Abstract
This paper reports a systematic literature review of articles published over the past 35 years on cross-cultural issues in business ethics. A screening process resulted in a final sample of 306 papers in 26 double-blind reviewed journals with an impact factor score of at least 1.0 in the field. This study uses citation analysis, systematic literature review method, and knowledge-stock analysis. This study highlights the findings from prior studies, compares and contrasts salient characteristics and provides directions for future research. This study identifies important gaps between the literature and the challenges of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. These gaps include lack of conceptual articles, multi-countries level analysis, and deficiency of comparison analysis between developed and developing countries. This article proposes to apply virtue ethics and model of cultural sense-making as some analytical frameworks in the field of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. This review of the literature could provide managers with a longitudinal perspective on how the institutional environment and national culture affect business ethics perception of employees. This paper contributes to the cross-cultural literature on ethical attitudes, helps us better understand cross-cultural differences in business ethics, and provides directions for further research.
Introduction
Many researchers suggest that it is important to recognize that comprehensive and extensive literature reviews on different scholarly topics help to provide directions for further research (Bird and Osland, 2004; Calabretta et al., 2011; Cavusgil and Das, 1997; Craft, 2013; Hofstede, 2015; Jonsen et al., 2011; Kolk, 2016; Paul and Benito, 2018; Paul and Singh, 2017; Paul et al., 2017; Sedziniauskiene et al., 2019; Snyder, 2019, Wilson, 2009). According to Snyder (2019), “by integrating findings and perspectives from many empirical findings, a literature review can address research questions with a power that no single study has” (p. 333). Kolk (2016) highlights three main promising areas to further the field of the international business (IB): “environment; ethics, rights and responsibilities; poverty and sustainable development” (p. 23).
The field of business ethics has the multidimensional (multifaceted) nature. Many scholars (Calabretta et al., 2011; Ethics and Compliance Initiative (EIC), 2016; Linuesa-Langreo et al., 2019; Ma, 2009; Ma et al., 2012; Robertson et al., 1999; Uysal, 2010; Vries and Kim, 2011; Wang et al., 2018; Wood, 2017; Xiao et al., 2017) find the differences in the ethical attitudes of people from different cultures. The researchers develop new frameworks and promote the accumulation of knowledge in the domain of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. Gift et al. (2013: 633) support the importance of research of business ethics in different countries by emphasizing “the role for ethical perceptions in future research, and further examination and inquiry into the development and adaptation of ethical perceptions in cross-cultural business dealings.” They believe that when managers consider a business partnership with a foreign partner, their decision may be influenced by the different ethical standards across national culture. Schein (1990) points out that simply telling a person in another culture that an action is unethical may alienate that person. Ardichvili et al. (2010) write that “the consequences related to breakdowns in organizational ethics perpetrated by individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures are a loss in trust, honesty, and integrity” (p. 426). According to Buller et al. (2000), there are some commonly shared ethical values and many differences across national cultures in regards to ethical behavior.
Research indicates there is a relationship between cultural background and ethical attitudes of people, especially in developed and developing societies (Christie et al., 2003; Ermasova et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019; Pittroff, 2014; Trongmateerut and Sweeney, 2013; Zhuang et al., 2005) and that attitudes toward whistleblowing varies significantly among different cultures (Clark et al., 2020; Fleisher and Schmolke, 2012; Pittroff, 2014; Zhuang et al., 2005). Some scholars indicate that the people in group-oriented collectivist cultures may be more critical of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices if these practices represent potential threats to the collective (Christie et al., 2003; Clark et al., 2020; Hwang et al., 2014; Patel, 2003). Hwang et al. (2014) pointed out that individuals in group-oriented collectivist cultures may be less likely to engage in whistleblowing activities. Many researchers found that individuals in individualistic and egalitarian cultures like the United States are more likely to engage in, and be accepting of whistleblowing activities than individuals in collective, hierarchical cultures like China (Apud et al., 2003; Brody et al., 1998, 1999; Dozier and Miceli, 1985; Hwang et al., 2014; Patel, 2003; Stahl, 2017; Su et al., 2007). However, there are very rare studies investigate the business ethics and cultural distinctions, especially those of developed and developing societies.
Cheng (2007) suggests that the role of country context in research is “a critical issue in the advancement of the field. To bring balance to the global and local concerns in future research, we need to pay greater attention to treating country context as ‘analytical variables’, and incorporate their effects into the analysis of the dependent phenomenon under study” (p. 30). There is no comprehensive review exploring the methods, variables, and constructs used in prior studies cross-cultural issues in business ethic based on all the articles published in well-regarded academic journals with an impact factor score of at least 1.0. Many scholars offer prescriptive studies attempting to formulate moral norms and determine what ought to be done (Beauchamp et al., 1997; Bonde and Firenze, 2013; Hite et al., 2015; Posner, 1979; Soltani, 2014; Treviño and Nelson, 2011). Even though recent notable studies (e.g., Alexandra et al., 2017; Ast, 2019; Christie et al., 2003; Ermasova et al., 2017; Stahl et al., 2017) provide new dimensions to cross-cultural issues in business ethics research, there are some unexplored areas where researchers need to pay more attention. This study is the first comprehensive review that covers 35 years of research on cross-cultural issues in business ethics. This study examined empirical articles published in leading business and economics journals between the years 1984 and 2018.
