Author
Listed:
- John Tsalikis
- Michelle Van Solt
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to measure differences on the business ethics index (BEI) between respondents of different political affiliations (i.e. democrats, republicans and independents). The BEI was originally developed as an indicator of consumers’ sentiments toward the ethicality of business practices. Design/methodology/approach - Data collection was conducted by ORC International Telephone CARAVAN®. The study was conducted using two probability samples of 1,008 adults (18 years old and older) living in the continental United States. Findings - The data demonstrate that republicans feel more positive on all three components (i.e. personal/past, vicarious/past, and future) and on the overall BEI compared to democrats and independents. Research limitations/implications - The limitations of the study include that the data include political affiliation and not actual voting behavior. One can assume there is a high correlation between the two; however, many US voters do not actually take the time to vote might attenuate this relationship. A future application of the BEI will attempt to capture real voting patterns and not only political affiliation. Practical implications - The data confirm the political and ideological schism evident in the US at the present time. At a time where almost all the centers of political power (Presidency, Senate and Parliament) are being controlled by the GOP, republican voters are more optimistic about the future ethical behavior of businesses. Social implications - Beyond political ideology, ethical behavior by business is crucial to the integrity of the economic system both at the national and international level. Originality/value - This is the first time that consumers’ ethical perceptions, as measured by the BEI, were associated with people’s political affiliations.
Suggested Citation
John Tsalikis & Michelle Van Solt, 2019.
"Business ethics index: the impact of political affiliation,"
Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(7), pages 949-955, June.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:srjpps:srj-01-2019-0014
DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-01-2019-0014
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:srjpps:srj-01-2019-0014. 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.