Business Ethics in Brazil Essay Example for Free

argumentation morality in brazil-nut tree EssayIn this comparative survey of 126 Brazilian and U.S. origin professionals, we explore the solvent of national last on estimable lastmaking within the context of problem. Using Reidenbach and redbreasts (1988) multi-criteria ethics doer, we examined how these two countries differences on Hofstedes individualism/ communism Rafik I. Beekun (Ph.D., The University of Texas, Austin) is Professor of Management and St localisegy in the managerial Sciences De single outment at the University of Nevada, Reno. His current look for interests argon in the area of strategic adaptation, the link amongst national agri destinations and ethics, and the relationship between management and spirituality. He has published in such journals as journal of Applied Psychology, Human Relations, diary of Management and Decision Sciences. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to him at Managerial Sciences Department, Mail Stop 28, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0206. Yvonne Stedham (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is an Associate Professor of Management in the Managerial Sciences Department at the University of Nevada, Reno. She has published in such journals as the Journal of Management and Journal of Management Studies. Dr. Stedhams research digestes on the following areas CEO performance evaluation, gender discrimination in employment, ethics in business, finality making across gardenings, and managing knowledge workers. Jeanne H. Yamamura (CPA, Ph.D., Washington State University) is an Associate Professor of Accounting in the College of Business at the University of Nevada Reno. Her t to each oneing responsibilities include auditing and bill information systems courses. Dr. Yamamuras research focuses on the management of accounting professionals with a particular interest in cross-ethnical differences and her work has been published in accounting and business journals. She has extensive pr roundi cal experience in the field of accounting through her previous employment in public and private accounting.Rafik I. Beekun Yvonne Stedham Jeanne H. Yamamura dimension are related to the musical mode in which business practitioners make honest finales. Our results indicate that Brazilians and Americans evaluate the respectable content of actions or decisions antithetically when applying utilitarian criteria. By contrast, business wad from both countries do not differ portentously when they use egoistic criteria in evaluating the estimable personality of business decisions. KEY WORDS Brazil, egoism, ethics, national culture, U.S., utilitarianism As business establishments move from domestic to global and transnational competition, they are finding that cultural values divert significantly across national boundaries, and are belike to affect business practices (Husted, 2000). During the past decade, several researchers (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985 Hunt et al., 1989 Abratt et al., 1992 Hunt and Vitell, 1992 Tsalikis and Nwachukwu, 1991 Vitell et al., 1993) have noted the potential settle of national culture on ethics within a business context. What obscures the impact of national culture on ethics is that business practices may conflict with ethical values in a manner that medicine, law and g all overnment do not (DeGeorge, 1993). Not surprisingly, empirical research investigating the relationship between national culture and ethical decision-making is relatively sparse (Vitell et al., 1993). A primary reason for exploring the effects of culture on ethics is the increased globalization of business. This trend, in turn, is characterized by a diverse array of interorganizational arrangements that gather up cross-cultural interaction. As a result, cultural misnetherstandings are plausibly to occur.One of the key areas where such mis- Journal of Business Ethics 42 267279, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 268 Rafik I. Bee kun et al. understandings take place is in the area of ethics, partly because of the influence that national cultures may have upon business ethics (Husted, 2000). Accordingly, in our knowledge, we explore the relationship between national culture and business ethics. We will seek to investigate what process underlies ethical carriage across national boundaries. Understanding this process may help global managers develop tools to fire ethical behavior in their international workforce. In this research, we compare two culturally diverse countries, the United States (U.S.) and Brazil, in regularise to identify similarities and differences with regard to approaches toward ethical decision-making in a business context. Since culture is a broad concept, it is inevitable to specify the values that could be related to behaviors or practices (Husted, 2000). For the purposes of this study, we apply a well-established framework of national culture (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede conducted o ne of the most important studies that ascertained the relationship between national culture and management. From this study, he set several value dimensions a eagle-eyed which countries differ. Using Hofstedes (1980) framework, we carried out a crosscultural, comparative survey to evaluate the relationship between his individualism/ fabianism dimension of national culture and ethical criteria. With see to ethical decision-making, we adopted the instrument proposed and validated by Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990).They have generated a set of scales that measure the ticker dimensions characterizing different offices of ethical philosophy. Defining national culture Hofstedes dimensions of culture Multiple definitions and conceptualizations of national culture