The purpose of this paper is to provide deeper insights, which help us to contribute toward the development of cross-cultural issues of business ethics research field. In this paper, we first synthesize the current state of the literature and research. We conduct a systematic narrative review (Jones, 2004; Jonsen et al., 2011), taking into consideration keyword searches of Business Source Complete, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Oxford Journals, Sage, Academy of Management journals, ABI/Inform, Ebsco, Emerald, Google Scholar, Springer Link, Web of Science, and Wiley, and also searched for non- published manuscripts on Econbiz, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), and Social Science Research Network (SSRN) with particular emphasis on articles that have been cited most (Web of Science).
Second, this research fills the gap in the literature by reviewing and classifying cross-cultural studies of business ethics for highlighting the major contributions in journals. Third, this study provides a citation analysis, to identify and focus on the works recognized as the most influential and impactful articles and authors by the field. This study maps the intellectual structure of cross-cultural issues in business ethics on the basis of changes in citation frequency (which works are cited more often over time). Finally, through this review and knowledge-stock analysis, we illustrate the dominant cultural assumptions in business ethics research and identify its limits and gaps.
Four sections follow. The first section examines the research domain about cross-cultural studies in business ethics that have developed over roughly the past 35 years. In light of the significance of business ethics, it is no surprise that there are many views on the topic, not all consistent with each other. The second section considers the method of analysis. The third section considers the results of research. The final section identifies important gaps in academic and practical understanding of cross-cultural studies in business ethics. The article provides a greater understanding of the use of theories and empirical research of cross-cultural studies in business ethics and identifies avenues for fruitful future research.
Definitions
Business ethics defines what is “appropriate and not appropriate, acceptable and unacceptable in perception and behavior, outline moral conduct according to the ideology of a specific group, and prescribe what humans ought to do” (Ermasova et al., 2018: 359). Cooper (2004: 401) suggests that ethics is “as much about organizational design as it is about analytical and decision-making skills.” According to Lawton (1998), “ethics are a set of principles frequently defined as a code of conduct; that is, a framework for actions” (p. 16). Lewis (1985) proposes a synthesized definition of business ethics, namely, “business ethics is rules, standards, codes, or principles which provide guidelines for morally right behavior and truthfulness in specific situations” (p. 377). Cooper (2004) suggests that ethics is “as much about organizational design as it is about analytical and decision-making skills” (p. 401). According to Beauchamp et al. (1997), ethical person with the right motivations is more likely “to understand what should be done, more likely to be motivated to perform required acts, and more likely to form and act on moral ideals than a morally bad person” (p. 39). Bowman and Knox (2008) write that “ethics is more important than any issue. Because ethics provides the preconditions for the making of good public policy, all policies depend on it” (p. 627).
Theoretical foundation
According to Ermasova et al. (2018), “the influence of cross-cultural differences on the ethics perception has received great attention in the current empirical literature” (p. 361). The comparative research shows that business ethics culture perceptions are not universally shared around the world (Ardichvili et al., 2009, 2010, 2012; Bailey and Spicer, 2007; Cavico and Mujtaba, 2009; Danon-Leva et al., 2010; Ermasova et al., 2017; Farazmand et al., 2011; Ford and Richardson, 1994; Jaffe and Tsimerman, 2005; Jaffe et al., 2018; Kaptein, 2008; Lin, 2002; McCarthy and Puffer, 2008; Morgan and Neal, 2011; Na, 2000; Robertson et al., 2003, 2008; Valette-Florence, 1998). Ardichvili et al. (2010) write that “the consequences related to breakdowns in organizational ethics perpetrated by individuals from diverse backgrounds and cultures are a loss in trust, honesty, and integrity; tarnishing of corporate goodwill and reputation; incurrence of financial penalties and fines (at the corporate and individual level); and conviction and sentencing of corporate executives and employees” (p. 426).
Institutional theory (North, 1990; Scott, 1995) has developed as one of the most important theoretical bases for analyzing the culture perceptions of business ethics in different countries. Integrative social contracts theory (ISCT) scholars agree that “the institutional framework defines the prevailing value system and influences ethical attitudes of major segments of society” (Hisrich et al., 2003: 5). Ralston et al. (1993) described culture as “those beliefs and values that are widely shared in a specific society at a particular point in time.” Ralston et al. (2007) examined the potential impact of economic ideology and national culture on the individual work values on managers in the United States, Russia, Japan, and China.
Bonde and Firenze (2013) write that the theory of ethics consists of meta-ethics (nature of the right as well as the nature and justification of ethical claims); normative ethics; and (3) applied ethics. Many studies use Consequentialism as theoretical foundation for their empirical analysis. According to Mulgan (2009), moderate consequentialist approach recommend the demands of morality, obligations to future generations, the morality of individual reproduction, and international justice.
