Research and Ideas

Caitlin Ring Carlson, Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Communication & Media, Seattle University

This discussion brings the most recent research regarding corporate social responsibility to bear on the most pressing questions about digital content moderation. The discussion begins with an overview of the content moderation process and then makes a case for why corporate social responsibility can and should be used to offer fresh insights into these complex questions. It then undertakes a thought exercise, which uses the four major theories of modern corporate social responsibility, to determine what guidance these approaches can provide social media companies. The end result of this analysis is a set of recommendations and potential directions for social media organizations to consider in their decision-making around content moderation. Any firm wrestling can utilize the process itself with complex ethical questions regarding the impact of its business practices.

Read and Download (PDF)

Onur Bakiner, Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Political Science, Seattle University

This discussion identifies major risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, introduces the reader to the terms of today’s debates on the ethical uses of AI, defined as attempts to understand, criticize, reform and transform AI systems for social good, and then examines proposed solutions to mitigate or eliminate these risks. It pays specific attention to the interaction of business- and industry-level solutions with government regulation and draws upon the latest academic research on AI ethics as well as news coverage of the topic. 

Read and Download (PDF)

Marc Cohen, Faculty Fellow and Professor of Management and Philosophy, Seattle University

This paper explores how to build a culture of trust in organizations. The experimental research shows that a culture of trust is created when leaders treat employees and other business partners as if they are reliable, even when there is little information to be had about their reliability. The research also suggests that attempts to monitor and control the actions of employees and partners can backfire, creating less trustworthy behavior. Finally, there are ongoing positive effects of trusting behavior, economically and psychologically, which reduces opportunistic behavior within and between organizations.

Read and Download (PDF)

Valentina Zamora, Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Accounting, Seattle University

This paper highlights some key insights from academic research on corporate social responsibility disclosures (CSRD) and their perceived credibility. Research suggests that companies need to provide credibility cues regarding the knowledge, veracity, and intent standing behind their CSRD. Accordingly, different stakeholders, including investors, consumers, and employees, judge CSRD as more credible when the disclosures are: assured by third parties users deem as reliable; mapped to an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) measurement framework users view as relevant; and aligned with actions reflective of the company’s authentic commitment to corporate social responsibility.

Read and Download (PDF)

• Applegate, D. (2019). Assessing and controlling nonprofit fraud risk. Strategic Finance

• Gerety, M., Lehn, K. (1997). The causes and consequences of accounting fraud. Managerial and Decision Economics 18(7): 587-599.

• Hayes, D., Hurtt, K., Bee, S. (2006). The war on fraud – cheating in the classroom. Journal of College Teaching Learning 3(2). 

• Kimbro, M. (2011). Corruption primer: the role of culture, religion, wealth and governance. Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting 3(3): 166-193.

• Kimbro, M. (2002). A cross-country empirical investigation of corruption and its relationship to economic, cultural and institutional variables. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 17(4): 325-350.

• Le, Q., Rishi, M. (2006). Corruption and capital flight: an empirical assessment. International Economic Journal 20(4): 523-540.

• Adut, D., Holder, A., Robin, A. (2013). Predictive versus opportunistic earnings management, executive compensation and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 32(3):126‐146.

• Adut, D., Cready, W., Lopez, T. (2003). Restructuring charges and CEO cash compensation: a reexamination. The Accounting Review 78(1): 169‐192.

• Chipalkatti, N. (2007). Portfolio equity flows to emerging markets: do corporate transparency and public governance matter? Business and Society Review 112(2).

• Diavatopoulos, D. & Fodor, A. (2016). Does corporate governance matter for equity returns? Journal of Accounting and Finance 16(5): 39-59.

• Emm, E., Gay, G., Lin, C. (2007). Choices and best practice in corporate risk management disclosure. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 19(4): 82-93.

• Gold, D. & Dienhart, J. (2007). Business ethics in the corporate governance era. Business and Society Review 112(2): 163-170.

• Kaplan, S. & Zamora, V. (2018). The effects of current income attributes on nonprofessional investors’ say-on-pay judgments: does fairness still matter? Journal of Business Ethics 153(2): 407-425.

• Kimbro, M. & Xu, D. (2016). Shareholders have a say on executive compensation: evidence from say-on-pay in the U.S. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy 35(1): 19-42.

• Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T., Magnan, G. (2018). How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 25(8): 672-682.

• Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., Zamora, V. (2018). CSR disclosure items used as fairness heuristics in the investment decision. Journal of Business Ethics 152(1): 275-289.