exist (Hofstede, 1980, 1988, 2001 Kluckhohn, 1951, 1962 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961 Ronen and Shenkar, 1985 Trompenaars, 1993). Although these frameworks and conceptualizations typically center on values, they differ wit h respect to the specific values that are include in their respective frameworks. For instance, Trompenaars (1993) focuses on values related to relationships such as obligation, emotional orientation in relationships, and involvement in relationships. By contrast, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) emphasize more than global values such as great deals relationship to nature and time-orientation. With respect to our study, Hofstedes framework of national cultures is the most appropriate since he identified values related to economic activity (Husted, 2000). Therefore, his framework is germane for the study of business decisions. instruction on national cultures, Hofstede (1997, p. 260) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of mountain from an early(a). Thus, although the problems faced by groups (whether organizational or national) are universal, the solutions devised by each group may be relatively unique to that group. These solutions then become taken for granted over time, and may suggest why people hold certain beliefs and behave the way they do (Schneider and Barsoux, 1997). Hofstede (1980, 1988) has suggested that fin dimensions of national culture underlie differences in the behavior of individuals from different cultural backgrounds.Since these dimensions describe how individuals view and fork out situations and behavior, they are likely to be related to how individuals engage in decision-making in general (Weick, 1979 Adler, 2002). ethical decisionmaking, too, is likely to be affected by these dimensions of national culture. Hofstedes five cultural dimensions (1980, 1988) are power distance, precariousness avoidance, masculinity/femininity, individualism/collectivism, and long-term/short-term orientation. Power distance refers to the degree to which less powerful members in a country accept an unequal distribution of power. Uncertainty avoidance depicts a peoples abilit y to cope with ambiguous situations as well as the mechanisms they have created to avoid such situations. maleness exemplifies a focus on material things, such as money, success, etc., whereas femininity refers to a focus on quality of life, caring, etc. Individualism, which will be discussed in more detail later, refers to the tendency of people to demand their interests and those of A comparative degree Investigation of Business Ethics their immediate family only. By contrast, collectivism refers to the inclination of people to view themselves as part of a larger group, and to protect the interests of group members. Longterm/short-term orientation describes the time emplacement people take when dealing with a situation. Table I represents the scores for Hofstedes cultural dimensions for Brazil and the U.S. While the scores indicate dissimilarities between the U.S. and Brazil on all five cultural dimensions, by far the largest difference appears in the individualism/collectivism dimension. Brazil scored low on individualism, and because is considered a collectivistic country by contrast, the U.S. scored high on individualism and is considered an individualistic country.The individualism/collectivism dimension describes how individuals relate to others and to society, and represents the extent to which they are emotionally and cognitively attached to a particular network of individuals. Individualism describes the inclination of individuals to be primarily concerned with their personal interests and their immediate familys welfare (Hofstede, 1980). Members of a highly individualistic country view themselves as independent of organizations or institutions, and place a higher(prenominal) value on self-reliance and individual action. socialism, in comparison, describes a culture where individuals are viewed as part of a larger group, and look after each other. Collectivistic cultures protect the interests of their members in return for their loyalty. In coll ectivist cultures, morality is defined in impairment of the benefits for the in-group (family, friends, work companies, 269 etc.), implying the maintenance of solidarity (Triandis and Bhawuk, 1997). Hofstede (1980) noted that the individualism/collectivism dimension carried strong moral overtones because this dimension was reflected in value systems shared by the majority. For example, in a highly individualistic country, individualism is viewed as a strength and the major reason for the countrys accomplishments. By comparison, inhabitants of a highly collectivistic country view an emphasis on self as a negative attribute to be eliminated for the entire of society. Competing ethical frameworks for business decisions Ethics are the principles of valet de chambre conduct regarding either an individual or a group (Shaw, 1999), and represent the moral hackneyeds not governed by law, that focus on the human consequences of actions (Francesco and luxurious, 1998).Ethics often require behavior that meets higher standards than those established by law, including selfless behavior rather than calculated action intended to produce a tangible benefit. With respect to this study, business ethics describe the ultimate rules governing the sagacity of what constitutes right or pervert, or beloved or naughtiness human conduct in a business context (Shaw, 1999). In the assessment of ethical behavior, perception is critical (Hartmann, 2000). Indeed, ethical decisions may be influenced by our own perception, by others perceptions of our actions, and by our perception of universal laws. As a TABLE I Cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1980, 1988, 