Author
Abstract
Purpose - This paper aims to make suggestions for addressing the apparent failure of business schools to communicate good ethical decision-making skills to students studying in postsecondary institutions. Design/methodology/approach - At the beginning of university management classes, a form is distributed to students outlining a short scenario that requires a course of action. The two questions asked, based on this decision context, are (i) is it ethical to offer bribes to secure construction contracts in countries where this practice is considered an acceptable way of conducting business and (ii) has the student completed an ethics course at the university? Findings - The scenario described is what occurred at SNC Lavalin, a Canadian construction company that was charged and convicted with offering illegal inducements to foreign officials (in Libya) to secure large government construction contracts. Ethically, the “right” decision would be to not offer bribes; this is because they are illegal when offered both in the Canada and in foreign jurisdictions. The response results to the survey questionnaire showed that 21% of the students thought that bribery was acceptable, if it was a customary business practice in the country where the transaction occurred, and 93% of these students had taken an ethics course. It was interesting to note that almost all the students, who had not taken a business ethics courses, thought that bribery is not acceptable under the circumstances described. Originality/value - To address the apparent failure to communicate good ethical decision-making skills, this essay suggests that when teaching business ethics, there should a clearer focus on (i) the distinction between morality and ethics; (ii) the problem posed by relativism; and (iii) the reasoning behind ethical standards. This approach is novel in that it makes sense from the perspective of both a business practitioner and university educator.
Suggested Citation
Ron Peter Messer, 2023.
"How to do the right thing,"
Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 36(2/3), pages 217-229, April.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:arjpps:arj-08-2022-0214
DOI: 10.1108/ARJ-08-2022-0214
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eme:arjpps:arj-08-2022-0214. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.