• Brown-Liburd, H., Zamora, V. (2015). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in investors’ judgments when managerial pay is explicitly tied to CSR performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34(1): 75-96.

• Cotten M. & Lasprogata, G. (2012). Corporate citizenship and creative collaboration: best practices for cross-sector partnership. Journal of Law, Business and Ethics. 18.

• Goel, G. & Rishi, M. (2012). Tackling the menace of poverty by capacity building: case-based evidence on multi-sectoral partnerships in India. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 1: 361-372.

• Lasprogata, G. & Cotten, M. (2003). Contemplating ‘enterprise’: the business and legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal Volume 41(1): 67-114.

• Ludescher, J., Mahsud, R., Prussia, G. (2012). We are the corporation: dispersive CSR. Business and Society Review 117(1): 55-88.

• Ludescher, J. & Mahsud, R. (2010). Opening Pandora’s box: corporate social responsibility exposed. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy 15(1):123-131.

• Obermiller, C., Burke, C., Talbott, E., Green, G. (2009). Tastes great or more fulfilling: the effect of brand reputation on consumer social responsibility advertising for fair trade coffee. Corporate Reputation Review 12(2): 159-176.

• Smith, J. (2019). Corporate responsibility and the plurality of market aims. Business and Society Review 124(2): 183-199.

• Hanold, M. (2011). Leadership, Women in sport and embracing empathy. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal 31: 160-165.

• Marrone, J., Ferraro, H., Huston, T. (2018). A Theoretical Approach to Female Team Leaders’ Boundary Work Choices. Group and Organization Management 43(5): 825-856.

• Jensen, G., Johnson, R., Phillips, J. (1993). Socially responsible investing: using human resource policy as a selection criterion. Journal of Business and Economic Studies 2(1):9-22.

• Jensen, G., Johnson, R., Phillips, J. (1994). Catholic social teaching and human resource policy: implications for equity investors. On the Condition of Labor and the Social Question One Hundred Years Later, edited by Thomas O. Nitsch, Joseph M. Phillips and Edward Fitzsimmons, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994.

• Cohen, J., Manzon, G., Zamora, V. (2015). Contextual and individual dimensions of taxpayer decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics 126(4): 631-647.

• Smith, J. (2002). Do particular moral judgments follow a rule? Southern Journal of Philosophy 40(2): 269-294.

• Smith, J. (2006). Justifying and applying moral principles. The Journal of Value Inquiry 40(4): 393-411.

• Smith, J. & Dubbink, W. (2011). Understanding the role of moral principles in business ethics: a Kantian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(2): 205-231.

• Soule, E., Hedahl, M., Dienhart, J. (2009). Managerial moral principles. Business Ethics Quarterly 19(4): 529-552.

• Wildermuth, C., Mello-e-Souza, C., Kozitza, T. (2017). Circles of ethics: the impact of proximity on moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics 140(1) 17-42.

• Arneson, D & Weis, W. (2008). Saving American business: changing the culture of corporate leadership beyond the next quarter’s profits. Journal of Business Leadership 13(2):1.

• Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., Prussia, G. (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology 28(2): 133-146.

• Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical leadership and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25(6): 561-577.

• Nielsen, R., Marrone, J., Ferraro, H. (2013). Leading with Humility. New York: Routledge.

• Rothausen, T.J. (2017). Integrating leadership development with Ignatian spirituality: A model for designing a spiritual leader development practice. Journal of Business Ethics 145(4), 811-829.

• Rothausen, T.J. (2007). Making the impact of gender on business leadership visible: A tool for use in organizations and education. Leadership Review 7, 93-110.

• Tyler, T., Dienhart, J., Thomas, T. (2008). The ethical commitment to compliance: building value-based cultures. California Management Review 50(2): 31-51.

• Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., Prussia, G. (2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 20(1): 38-48.

• Carrithers, D. & Peterson, D. (2011). Integrating a social justice perspective in economics education: creating a distinctly catholic education. A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 13(4) 415-436.

• Carrithers, D. & Peterson, D. (2006). Conflicting views of markets and economic justice: implications for student learning. Journal of Business Ethics 69(4): 373-387.

• Cohen, M. (2012). Empathy in business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics Education 9: 359-376.

• Lasprogata, G. (2014). Values change for survival. Journal of Law, Business and Ethics. Volume 20: 135-139.

• Arnesen, D. & Blizinsky, M. (1995). Cable television: will federal regulation protect the public interest? American Business Law Journal 32(4): 627-650.

