LW7, p. 10), Dewey’s philosophy treats economic (or industrial and business life) not as separate spheres but as inherently moral and ethical endeavours. Thus, seen as the practice of engaging in a reconstruction of economic life, business ethics relies not only on moral theories but also on a more practical understanding of the interdependence of factors involved in business conduct.

Valued Modes of Conduct: Toward A Unified Conception of Ethos

As a first step towards a more practical understanding of the factors of business conduct apparent through conceptions of ethos, I suggest a unified conception of ethos based on Dewey’s framework: ‘Ethos as a suite of valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct’. In this conception, ‘modes of conduct’ pertain to ways, styles or manners which integrate personal performance and customary patterns; habitual behaviour and creative agency; impulses, interest and institutions; and re-, inter- and pro-active agency. It is worth reiterating that Dewey’s conception of conduct exceeds the common understanding of a course through the social world informed by individual temperament, collective etiquette and social approval. Rather, conduct refers to a continuous flow of activity that also involves the operation of means and methods upon the material, ecological and natural conditions of the surrounding world.

The term ‘suite’ implies a comprehensive, interconnected range of modes of conduct that, taken together, form the generally discernible approach to moral or ethical life that we deem real-existent versions of ethos-in-customs or ethos-in-character. Again, Ethos 2 and Ethos 3 are not just exercises in desirable social coordination but draw from, and bear on, the natural and cultural conditions of the environment, Ethos 1, as perceived in a certain world view.

Thus, modes of conduct are invariably ‘embedded’ within ecological and cultural conditions (Ethos 1) and simultaneously ‘embodied’ in two distinct yet interconnected ways: First, in ingrained customs and institutional roles (Ethos 2); second, manifested through personal habits, bodily memory or even innate organic functions, all of which become visible for social evaluation in the patterns of customs and culture (Ethos 3). The term ‘associational’ reiterates that these behaviours and values are continuously interconnected, constantly influencing, and reshaping each other. This dynamic resonates with Ansell’s (2011) observation of pragmatism’s ‘processual structuralism’ where structure and process are co-dependent (p. 14).

Finally, these modes are always ‘valued’, associating habits that both carry valuings into proceedings and are subject to continuous evaluation, judgement and (dis)approval in public interaction. Both forms of valuation shape, but do not rigidly program, our future conduct (and may ethically be reconstructed in terms of goods aspired to, rules adopted and virtues cultivated). Ethos 4 is the crucible of intelligent evaluation that inscribes (such ethical) ideas, worldviews, beliefs and values into embodied habits of conduct and character (Ethos 3) as well as of customs and institutions (Ethos 2), and ultimately, into the environing conditions used and formed thereby (Ethos 1). As cultural habits (including economic habits) not only extract energy from environmental processes, but also inject energy and direction into them, natural cycles and ecological dynamics can be transformed. This is the foundational idea of the Anthropocene.

The Subject Matter of Business Ethics: Valued Modes of Conduct in Business

Dewey finds conditions of economic life often prohibitive where they should be empowering and advises their reconstruction through intelligent inquiry (Gohl, 2020). Reconstructing economic life in terms of ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct’ means reconstructing modes of conduct in business that operate means and resources to solve problems intelligently, create value and provide goods and services. Among such modes are methods and procedures of resource extraction, production, distribution, trade, consumption and recycling of goods; the division of labour, the organization of cooperation and corporations, value chains of business models, manners of innovation and investment, varieties and styles of management, virtuous leadership, ways of enacting corporate social responsibility and citizenship, stakeholder engagement, codes of professional conduct; vocational training and business education; and modes of regulation through law and institutions for access to means of economic participation, good working conditions, fair competition, union bargaining or price formation. All these elements of economic life are modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct that may be evaluated in regard to the values they realize or inhibit.

Conclusion: Towards an Ethotical Pivot and Approach in Business Ethics

Drawing on John Dewey, this article has made a case for invigorating business ethics as an ethos-driven practice. A cursory review of existing literature has demonstrated the plausibility of the claim that the field has primarily focused on ethos in customs (Ethos 2) or character (Ethos 3), often overlooking ethos as habitat (Ethos 1) or careful dwelling (Ethos 4). To address this gap and capitalize on a comprehensive approach, I have offered a Deweyan framework that conceives of any given ethos as a suite of valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct. I have suggested to conduct business ethics as a practice of Ethos 4. This approach embeds business ethics within economic life, and economic life within what John Dewey calls the ‘moral life’, what anthropologist Webb Keane calls the ‘ethical life’ (Keane, 2015a), or what might be better understood in a synergistic approach as the ‘ethotical life’. Corresponding with the Deweyan framework of ethos and Dewey’s understanding of ethics, business ethics would be enacted by both academics and practitioners who are concerned with the intelligent direction of valued modes of conduct and participating to that end in ongoing inquiries and reconstructions of existing and evolving ethoi. The latter acting as experts in the intricacies of certain modes of conduct, the former as experts in the intelligent reconstruction of a fund of mental models that inform modes of conduct, both enriching each other’s efforts, ideally in joint inquiries.

Grounded in a unified framework of ethos, business ethics would experiment with a multifaceted script for understanding the interdependent factors, dynamics, structures and nuances of ethotical life. This multidimensional ‘ethotical turn’ integrates and reinforces a pragmatist turn (Visser, 2019), practical orientation (Clegg et al., 2007), a corporeal turn (Shadnam et al., 2021), environmental perspectives (Rolston III, 2020), an institutional turn (Dubbink, 2010) and cross-disciplinary interest in anthropology, ethology, psychology, sociology, political science, rhetoric and educational studies (Keane, 2015a, 2015b). It also allows for shifting perspectives between evolutionary and historically emergent, culturally contingent and personally enacted forms of valued conduct, integrating first-, second- and third-person stances, and navigating the interdependencies of, and tensions between, four conceptions of ethos.

Many open questions remain, not the least in regard to different ethoi that structure the practice of real-existing business ethics itself. Future studies should explore in more depth, breadth and nuance the expansive landscape of (inter)disciplinary ethos conceptions. A Deweyan framework needs to address questions of power dynamics and freedom raised by Foucault and Bourdieu. Above all, conceptual refinement in operationalizing the transitions between different ethos conceptions should both guide and be informed by interdisciplinary empirical investigations into real-world ethoi as suites of valued modes of conduct. To fully validate this new ethos-focused paradigm, its relevance, applicability and practicality might best be tested against the grand challenges of the Anthropocene (Mailho & Lachapelle, 2022).