Modern studies borrow the virtue ethics approach to define the context and examine the business ethics culture perceptions in different countries. Virtue ethics emphasizes the virtues or moral and ethical character in both mind and behavior, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (Ermasova et al., 2018: 362). Farazmand (2017) defines virtue ethics, “as ingrained values form the human characters that are displayed in thought and action with tolerance, respect, justice, fairness, avoidance of harms to self and to others, obligations to common good and adherence to values of public interests” (p. 203). Nussbaum (1993) suggests that a lot of cultural disagreement arises from local understandings of the virtues, but the virtues themselves are not and should not be relative to national culture. According to Ermasova et al. (2018), “modern virtue ethics have always emphasized the importance of moral education, not as the inculcation of rules but as the training of character. In addition, virtue ethics has less difficulty with cultural relativity than the other two approaches” (p. 363).
A lot of cross-cultural empirical studies use Hofstede’s culture dimensions’ theory (Hofstede, 1980, 2001, 2016) provides a framework to describe the effect of a society’s culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behaviors. Many scholars indicate that the people in group-oriented collectivist cultures may be more critical of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices if these practices represent potential threats to the collective (Ermasova et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2014; Lim, 2001; Mujtaba, Tajaddini and Chen, 2011; Patel, 2003, Perks and Smith, 2008). According to Hwang et al. (2014), individuals in group-oriented collectivist cultures may be less likely to engage in whistleblowing activities.
The intercultural competency plays important role today’s global workplace. According to Bird et al. (2010), “intercultural competency has been broadly defined as the ability to function effectively in another culture” (p. 811). The model of cultural sense-making by Osland et al. (2000) proposes that “culture is embedded in the context and cannot be understood fully without taking context into consideration” (p. 65). Bird et al. (2010) highlight the importance of interpersonal engagement that refers to the degree to which “people have a desire and willingness to initiate and maintain relationships with people from other cultures” (p. 817). They provide the definition of self-identity that “refers to the extent to which people maintain personal values independent of situational factors and have a strong sense of personal identity” (p. 819). This model could be used in analysis of business ethics perceptions of working adults in different countries. The model of cultural sense-making by Osland et al. (2000) can be fruitful in future for researchers focusing on cross-cultural issues in business ethics. Model of cultural sense-making can be used as an analytical framework to analyze how culture norms affect the business ethics’ culture perceptions in different countries.
Method
In this study we used systematic literature review method, citation analysis and a knowledge-stock analysis. We conduct a knowledge-stock analysis to assess the evolution and major trends. Additionally, we use citation analysis to provide an accurate description of the content and the advancement of research of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. This study highlights the findings from prior studies, based on the articles published in journals with an impact factor score of at least 1.0. The primary source of materials for this review consists of English-language articles published in academically refereed international business journals, cross-cultural journals, and management journals such as Journal of Business Ethics, Cross Cultural Management: an International Journal (since 2016, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management), International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of World Business, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Strategic Management Journal, Harvard Business Review, and Journal of Management from the mid-1990s through 2018. Most articles were located online using the following databases: Web of Science, Business Source Premier, JSTOR, Wiley Interscience, and ScienceDirect. The sample was subsequently extended with a forward search in Web of Science looking for potentially relevant studies on cross-cultural issues in business ethics. This study used searches in relevant databases and publisher sites: Oxford Journals, Sage, Science Direct; Academy of Management journals, ABI/Inform, Ebsco, Emerald, Google Scholar, Springer Link, Web of Science, and Wiley, and also searched for non- published manuscripts on Econbiz, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), and Social Science Research Network (SSRN).
Snyder (2019), suggested to conduct the literature review in stages “by reading abstracts first and making selections and then reading full-text articles later, before making the final selection. Once this is done and the initial articles (or other relevant literature) have been collected, the texts should be screened in full to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria” (p. 337). In this study were used inter- and intra-coding, the whole literature body were coded two times by two coders separately. In this study were used several search combinations and variations of the term “Cross-cultural issues in business ethics” including business ethics, normative ethics, social responsibility, trust, ethical decision-making, virtual ethic, acculturation and business ethics, whistle-blowing, international business ethic—all in relation to cross-cultural issues in business ethic. In this study we decided to restrict ourselves to articles with the term “cross-cultural” and “business ethics” included in the title/abstract/keywords from the online databases and from the above-mentioned journals to minimize the sample bias to the least possible extent. The final sample of 329 working papers and studies was analyzed in more detail by examining the abstract and full paper. Twenty three studies were dropped in the next step, because they either did not contain a relevant “Cross-cultural issues in business ethics” categorization. The remaining studies were narrowed to the final sample of 306 studies. After that, we built a database of articles with the information collected, with an aim to record the increase in publications on cross-cultural issues in business ethics over the time period of 35 years. We divided our study into different time periods and found 75 articles were published during 1984–2007 and 231 articles during 2007–2018, of 306 articles in our sample.
