Chapter 2 – Organizational justice, ethics, and corporate social responsibility
Bottom-line mentality
Code of ethics
Cognitive moral development
Conventional level of moral reasoning
Corporate ethics programs
Corporate social responsibility
Counternorms
Distributive justice
Ethical imperialism
Ethical relativism
Ethics
Ethics audit
The belief that an organization’s financial
success is the only thing that matters.
A document describing what an organization
stands for and the general rules of conduct
expected of employees (e.g., to avoid conflicts of
interest, to be honest, and so on)
Differences among people in the capacity to
engage in the kind of reasoning that enables
them to make moral judgments.
In Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral
development, the level attained by most people,
in which they judge right and wrong in terms of
what is good for others and society as a whole.
Formal, systematic efforts designed to promote
ethics by making people sensitive to potentially
unethical behavior and discouraging them from
engaging in unethical acts.
Business practices that adhere to ethical values
that comply with legal requirements, that
demonstrate respect for individuals, and that
promote the betterment of the community at
large and the environment.
Practices that are accepted within an
organization despite the fact that they are
contrary to the prevailing ethical standards of
society at large.
The form of organizational justice that focuses
on people’s beliefs that they have received fair
amounts of valued work-related outcomes (e.g.,
pay, recognition, etc..)
The belief that the ethical standards of one’s
own country should be imposed when doing
business in other countries ( the opposite of
ethical relativism)
The belief that no culture’s ethics are better
than any other’s and that there are no
internationally acceptable standards of right and
worn ( the opposite of ethical imperialism).
Standards of conduct that guide people’s
decisions and behavior (e.g. not stealing from
others).
The practice of assessing an organization’s
ethical practices by actively investigating and
documenting incidents of dubious ethical value,
discussing them in an open and honest fashion,
and developing a concrete plan to avoid such
actions in the future.
Ethics committee
Ethics hotlines (ethics helplines)
Ethics officer
Exploitative mentality
Fair process effect
Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations
Group-value explanation (of organizational
justice)
Informational justice
Interpersonal justice
Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral
development
Madison Avenue mentality
Moral values (morals)
Multifoci approach to justice
Organizational justice
Postconventional level of moral reasoning
A group composed of senior-level managers
from various areas of an organization who assist
an organization’s CEO in making ethical decisions
by developing and evaluating company-wide
ethics policies.
Special telephone lines that employees can call
to ask questions about ethical behavior and to
report anonymously any ethical misdeeds they
may have observed.
A high-ranking organizational official (e.g. the
general counsel of vice president of ethics) who
is expected to provide strategies for ensuring
ethical conduct throughout an organization.
The belief that one’s own immediate interests
are more important than concern for others.
The tendency for people to better accept
outcomes into which they have had some input
in determining than when they have no such
involvement.
Guidelines for federal judges to follow when
imposing penalties on organizations (e.g.
restitution, fines, etc.) found guilty of breaking
federal laws.
The idea that people believe they are an
important part of the organization when an
organizational official takes the time to explain
thoroughly to them the rationale behind a
decision.
People’s perceptions of the fairness of the
information used as the basis for making a
decision.
People’s perceptions of the fairness of the
manner in which they are treated by others
(typically, authority figures).
The theory based on the idea that people
develop over the years in their capacity to
understand what is right and wrong.
A way of viewing the world according to which
people are more concerned about how things
appear to others than how they really are – that
is, the appearance of doing the right thing
matters more than the actual behavior.
People’s fundamental beliefs regarding what is
right or wrong, good or bad.
A conceptualization of organizational justice
recognizing that people take into account both
individuals and larger units when assessing
fairness.
The study of people’s perceptions of fairness in
organizations.
In Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral
Preconventional level of moral reasoning
Procedural justice
Pyramid of corporate social responsibility
SOX, Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Stonewalling
Virtuous circle
development, the level at which people judge
what is right and wrong not solely in terms of
their interpersonal and societal obligations, but
in terms of complex philosophical principles of
duty, justice and rights
In Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral
development, the level at which people (e.g.
young children and some adults) haven’t yet
developed the capacity to assume the
perspective of others, leading them to interpret
what is right solely with respect to themselves.
People’s perceptions of the fairness of the
procedures used to determine the outcomes
they receive.
The term used to describe an organization’s four
most basic forms of responsibility, in order from
economic responsibility, to legal responsibility,
to ethical responsibility, to philanthropic (i.e.
charitable) responsibility.
A law enacted to guard against future
accounting scandals (such as occurred at Enron),
by initiating reforms in the standards by which
public companies report accounting data.
The practice of willingly hiding relevant
information by being secretive and deceitful,
which occurs when organizations punish
individuals who are open and honest and reward
those who go along with unethical behavior.
The tendency for companies that are successful
financially to invest in social causes because they
can afford to do so (i.e. they “do good by doing
well”) and for socially responsible companies to
perform well financially (i.e. they “do well by
doing good”).