IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v10y2000i04p773-803_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral Decision Making in Business: A Phase-Model

Author

Listed:
  • Geva, Aviva

Abstract

The traditional model of ethical decision making in business suggests applying an initial set of principles to a concrete problem and if they conflict the decision maker may attempt to balance them intuitively. The centrality of the ethical conflict in the accepted notion of “ethical problem” has diverted the attention of moral decision modelers from other ethical problems that real-world managers must face—e.g., compliance problems, moral laxity, and systemic problems resulting from the structures and practices of the business organization. The present article proposes a new model for ethical decision making in business—the Phase-model—designed to meet the full spectrum of business-related ethical problems. Drawing on the dominant moral theories in business literature, the model offers additional strategies for tackling ethical issues beyond the traditional cognitive operations of deductive application of principles to specific cases and the balancing of ethical considerations. Its response to the problems of moral pluralism in the context of decision making lies in its structural features. The model distinguishes between three phases of the decision-making process, each having a different task and a different theoretical basis. After an introductory stage in which the ethical problem is defined, the first phase focuses on a principle-based evaluation of a course of action; the second phase provides a virtue-based perspective of the situation and strategies for handling unsettled conflicts and compliance problems; and the third phase adapts the decision to empirical accepted norms. An illustrative case demonstrates the applicability of the model to business real life.

Suggested Citation

  • Geva, Aviva, 2000. "Moral Decision Making in Business: A Phase-Model," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 773-803, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:10:y:2000:i:04:p:773-803_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00001044/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. O.C. Ferrell & Linda Ferrell & Jennifer Sawayda, 2015. "A review of ethical decision-making models in marketing," Chapters, in: Handbook on Ethics and Marketing, chapter 3, pages 38-60, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Aviva Geva, 2006. "A Typology of Moral Problems in Business: A Framework for Ethical Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 133-147, December.
    3. Daniel Holland & Chad Albrecht, 2013. "The Worldwide Academic Field of Business Ethics: Scholars’ Perceptions of the Most Important Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 777-788, November.
    4. Uwaoma Ironkwe & Ordu Promise A., 2015. "The Place of Ethics in Entrepreneurship: The Nigerian Perspective," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 45-55, August.
    5. Yotam Lurie & Robert Albin, 2007. "Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics: From Decision Procedures to Edifying Perspectives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 195-207, March.
    6. Dianru Zhang & Chi Zhang & Li Wang, 2023. "Preventing Moral Crisis and Promoting Sustainable Development in Enterprises: A Study of Managers’ Moral Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Till Talaulicar, 2007. "Normierungsansätze unternehmensethischer Kodizes," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 752-774, September.
    8. Christian Julmi, 2024. "Analysis and Intuition Effectiveness in Moral Problems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 179-193, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:10:y:2000:i:04:p:773-803_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.