These data convey that interest in research on cross-cultural studies in business ethics research has significantly increased during the time period 2007–2018. As an outcome, the number of cross-cultural studies in business ethics research articles published during 2007–2018 increased substantially compared to the previous 10 years. We assume that one of the reasons for this is the continued internationalization and globalization policies implemented by most governments in recent years.
Results
The results section has been divided into different parts. First, we have examined the main journals that published cross-cultural studies in business ethics. In the second part, we have examined the countries of the cross-cultural studies in business ethics. Finally, we have reviewed overall contributions of business ethics cross-cultural studies, taking into account the theories and constructs used and journals publishing business ethics studies.
Journals
This study systematically examines cross-cultural issues in business ethics research analyzing 306 articles published during 1984–2018. Due to space restrictions, the complete list of articles, included in our dataset, could not be provided here, but is obtainable from the upon request. Majority publications (33%) were published in Journal of Business Ethics (101 articles of 306 articles in our sample) and Management International Review (34 articles). Business Ethics a European Review, Cross Cultural Management an International Journal (Cross Cultural & Strategic Management), International Journal of Cross Cultural Management and Journal of Business Research are other main journals that published cross-cultural studies in business ethics. We found that the maximum number of articles (101) was published by the Journal of Business Ethics. This result is logical as Journal of Business Ethics is the oldest outlet business journal compared to other journals included in Table 1. Management International Review (34) published the second highest number. These were followed by Business Ethics: A European Review (19); Cross Cultural Management: an International Journal/ Cross Cultural & Strategic Management (18), Journal of World Business (10), International Journal of Cross Cultural Management (9), and Journal of Business Research (9).
Main outlets for the cross-cultural issues in business ethics studies (as on 24 February, 2019).
Source: Prepared by the author.
Based on this, we observed that Journal of Business, Management International Review, Business Ethics: A European Review, Cross Cultural Management: an International Journal (since 2016, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management), and Journal of World Business were the main outlets for cross-cultural issues in business ethics research publication.
Countries studied
This study found that USA, Australia, and China were the countries that were most commonly studied. Other studies have examined cross-cultural issues in business ethics from Canada, England, South Korea, Spain, France, Turkey and Russia. Some researchers studied multiple countries worldwide. Table 2 has the list of home countries most commonly studied by researchers in the business ethics area.
The list of nationality of the persons studied used by researchers in the business ethics area (as on 24 February, 2019).
Source: Prepared by the author.
This study shows that ethical values are based on cultural differences and often driven by different business ethics perceptions. This study is looking at different motivations alongside cultural values and ethical standards. Table 3 presents examples of cross-cultural research of business ethics in academic literature.
The examples of multi-countries cross-cultural research of business ethics in the literature.
Source: Prepared by the author.
According to Garcia et al. (2014), “there are many layers to ethics in some cultures” (p. 319). They found that American managers were “more likely be loyal unto their own personal beliefs when on business, whereas the Korean managers were prone to side on the company line ethically, fitting with the collectivist ideal” (p. 319). Garcia et al. (2014) suggest that “a traditional Eastern business relationship can easily turn toward bribery and corruption, but a sizable portion of the business people sampled play down the risks. It is a cultural norm; therefore, is not easily separated from an ethical standard” (p. 319). Taiwanese culture is a mix between traditional Chinese culture and Western cultures due to its deep root in traditional Chinese culture and its longer exposure to Western cultures (Lim, 2001; Xiao and Ma, 2015). Xiao and Ma (2015) found that “with the higher level of perceived appropriateness of the ethically questionable negotiation strategies, Chinese and Taiwanese negotiators will be more likely to use false promises, misrepresentation, attacking opponent’s network and inappropriate information gathering in business negotiations” (p. 122). Wang et al. (2018) found that “moral foundations and Confucian ethics interacted and jointly affected managers’ positions on the shareholder value model of corporate responsibility” (p. 260).