• Barnes, J. (2016). Social media ethics made easy. Business Express Press.

• King, N., Pillay, S., Lasprogata, G. (2006). Workplace privacy and discrimination issues related to genetic data: a comparative law study of the European Union and the United States. American Business Law Journal. Volume 43: 79-171

• Lasprogata, G., King, N., Pillay, S. (2004). Regulation of electronic employee monitoring: identifying fundamental principles of employee privacy through a comparative study of data privacy legislation in the European Union, United States and Canada. Stanford Technology Law Review 4: 1-76.

• Cohen, M. (2018). Apology as self-repair. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21(3): 585-598.

• Cohen, M. & Peterson, D. (2017). The implicit morality of the market and Joseph Heath’s market failures approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 159(1): 75-88.

• Cohen, M. & Dienhart, J. (2013). Moral and amoral conceptions of trust, with an application in organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 112(1): 1-13.

• Cohen, M. (2010). The narrow application of Rawls in business ethics: a political conception of both stakeholder theory and the morality of markets. The Journal of Business Ethics 97(4): 563-579.

• Dienhart, J. (2008). The separation thesis: perhaps nine lives are enough. Business Ethics Quarterly 18(4): 555-559.

• Dubbink, G. & Smith, J. (2011). A political conception of corporate moral responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14(2): 223-246.

• Smith, J. (2019). Navigating our way between market and state. Business Ethics Quarterly 29(1): 127-141.

• Smith, J. (2018). Efficiency and ethically responsible management. Journal of Business Ethics 150(3): 603-618.

• Smith, J. (2008). Normative theory and business ethics. (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).

• Smith, J. (2005). Moral markets and moral managers revisited. Journal of Business Ethics 61(2): 129-141.

• Smith, J. (2005). Fairness, responsibility and engagement: new developments in stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 15(4): 711-721.

• Smith, J. (2004). A Précis of a communicative theory of the firm. Business Ethics: A European Review 13(4): 317-331.

• Chan, K., Fung, H., Yau, J. (2016). A citation analysis of business ethics research: a global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 136(3): 557-573.

• Chan, K., Fung, H., Yau, J. (2013). Predominant sources and contributors of influential business ethics research: evidence and implications from a threshold citation analysis. Business Ethics: European Review 22(3):263-276.

• Chan, K., Fung, H., Yau, J. (2010). Business ethics research: a global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 95(1): 39-53.

• Ajemian, C. & Reid, D. (2010). Preventing global warming: the United States, China and intellectual property. Business & Society 115(4): 417-436.

• Colaner, N., Imanaka, J., Prussia, G. (2018). Dialogic collaboration across sectors: partnering for sustainability. Business and Society Review 123(3): 529-564.

• Imanaka, J., Prussia, G., & Alexis, S. (2017). Laudato Si' and integral ecology: a reconceptualization of sustainability. The Journal of Management for Global Sustainability 5(1): 22-44.

• Imanaka, J. (2011). Sustainable development and the destruction of the Amazon: a call for universal responsibility. Environmental Ethics 33(2):197-218.

• Kimbro, M., Abraham, A., Lambe, C., Jones, V. (2018). Corporate social responsibility: the efficacy of matched alliances between not-for- profits & multinational enterprises in developed and emerging markets. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability 6(1): 129-151.

• McCullough, B. & Melton, N. (2017). The benefits of becoming a green company: a corporate marketing approach. Journal of Contemporary Athletics 11(1): 31-46.

• McCullough, B., Trendafilova, S., Picariello, M. (2016). Legitimizing sustainability efforts through strategic partnerships. Sport & Entertainment Review 2(3): 77-83.

• Obermiller, C., Atwood, A., Burke, C. (2008). Sustainable business as marketing strategy. Innovative Marketing 4(3): 20-27.

• Obermiller, C. & Atwood, A. (2014). Measuring sustainability literacy: scale development. Journal of Jesuit Business Education 5(1):105-128.

• Sartore-Baldwin, M. & McCullough, B. (2018). Equity-based sustainability and ecocentric management: creating more ecologically just sport organization practices. Sport Management Review 21(4): 391-402.

• Sartore-Baldwin, M., McCullough, B., Quatman-Yates, C. (2017). Shared responsibility and issues of injustice and harm within sport. Quest 69(7): 366-383.

• Smith, J. (2005). Market failures, political responses and corporate environmental responsibility. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 24(2): 131-140.