2001) Dimensions of culture U.S. Brazil inconsistency Power distance Uncertainty avoidance 40 46 69 76 (29) (30) Individualism/Collectivism 91 38 53 Masculine/Feminine Confucian Dynamism 62 29 49 65 13 (36) 270 Rafik I. Beekun et al. result, our final choices may be determined by the perception that is the most undischarged at the time. Further, Hartmann suggests that cultures may differ not only with respect to the ethical principles underlying decisions but overly with respect to which of the troika stakeholders self, society, and universal laws is emphasized in any given situation. Depending on which stakeholder is emphasized, people from different cultures may vary in their assessment of the ethical nature of a decision. Across most situations, ethical principles that distinguish right from wrong actions are encompassed by several normative theories, e.g., justice, relativism, egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology. These theories can generate potentially conflicting interpretations of what is ethical or unethical, originating from the very nature of the theories themselves.Moreover, prior research (Cohen et al., 1996 Hansen, 1992 Reidenbach and Robin, 1988, 1990) indicates that individuals making ethical decisions do not select a single theory or philosophy by which to make their decisions. In fact, Reidenbach and Robin (1988) found that a varying combination of ethical philosophies or theories is employed when ethical decisions are make. Shaw (1999) draws a distinction between two types of ethical theories, consequentialist and nonconsequentialist. Consequentialist theories suggest that the moral rightness of an action depends on the actual or intended results of the action. What is right is determined by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action is likely to produce (Shaw, 1999, p. 45). A key issue underlying consequentialist theories is the nature of the beneficiaries of the action under consideration. Should one consider the consequences for oneself or for all involved? The most important consequentialist theories are egoism and utilitarianism. conceit promotes individual self-interest as the guiding principle whereas utilitarianism advocates that everyone affected by the action or decision must be taken into account (Shaw, 1999). By contrast, nonconsequentialist th eories suggest that it is not simply the consequence of an act that matters, but in addition its inherent character. Although these theories do not deny that con- sequences are morally relevant, they assert that other factors are also important in assessing the moral significance of an action. For example, breaking a promise is wrong not simply because of the consequences that result from breaking it, but also because of the nature of the act itself. In this study, we focus on consequentialist theories for several reasons. First, Hofstedes individualism/collectivism dimension can be clearly and tardily related to the two consequentialist theories. Second, the two theories represent the perceptions of two of the triad possible stakeholders identified by Hartmann (2000), that is to say own perceptions and others perceptions.Third, staying within one theoretical category allows for a much more parsimonious, yet thorough, analysis. Ethical perspectives and national culture hypothese s Whether egoistic or utilitarian principles are employed, ethics are a increase of a societys culture, which includes its traditions, values, and norms. Within a society, ethical behavior is generally agreed upon. Francesco and Gold (1998, p. 40) explain that members implicitly understand how relationships, duties and obligations among people and groups ought to be conducted, and distinguish between their selfinterests and the interests of others. However, when two or more countries interact, they often find that their ethics differ. According to Hendry (1999), these differences may lead to three types of culturally based ethical conflicts. First, there are those conflicts where the ethical values typifying the two national cultures lead to differing conclusions what is deemed unethical from one perspective is considered to be ethical from the other. Second, conflict may arise when businesspersons from one culture consider something morally significant whereas their counterparts f rom another culture are ethically neutral. Third, business people from two cultures may interpret a common situation differently even when there is some commonality among their national values. A Comparative Investigation of Business Ethics To investigate the relationship between national culture and ethics, we chose two culturally diverse countries, Brazil and the U.S. Given the differences in their respective national cultures, we expect Brazilians and Americans to differ in their assessment of the ethical content of business decisions.Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis H1 The assessment of the ethical content of business decisions is a function of national culture. Egoism and individualism/collectivism According to egoism, the only valid standard of ones behavior is ones obligation to toss ones wellbeing above everyone elses (Beauchamp and Bowie, 1997). Promotion of ones own longterm interest is viewed as the only worthy objective and the only determinant of whet her an act is morally right or not. Nothing is owed to others or to the organization that one works in. Those who abide by this approach to ethics intensely believe that all altruistic efforts by others are really acts of self-promotion since an individual may have to help others in order to advance his/her own interests. Brazil is collectivistic whereas the U.S. is individualistic. As discussed earlier, persons from an individualistic culture emphasize their families and their own interests. H1.a When applying egoistic