Many scholars provide the comparative analysis of business ethics in Russia with other countries. The current state of ethical behavior in Russia was created by an underdeveloped system of business law, a unique culture and totalitarian political regimes. Ryvkina (1998) described Russia at the end of the 1990s as “criminal oligarchy with a monopolistic State.” The Russian State had created a corrupted cadre of government bureaucrats, who were frequently engaged in rent-seeking behavior (Ardichvili et al., 2010; Duhamel, 2004; Levin and Satarov, 2000; Nguyen et al., 2015a, 2015b; Safavian and Graham, 2001). The most dramatic opening of corruption opportunities occurred as a consequence of the implementation of shock therapy reform beginning in 1992 (Dawisha and Parrot, 1994; Gerber and Hout (1998); Kneen, 2000; Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova (2005); Puffer and McCarthy, 2002). Frye and Shleifer (1997) described the Russian system at the end of the 1990s as the grabbing-hand model of government with many bureaucrats pursuing their personal goals by securing bribes. Venard (2009) shows that “firms are greatly influenced by the unfair behaviors of their competitors and multinationals in their choice of corrupted behavior when dealing with governments.” (p. 73). The scholars compared ethical perspectives of Russian and US managers (Beekun et al., 2003, 2005; Deshpande et al., 2000; McCarthy and Puffer, 2013; Puffer and McCarthy, 2011). Hisrich et al. (2003) analyzes ethical frameworks in determining behavioral intentions by comparison of Russian business ethics with the USA, Slovenia, and Turkey. Tsalikis and Seaton (2008) provided comparison analysis of Russian consumers’ ethical behavior with consumers in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Hisrich et al. (2003) found that “a high percentage of Americans (60%) as well as Russians (67%) and Slovenians (51%) felt that they had to sacrifice their personal ethics to business goals, while only 16% of Turkish businesspeople felt this way. Respondents did not consider themselves as less ethical than the average person” (p. 16). The authors suggested that Slovenians were on the same level as Americans in the evaluation of legality and fairness of this action but they fell below the American and Turkish levels on the pragmatic dimension of good/bad. Russians displayed the lowest levels of business ethics perception in this study. According to McCarthy and Puffer (2013), Russian managers have to deal with ethical dilemmas more often in their daily business decision making and they are becoming more tolerant of unethical behavior in Russian business practice. In comparison to Russian working adults,
Japanese managers use the concept of Kaizen, or small steps toward perfection (K et al., 2005; Seitz, 2001). The overall improvement between the three areas—employees, environment, or consumers—thereby becomes balanced. Australian individuals “saw self-related values and excitement as more important (e.g. happiness, inner harmony, and an exciting life)” (Feather, 1996).
This study found that most cross-cultural business ethics studies focused on a single country. We suggest to carry out cross-country analysis either for a group of countries or for two countries with similar or dissimilar features and compare the findings. There is need for theory based rationale for the selection of countries, to justify methodological approach. There is a great potential for theoretical extension and theory development in this field, as it covers multi-countries cross-cultural research of business ethics.
Knowledge-stock analysis: Major trends and topics
Based on the literature on cross-cultural research of business ethics, we decided to make a list in which the research goals, constructs and topics that are used most are ranked and classified. This was envisaged to be a tool for classifying theories and constructs with cross-cultural research of business ethics papers and their authors. We conduct a knowledge-stock analysis (Biemans et al., 2007, 2010; Calabretta et al., 2011) to analyze the major trends: articles are classified according to subject area; authors are analyzed in terms of productivity and influence (citations).
According to Collins (2000), main topics in business ethics literature are following: (1) Ethical sensitivities (ethical decision making and individual ethical perceptions); (2) Corporate culture, corporate policies, corporate codes of ethics; (3) Corporate social responsibility (CSR); (4) Business ethics and education, methods and tools for teaching business ethics. (5) Moral theory. (6) Marketing and advertising; (7) “Accounting and finance, namely articles on the morality of accounting practices, of accountants, or of the financial world; popular topics are, for instance, insider trading and accounting frauds” (Calabretta et al., 2011: 504).
This study explores which topics are clustered with each other in shaping the intellectual structure of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. We found following main topics in literature on cross-cultural issues in business ethics: The business environment, institutions and culture perceptions Business education and training in different cultural context Whistleblowing in different cultural context The impact of demographic factors on business ethics perception in different countries Conceptual articles.
This study found that empirical articles dominate the field of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. The increase of empirical articles corresponds to the rise of articles on the business environment, institutions and culture perceptions. There are the lack of conceptual articles discussing the theoretical foundations of cross-cultural issues in business ethics or the virtue ethics in different countries.
This list thus created is presented in Table 4, along with the names of the author(s) and year of publication.
Main topics used in articles on cross-cultural issues in business ethics (as on 24 February, 2019).
Note: *Full references available from the authors.
The business environment, institutions and culture perceptions
The most commonly used construct in cross-cultural research of business ethics studies was business environment, institutions and culture perceptions, with over 142 appearances. The influence of cross-cultural differences on the business ethics perception has received great attention in the current empirical literature. Mayer et al. (2010) suggested that a strong ethical climate is likely to promote convergent norms and shared values in terms of ethical values and behavior. Many researchers found that individuals learn what types of ethical behaviors are acceptable by observing cues and information from their environment (Apressyan, 1997; Beekun et al., 2005; Berger et al., 2017; Ermasova et al., 2017; McCarthy and Puffer, 2008; Molthan-Hill, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2017; Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Tréguer-Felten, 2017; Venard, 2009). People learn ethical or unethical actions from one another through observation, identification, and imitation on workplace and their interactions and experiences with others (Bandura, 1986; Peterson, 2013).
Mayer et al. (2010) suggest that “an ethical climate serves a sense-making function for employees so they know how to respond to ethical issues” (p. 13). Research by Christie et al. (2003) has shown a strong correlation between ethical attitudes of business managers and culture. Many cross-cultural studies analyze acculturation, especially when discussing how immigrants integrate into the host society (Berry, 1997, 2003, 2005; Jaffe et al., 2018; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2011; Leshem and Neeman-Haviv, 2013; Remennick, 2003; Tartakovsky, 2012; Ward, 1996). Berry (2003, 2005, 2006; Phinney, 2003) claims that acculturation is a mutual process that affects all groups in contact with each other. According to Goebel and Weißenberge (2017), “the relationship between ethical work climates and organizational-level outcomes merits further research attention” (p. 18).
