Skip to main content
Log in

The Effects of Corporate Ethical Values and Personal Moral Philosophies on Ethical Intentions in Selling Situations: Evidence from Turkish, Thai, and American Businesspeople

Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goals of this study are to test a pattern of ethical decision making that predicts ethical intentions of individuals within corporations based primarily on the ethical values embedded in corporate culture, and to see whether that model is generally stable across countries. The survey instrument used scales to measure the effects of corporate ethical values, idealism, and relativism on ethical intentions of Turkish, Thai, and American businesspeople. The samples include practitioner members of the American Marketing Association in the U.S., and full-time businesspeople enrolled in executive MBA programs in Thailand and Turkey. The study is positioned within a fairly new stream that assesses patterns across countries, rather than differences between them, in a way that might be called “culture free.” The results show a generally positive influence between cultural ethical values and ethical intentions. The results also indicate that the positive effect of corporate ethical values on ethical intentions is greater for managers with low idealism and high relativism. We also discuss the implications of our results for managers of international businesses.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(August), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attia, A., Shankarmahesh, M. N., & Singhapakdi, A. (1999). Marketing ethics: A comparison of American and middle-eastern marketers. International Business Review, 8, 611–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. W., Lee, N., Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 907–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. W., Paul, N. J., Salminen, R. T., Puumalainen, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2001). Key antecedents to ‘Export’ market-oriented behaviors: A cross-national empirical examination. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18, 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (2000). Ethics and marketing management: A retrospective and prospective commentary. Journal of Business Research, 50, 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Petrova, P. K., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). The hidden costs of organizational dishonesty. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(3), 67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote, J., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August), 315–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties that bind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornoff, R. J., & Tankersley, C. B. (1975). Perceptual differences in market transactions: a source of consumer frustration. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 9, 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(Summer), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Gresham, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (1989). A synthesis of ethical decision models for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 9(2), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(May), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Chonko, L. B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing, 48(Summer), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 8(Spring), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1993). The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. In N. C. Smith & J. A. Quelch (Eds.), Ethics in marketing. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karande, K., Rao, C. P., & Singhapakdi, A. (2002). Moral philosophies of marketing managers: A comparison of American, Australian, and Malaysian cultures. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 768–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Vashchilko, T. (2010). Dyadic military conflict, security alliances, and bilateral FDI flows. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5), 765–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta, J. K. M., Attia, A., Singhapakdi, A., & Atteya, N. (2003). A comparison of ethical perceptions and moral philosophies of American and Egyptian business students. Teaching Business Ethics, 7, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta, J. K. M., Singhapakdi, A., Attia, A., & Vitell, S. J. (2004). Some important factors underlying ethical decisions of middle-eastern marketers. International Marketing Review, 21(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta, J. K. M., Singhapakdi, A., & Higgs-Kleyn, N. (2001). Corporate ethical values in South Africa. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(6), 755–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta, J., Singhapakdi, A., & Kraft, K. (2008). Personal characteristics underlying ethical decisions in marketing situations: A survey of small business managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 589–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. E. (1989). Creating ethical corporate structures. Sloan Management Review, 30(2), 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R. E., Robin, D. P., & Dawson, L. (1991). An application and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected marketing practices and marketing groups. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(2), 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samiee, S., & Athanassiou, N. (1998). International strategy research: Cross-cultural methodology implications. Journal of Business Research, 43(2), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A. (1999). Perceived importance of ethics and ethical decisions in marketing. Journal of Business Research, 45, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Gopinath, M., Marta, J. K. M., & Carter, L. L. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of perceived importance of ethics in marketing situations: A study of Thai business people. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 887–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Kraft, K., Vitell, S., & Rallapalli, K. (1995a). The perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility on organizational effectiveness: A survey of marketers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Marta, J. K. M., Rao, C. P., & Cicic, M. (2001). Is cross-cultural similarity an indicator of similar marketing ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 32(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Rallapalli, K. C., Rao, C. P., & Vitell, S. J. (1995b). Personal and professional values underlying ethical decisions: A comparison of American and Thai marketers. International Marketing Review, 12(4), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Salyachivin, S., Virakul, B., & Veerayangkur, V. (2000). Some important factors underlying ethical decision making of managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 271–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. J. (1994). Ethical ideologies of future marketers: The relative influences of Machiavellianism and Gender. Journal of Marketing Education, 16(1), 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., & Vitell, S. (2007). Institutionalization of ethics and its consequences: A survey of marketing professionals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 284–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S., & Franke, G. (1999). Antecedents, consequences, and mediating effects of perceived moral intensity and personal moral philosophies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1998). Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: Conceptualization, measurement and exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2004). A cross-cultural study of the antecedents of the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Rallapalli, K., & Singhapakdi, A. (1993). Marketing norms: The influences of personal moral philosophies and organizational ethical culture. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(Fall), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by a grant from Thailand Research Fund. The authors also wish to thank Somboon Salyachivin, Busaya Virakul, and Vinich Veerayangkur for their assistance with data collection in Thailand. The data collection in the U.S. was supported by Old Dominion University’s CBPA Research Grant. The authors also wish to thank Sezi Cevik Onar for her help during the analysis phase of the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anusorn Singhapakdi.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Measurement Scales

Corporate Ethical Values

  1. 1.

