Skip to main content
Log in

The Moral Floor: A Philosophical Examination of the Connection Between Ethics and Business

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the philosophical basis for the argument that there is a connection between ethical behavior and profitability. Both sides of this argument – that good ethics is good business and that bad ethics is bad business – are explored. The possibility of a moral floor above which ethical behavior is not rewarded is considered, and an economic experiment testing such a proposition is discussed. Johnson & Johnson suffers a potentially devastating blow when some cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules cause several deaths. Johnson & Johnson voluntarily pulls Tylenol off the shelf, to universal acclaim. When Tylenol is returned to the marketplace, its share of the over-the-counter painkiller market becomes greater than it was before the tragedy. Arthur Andersen, the venerable accounting firm, is caught in the web surrounding the downfall of Enron, Inc. As Enron’s various sins are discovered, it is found that Arthur Andersen auditors had signed off on flawed audits and had shredded documents to cover themselves. Andersen is prosecuted for, and convicted of, obstructing justice (although the conviction is later overturned). Today the firm barely exists and has no resemblance to the Big Five accounting giant of 1999. These stories seem to indicate that ethical (or unethical) behavior leads to positive (or negative) financial results. But the philosophical arguments underpinning such statements are seldom subjected to proper analysis. They are perhaps wishful thinking, or perhaps based on examples such as the above without considering other examples that may reinforce a contrary position. This paper will explore the philosophical arguments and empirical evidence regarding these statements and state some research questions for exploration in this area. In particular we will propose the possibility that a moral floor exists above which firms that engage in ethical activities will not reap rewards, but below which firms that engage in unethical activities will be punished by actors in the economic marketplace. We will discuss an economic experiment to determine if such actors indeed form a moral floor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D. 2005. Neuroeconomics: Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience can Inform Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43, 9–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGeorge, R.T. 1995. Business ethics (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., and Preston, L.E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A., and Barnett, M.L. 2000. Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105 (1): 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., and Shanley, M. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. 1997. Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth: A meta-analysis of event studies. Business & Society, 36: 221–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell, G., and Wang, J. 1994. The Fortune corporate reputation index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J.J., and Mahon, J.F. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36: 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C.E. Jr. 1997. Applying moral theories (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A.J., and Keim, G.D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, R.B., D’Antonio, L., and Johnsen, T. 1998. Socially responsible investing: Growing issues and new opportunities. Business & Society, 37: 281–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93: 1449–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koys, D.J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54: 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1996. Moral politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J.D., and Walsh, J.P. 2001. People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E. 2004. Stakeholder salience, structural development, and firm performance: Structural and performance correlates of sociopolitical stakeholder management strategies. Business and Society, 43, 1: 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., and Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. 1998. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa

  • Orlitzky, M. 2002. People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance [review]. International journal of organizational analysis, 10: 191–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzsky, M., Schmidt, F.L., and Rynes, S.L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24: 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, L.S. 2003. Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. New York: McGraw–Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrick, J.A., Scherer, R.F., Brodzinski, J.D., Quinn, J.F., and Ainina, M.F. 1999. Global leadership skills and reputational capital: Intangible resources for sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 13 (1): 58–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L.E., and O’Bannon, D.P. 1997. The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36: 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S., and Agle, B.R. 1999. The relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business & Society, 38: 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T.J., and Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39: 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J., and Paul, K. 2001. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J. and J. A. Tribo: 2005. ‹The Corporate Social and Financial Performance Relationship: What’s the Ultimate Determinant’? Academy of Management Proceedings, E1–E6

  • Waddock, S.A., and Graves, S.B. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., and Graves, S.B. 2000. Performance characteristics of social and traditional investments. Journal of Investing, 9: 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael G. Goldsby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burton, B.K., Goldsby, M.G. The Moral Floor: A Philosophical Examination of the Connection Between Ethics and Business. J Bus Ethics 91, 145–154 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0074-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0074-4

Keywords

Navigation