Culture refers to the collective programming of minds that distinguishes members of one group from another, and it is a unique character of social groups (Hofstede, 2001). Taras et al. (2016) suggest that culture is a multi-faceted construct that has common element: “(1) a relatively stable, (2) multi-level construct comprised of values, beliefs, norms, traditions, and artifacts that (3) are shared in a given population” (p. 456). According to Goebel and Weißenberge (2017), “the relationship between ethical work climates and organizational-level outcomes merits further research attention” (p. 18).
Business education and training in different cultural context
The second commonly used construct in cross-cultural research of business ethics studies was business education and training, with 36 appearances. Many scholars analyzed the role of business ethics education (Ermasova et al., 2017; Mayer et al., 2010; Nguyen et al., 2014, 2015). Gröschl and Gabaldon (2018) pointed out the relevance of transdisciplinarity to business ethics education in order to suggest that “business leaders will need to make sense of complex challenges in a systemic and integrative way by thinking in synthetic, dynamic, and non-linear ways” (p. 187). Morin considers truly human development to be built on the “joint development of individual autonomy, community participation, and awareness of belonging to the human species” (Morin, 1999, 2004, 2014).
Many researchers found that ethical educational courses have positive effect on business ethics perceptions (Bageac et al., 2011; Ermasova et al., 2017; Eynon et al., 1997; Hiltebeitel and Jones, 1992; Kish-Gephart et al., 2010; Langlois, 2011). Neubaum et al. (2009) highlighted that “college education has been shown to be a powerful experience in the moral development of all students, including those from the business school” (p. 20). Social interactions, professional training, and work environment can impact ethical values and behavior (Ahmed and Machold, 2004; Brown and Treviño, 2006; Mayer et al., 2009; Waples et al., 2009). Many scholars found that ethics training teaches appropriate business behaviors in working place (Higgins et al., 1984; Lysonski and Gaidis, 1991; Palmer and Zakhem, 2001; Phau and Kea, 2007; Saks and Ashforth, 2000; Stening and Skubik, 2007; Thelen and Zhuplev, 2002; Vardi, 2001; Villatoro and Chang, 2014; Whipple and Swords, 1992).
According to Jaffe and Tsimerman (2005), Russian students believe that in order to succeed, one must compromise their ethics. Ermasova et al. (2017) analyzed the business ethics training and education in Russia and found that “professional development focusing on diversity was positively related to reports of ethical behavior for women but no significant relationship was observed for men. The professional development focusing on ethics was positively related to reports of ethical behavior for younger employees but no significant relationship was observed for older employees in Russia” (p. 1).
Gröschl and Gabaldon (2018) highlight “that complex and pressing global socio-economic and environmental challenges will depend heavily on current and future graduates of our business schools and on the business education that they receive” (p. 193). Business schools should promote courses on business ethics, responsible leadership, corporate social responsibility, and social entrepreneurship. Future studies should focus on in-depth analyses of various specific personnel and cultural management control techniques for establishing shared norms and values regarding appropriate business ethics.
Whistleblowing in different cultural context
The third most commonly used construct was whistleblowing in different cultural context. Many scholars of business ethics are attempting to better understand what factors influence the propensity to blow-the-whistle and help limit the possibility of unethical behavior on workplace (Brody et al., 1999; Hwang et al., 2014; Kohn, 2011; Mayer et al., 2010; Nielsen, 2013; Pascoe and Welsh, 2011; Park and Lewis, 2019; Reckers-Sauciuc and Lowe, 2010; Staub, 1978). Nader et al. (1972) emphasizes whistle-blowing as “an act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, blows the whistle that the organization is in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity” (p. 28). Many authors (Hwang et al., 2008; Jubb, 1999; Maroun and Solomon, 2014; Staub, 1978) adopt a similar definition, stressing the importance of acting for the greater good, rather than primarily for self-interest. Many scholars provide evidence that whistle-blowing is one of the most important sources of information for detecting and reducing illegal and unethical corporate behaviors (Hwang at al., 2014; Kohn, 2011; Nielsen, 2013; Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2009). Maroun and Solomon (2014) propose that the whistle-blowing is “the right thing to do.” Many authors suggest that the whistle-blowing is a mean for enhancing transparency (Crotty, 2007; Maroun and Solomon, 2014; Nielsen, 2013; Vecchiatto, 2011).
Research indicates there is a relationship between cultural background and whistle-blowing activities (Hwang et al., 2014; Kaptein, 2011; MacNab et al., 2007; Pittroff, 2014; Trongmateerut and Sweeney, 2013; Zhuang et al., 2005) and that attitudes toward whistle-blowing varies significantly among different cultures (Zhuang et al., 2005). However, there are very rare studies investigate the different propensity on whistle-blowing behavior across country, especially the comparative between two different economics or culture system. Hwang et al. (2008) suggest that “individuals will evaluate their ethicality of whistleblowing, and this evaluation process and its results will affect their decision on whether or not to disclose illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices” (p. 510). Cultural background plays a huge role of attitude toward whistle-blowing. The attitude toward whistle-blowing varies among different cultures significantly (Brody et al., 1999; Dowling, 2008; Keenan and McLain, 1992; Lacayo and Ripley, 2003; MacNab et al., 2007; Martirossian, 2004; Park et al., 2017; Palmer, 2013; Patel, 2003; Pittroff, 2014; Su, 2007; Zhang, 2015; Zhuang et al., 2005).