    Managers in my company often engage in behaviors that I consider to be unethical.

  2. 2.

    In order to succeed in my company, it is often necessary to compromise one’s ethics.

  3. 3.

    Top management in my company has let it be known in no uncertain terms that unethical behaviors will not be tolerated.

  4. 4.

    If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in personal gain (rather than corporate gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded.

  5. 5.

    If a manager in my company is discovered to have engaged in unethical behavior that results primarily in corporate gain (rather than personal gain), he or she will be promptly reprimanded.

Moral Philosophies (Items 1–10 measure idealism; items 11–20 measure relativism)

  1. 1.

    A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree.

  2. 2.

    Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.

  3. 3.

    The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.

  4. 4.

    One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.

  5. 5.

    One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and welfare of another individual.

  6. 6.

    If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.

  7. 7.

    Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral.

  8. 8.

    The dignity and welfare of people should be the most important concern in any society.

  9. 9.

    It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others.

  10. 10.

    Moral actions are those which closely match the ideals of the most “perfect” action.

  11. 11.

    There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be a part of any code of ethics.

  12. 12.

    What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.

  13. 13.

    Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.

  14. 14.

    Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to “rightness”.

  15. 15.

    Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up to the individual.

  16. 16.

    Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave, and are not to be applied in making judgments of others.

  17. 17.

    Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed to formulate their own individual codes.

  18. 18.

    Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in the way of better human relations and adjustment.

  19. 19.

    No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is permissible or not permissible totally depends on the situation.

  20. 20.

    Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends on the circumstances surrounding the action.

Source: Forsyth (1980)

Appendix 2: Selling Ethics Scenarios

Scenario 1: Misleading the Appraiser (Reidenbach et al. 1991)

An automobile salesperson is told by a customer that a serious engine problem exists with a trade-in. However, because of the salesperson’s desire to make the sale, the sales person does not inform the used car appraiser at the dealership and the problem is not identified.

Action: The salesperson closes the deal that includes the trade-in.

Scenario 2: Over-Eager Salesperson (Dornoff and Tankersley 1975)

A young man, recently hired as a salesperson for a local retail store, has been working very hard to favorably impress his boss with his selling ability. At times, this young man, anxious for an order, has been a little over-eager. To get the order, he exaggerates the value of the item or withholds relevant information concerning the product he is trying to sell. No fraud or deceit is intended by his actions, he is simply over-eager.

Action: His boss, the owner of the retail store, is aware of this salesperson’s actions, but he has done nothing to stop such practice.

Scenario 3: Withholding Information (Dornoff and Tankersley 1975)

Sets of well-known brand of “good” china dinnerware are advertised on sale at a considerable discount by a local retailer. Several patterns of a typical 45-piece service for eight are listed. The customer may also buy any “odd” pieces which are available in stock. The ad does not indicate, however, that these patterns have been discontinued by the manufacturer.

Action: The retailer offers this information only if the customer directly asks if the merchandise is discontinued.

Scenario 4: Failure to Honor a Warranty (Dornoff and Tankersley 1975)

A person bought a new car from a franchised automobile dealership in the local area. Eight months after the car was purchased, he began having problems with the transmission. He took the car back to the dealer and some minor adjustments were made. During the next few months he continually had a similar problem with the transmission slipping. Each time the dealer made only minor adjustments on the car. Again, during the thirteenth month after the car had been bought, the man returned to the dealer because the transmission still was not functioning properly. At this time, the transmission was completely overhauled.

Action: Since the warranty was for only one year (12 months from the date of purchase), the dealer charged the full price for parts and labor.

Appendix 3: Test for Validity of Ethical Intention Measure

None of the variables included in this study are appropriate to test the validity of the ethical intention item, so we used another criterion variable on which we had collected data: perceived importance of ethics. The PIES scale is a subset of items from the PRESOR scale (Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility: Singhapakdi et al. 1995b), which was designed to capture the degree of a respondent’s perception about the importance of ethics and social responsibility for an organization’s effectiveness. Items include: “Social responsibility and profitability can be compatible” and “The ethics and social responsibility of a firm is essential to its long-term profitability.” Previous work (e.g., Marta et al. 2004; Singhapakdi 1999) has found a strong positive relationship between PIES or PRESOR and ethical intention.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marta, J., Singhapakdi, A., Lee, DJ. et al. The Effects of Corporate Ethical Values and Personal Moral Philosophies on Ethical Intentions in Selling Situations: Evidence from Turkish, Thai, and American Businesspeople. J Bus Ethics 106, 229–241 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0992-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0992-9

Keywords

Navigation