criteria to attempt the ethical content of an action or a decision, respondents from the U.S. will be less likely than respondents from Brazil to see a decision or action as unethical. Utilitarianism and individualism/collectivism Utilitarianism, in aspire contrast to egoism, is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the superior possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our action (Shaw, 1999, p. 49). Although utilitarians also 2 71 evaluate an action in terms of its consequences, an action is ethical if it results in the greatest benefit or good for the largest count of people.Issues of self-interest are not germane since actions are assessed in accordance with one primary standard the general good. Utilitarianism has long been associated with social improvement and the promotion of actions that are in the best interest of the community. Actions are right if they promote the greatest human welfare. Brazil is collectivistic. Persons from a collectivistic culture focus on actions that lead to the greatest benefit for most members of a group. H1.b When applying utilitarian criteria to judge the ethical content of an action or a decision, respondents from Brazil will be less likely than respondents from the U.S. to see an action or decision as unethical. To be consistent with prior ethics research (Reidenbach and Robin, 1988), the above hypotheses (H1.a and H1.b) together suggest that Americans and Brazilians rely on more than one ethical criterion when assessing the ethical content of an action or decision. However, we are also suggesting that when each specific ethical criterion they refer to is considered separately, people from different national cultures will vary in their assessment of the ethical content of a course of action or a decision. methodological analysis Sample Data were collected from 126 respondents 92 from the U.S. and 34 from Brazil. U.S. participants included MBA pupils at a regional university as well as business professionals. Brazilian participants were all students enrolled in an Executive MBA program. We use MBA students in our study for two reasons. First, MBA students are a commonly used proxy for business people (Dubinsky and Rudelius, 1980). Dubinsky and Rudelius (1980) comparison of 272 Rafik I. Beekun et al. student versus professional evaluations found a high degree of congruence between the two groups. Second, since all students (both U.S. and Brazili an) were soon employed by companies or had recent professional work experience, the sample can be used as a proxy for business professionals in both countries.Data collection The instrument we used was Reidenbach and Robins (1988) pre-validated, multi-criteria instrument incorporating the core dimensions that underlie several ethical perspectives. We selected this survey instrument because it is a multi-philosophy and multi-item questionnaire. As a result, it will enable us to assess both ethical dimensions of interest, i.e., egoism and utilitarianism, simultaneously. This instrument incorporates multiple items for each ethical philosophy and, therefore, is relatively more reliable than single item instruments (Kerlinger, 1986). Reidenbach and Robins instrument includes an initial set of scales that has shown evidence of high reliability and modest convergent harshness with respect to U.S. respondents. The scales correlate highly with a univariate measure of the ethical content of situations. Hence, the instrument can be said to have high construct validity in the U.S. Additional reliability and validation efforts for the all in all sample and for Brazil specifically are reported below. Using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ethical, 7 = unethical), respondents were asked to rate the action in three scenarios using the criteria (items) described in Table II. The perception of and the criteria emphasized in evaluating the ethical content of a decision or situation depend on the nature of the decision or the situation. In accordance with previous research, scenarios will be used in this study to leave behind the contextual stimulus and to motivate the evaluation process (Alexander and Becker, 1978). We adopted the three scenarios developed and validated by Reidenbach and Robin (1988, 1990).Table III presents the three scenarios used in this study. Data were collected by nitty-gritty of the abovementioned instrument administered to Brazilian participants (in Portuguese) and provided via written instrument and website access to U.S. participants (in English). The Brazilian instrument was back translated to ensure equivalence. Efforts were made to establish the reliability and validity of the instrument in this comparative context and are reported as follows. We examined the reliability of the instrument by assessing its internal consistency through the use of Cronbachs alpha. Since we used three different measures (one for each of the scenarios), we calculated three inter-item co cost-effective alphas. The Cronbach alpha was 0.81 for the first scenario, 0.75 for the second scenario and 0.86 for the third scenario. All three coefficients indicate that the scale items are internally con- TABLE II Ethics instrument scales Ethical perspective Items (Seven-point Likert scale 1 to 7)* Egoism Self promoting/not self promoting Self sacrificing/not self sacrificing personally satisfying/not personally satisfying Utilitarianism Produces greatest utility/produces the least utility Maximizes benefits while minimizes injure/minimizes benefits while maximizes harm Leads to the greatest good for the greatest number/leads to the least good for the greatest number * Generally speaking, in the above bipolar scales, 1 = fair or just or efficient (ethical) whereas 7 = unfair, unjust or inefficient (unethical). A Comparative Investigation of Business Ethics