In the Scandinavian countries, whistle-blowing is approved by the population and supported by government. Keenan (2007) find that Chinese managers are less likely to blow the whistle than their American counterparts. Brody et al. (1999) suggests that the collectivist individuals in Taiwan and China may be less likely to blow the whistle than Americans. In contrast to the USA, Continental European countries and Russia have a more negative association with whistleblowers (Dowling 2008: 12–13; Pittroff, 2014; Schmolke 2012: 229). Whistleblowers are still often seen as villains or traitors (Dowling, 2008: 12–13; Martirossian, 2004: 100; Pittroff, 2014; Schmolke, 2012: 229). According to LeFebvre (2011), U.S. companies require their employees to whistleblowing if they see their colleagues are violating the code and “often provide mechanisms for anonymous reporting in order to encourage this behavior. Very few of the Indian companies had this requirement or provided for anonymous reporting” (p. 403).
According to Batishcheva and Vorontsov (2013), many countries have the culturally specific counter-arguments to whistle-blowing, that are based on negative connotations surrounding whistleblowers. The Russian culture has the attitude toward whistle-blowing as a disloyalty to collective, and even as treachery. Such perception is represented by one of “birthmarks” of the Soviet system where informing, though was officially encouraged, especially in the period of Stalinism, nevertheless perceived by public opinion as unworthy behavior (Lyubarsky, 2006).
Research indicates there is a relationship between cultural background and whistle-blowing activities (Kaptein, 2011; MacNab et al., 2007; Trongmateerut and Sweeney, 2013; Zhuang et al., 2005, Pittroff, 2014) and that attitudes toward whistle-blowing varies significantly among different cultures (Pittroff, 2014; Schmolke, 2012; Zhuang et al., 2005). However, there are very rare studies investigate the different propensity on whistle-blowing behavior across country, especially the comparative between two different economics or culture system.
The impact of demographic factors on business ethics perception in different countries
Christie et al. (2003: 263) find that “in addition to national culture, respondents’ general attitudes toward business ethics are related to their personal integrity; their attitudes toward questionable business practices are related to the external environment and gender, as well as to their personal integrity.” There are mixed findings of relationship between gender and business ethics perception in academic literature. Many scholars found that women are more ethical than men (Betz et al., 1989; Jones and Gautschi, 1988; Malinowski and Berger, 1996; Nguyen et al., 2016). Wang and Calvano (2015) find that women are generally more inclined to act ethically than men. Another group of researchers do not find significant differences between business ethics behavior of men and women (Jazani and Ayoobzadeh, 2012; Tsalikis and Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990).
Gender has been found in previous studies as a significant predictor on perception to whistle-blow (Dalton and Radtke, 2013; Kaplan et al., 2009; Stansbury and Victor, 2009). Dalton and Radtke (2013) found that females have a higher intention for whistle-blowing than males. Kaplan et al. (2009) agreed with this result but he suggested that this result is true only when an anonymous reporting arrangement was available. Many scholars found that age is the important factor in business ethics maturity (Brody et al., 2020; Carrol and Cannon (1997); Ermasova et al., 2017, 2018; Loe et al., 2000; Nguyen et al., 2019). According to Loe et al. (2000), the review of empirical articles found that nearly 50% of relevant studies found significant positive relationships between age and ethical judgments. A meta-analysis by Pan and Sparks (2012) suggested that managers in senior positions are significantly more likely for whistle-blowing than others. However, the quantitative studies found that age and tenure are inconsistent predictors of whistle-blowing intentions (Kaplan et al., 2009; Near and Miceli, 2016).
According to Lee et al. (2018), “a uniform approach to the design and implementation of whistle-blowing regulation may not be effective if transplanted into another country because of its unique history and culture” (p. 2). However, there are very rare studies investigate the different propensity on whistle-blowing behavior across different countries. There is a need for additional rigorous empirical studies on the propensity to whistle-blowing that influenced by national context.
Citation analysis
This study is providing a citation analysis to identify the most influential articles on cross-cultural issues in business ethics. We used the information from Web of Science, computed total number of citations and weighted citation scores for all papers, and rank ordered them. In addition, in this study were computed and included annual average weighted citation score to control for the age of an article. A list of the articles with the highest number of total citation and average weighted citation scores is presented in Table 5 (in deceasing order). The most cited articles (as on 24 February, 2019) are Maignan (2001; 334 citations), Husted (2000; 169 citations), Martin et al. (2007; 167 citations) and Quazi and O’Brien (2000; 160 citations).
