Author
Abstract
Since 2013, mortgage advisory has become an independent profession in the Netherlands. Initially working for mortgage providers, the newly nonpartisan advisers now work for standard advisory fees, thereby reducing conflicts of interest. In this article, I provide an ethical analysis of the different types of ethos of mortgage advisers, that is, the ways they see and talk about, and relate to their work in a certain way. The central research question is: What different kinds of ethos do mortgage advisers have, and which moral dilemmas do they experience in their advisory work? The existence of moral dilemmas is controversial in ethics but nonetheless experienced in real‐world business practice. An “ethological” understanding of morality is developed in this paper to understand how these dilemmas are experienced. Twenty‐nine mortgage advisers have participated in Q methodological research, a mixed qualitative–quantitative small‐sample method. Three different types of ethos were found: Principled Advisers, Moral Advisers, and Minimal Morality Advisers. In considering these three types, I argue that many mortgage advisers should professionalize their ethical stance and learn to address situations in which moral values are neglected. Business ethicists, in turn, need to acknowledge that something may be considered morally inappropriate but is still defensible in some other sense. In this paper, I develop a “layered” conception of business ethics that broadens the perspective from universal notions, such as “rights” and “duties,” toward a concrete ethos that people have in a certain professional practice.
Suggested Citation
Jelle van Baardewijk, 2024.
"Ethics of mortgage advisers in the Netherlands: Professional attitudes and moral dilemmas,"
Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 65-79, January.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:buseth:v:33:y:2024:i:1:p:65-79
DOI: 10.1111/beer.12595
Download full text from publisher
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:wly:buseth:v:33:y:2024:i:1:p:65-79. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.