Most cited articles cross-cultural issues in business ethics (as on 24 February, 2019).
Source: Prepared by the author.
Conclusions and directions for future research
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of empirical research performed to date on cross-cultural issues in business ethics. This study encourages to continue studying cross-cultural issues in business ethics, since business and management in the USA continue to change in a turbulent and uncertain environment, requiring revisiting those topics. It is essential to continue studying cross-cultural issues in business ethics because it is important for global business managers to have an understanding of their employees from different countries and business partners in other countries.
This study found that empirical articles dominate the field for cross-cultural issues in business ethics. Conceptual articles are in the minority, particularly in the area both the intrinsic theoretical nature of cross-cultural issues in business ethics and for the difficulties in collecting empirical data on ethical issues in different countries. There are need for conceptual articles in the field for cross-cultural issues in business ethics. The future conceptual articles could investigate the business environment and institutions, including factors like the political environment and globalization, in the research of the cross-cultural issues in business ethics. Future conceptual studies can identify the theories, methodologies, methods that underlie similarities and differences between business ethics perceptions in individual and group-oriented culture, in developed and developing societies.
Although virtue ethics has grown remarkably in the last 50 years, it is still in the minority, particularly in the area of cross-cultural issues in business ethics. However, the last decade has seen an increase in the amount of attention applied virtue ethics has received (Ermasova et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2016a, 2016b; Nussbaum, 1993; US Office of Government Ethics, 2017; Zagzebski, 2004). This area can certainly be expected to grow in the future, and it looks as though applying virtue ethics and model of cultural sense-making by Osland et al. (2000) in the field of cross-cultural issues in business ethics may prove particularly fruitful.
This study contributes to the business ethics literature in several ways. First, this paper has provided substantial information on a wide range of theoretical and empirical topics in cross-cultural studies on business ethics to serve as a foundation for future research. Second, this study encourages further continue studying cross-cultural issues in business ethics, since global business and management continue to change in a turbulent and uncertain environment, requiring revisiting those topics. It is essential to continue studying cross-cultural issues in business ethics because it is important for global business managers to understand of their employees from different countries and business partners in other countries. Also it is could help to improve their own company’s ethical standards. Finally, this paper offers an extensive review of publications on cross-cultural issues in business ethics organized by topics that would also be likely subjects for future research.
These study findings have four practical implications. First, this research can better prepare managers for the international business environment in different countries. Second, this research makes an important contribution to understanding business ethics perceptions across multiple cultures. The results of this study will help auditors and managers better assess risk and the effectiveness of internal controls and ethical standards. The personal business perceptions of people in different countries are dissimilar. Understanding these differences can benefit those who deal with this workforce tremendously. Second, this study has practical implications for HRM practices in international firms and cross cultural leadership training. The organization will have significant competitive advantage from the correct adaptation and alignment of the firm’s management practices with the national culture. Third, this study pointed out that cultural diversity in a workplace could provide for the confluence of disparate ideas from different cultures, including business ethics perceptions and whistleblowing. The appropriate combination of perspectives from different cultures could help to address business problems in the global economy. Fourth, this study shows that there are different business ethics perceptions and propensity on whistleblowing behavior across country, especially in developed and developing societies. different economics or culture system. Managers of multinational firms should also take into account the different attitudes toward whistleblowing in countries with different corporate governance systems. Introducing anonymous hotlines or financial rewards in different countries is not only challenging from a legal viewpoint but also from a cultural viewpoint because the norms and beliefs of society toward whistleblowers might differ. Due to these different attitudes toward whistle-blowers in different countries, financial rewards should not be offered in a culture that regards whistle-blowers as traitors or denunciators (Clark et al., 2020). Protection against dismissal could be more appropriate in order to preserve a system that promotes a long-term relationship between employee and employer (Clark et al., 2020; Ermasova et al., 2021; Pittroff, 2014). The regulators should actively influence the norms and beliefs of the society so that whistle-blowing is considered to be a legitimate action. If whistleblowing is perceived as an act of great loyalty, the moral dilemma will disappear because the whistleblowing acts in line with the organization’s goals.
Future studies should analyze how different social, political, and cultural factors affect the ethical attitudes of working adults. For this, surveys from a large number of countries need to be collected to allow for greater variance in the variables. There is necessity for theory-based rationale for the selection of countries, to justify methodological approach. The context-specific work can be extended in comparative studies that can produce valuable results by comparing business ethic in the USA not only with other developed economies like European countries and Japan, but also with emerging and developing economies. Another interesting direction for future research is assessing the relevance of cross-cultural issues in business ethics research to practitioners. More attention should be spent on inquiring whether more can be done for practitioners.
Future studies should analyze the influence of different social, political, and cultural factors on the ethical perceptions of working adults. Among the opportunities for future research in the area of business ethics, constructs such as multi-countries cross-cultural research of business ethics; business education and training in different cultural context; and whistleblowing protection need further attention. The context-specific work can be extended in comparative studies that can produce potentially more valuable results by comparing business ethic in the USA not only with other developed economies like European countries and Japan, but also with emerging and developing economies.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
