Control over information is essential to business. This has become increasingly true in an era in which technological advances have enabled the rapid globalization of business. This article explores the implications of this control of information for freedom of speech and information. Four different situations are considered: censorship of the Internet by search engines albeit at the direction of a government; restrictions on Internet content by Internet Services Providers acting on their own; decisions by retail businesses not to sell various DVDs, CDs, etc. to their customers; and legal suits brought against individuals and groups by businesses seeking to prevent the further spread of information they deem injurious to their products or activities. The paper seeks to sort out the various rights and values involved in these cases, when a business may be justifiably said to be violating individuals' rights to freedom of information, and when customers and citizens do not have justified complaints against business decisions not to provide them with certain information products.

Association for Consumer Research, Pittsburgh, October 2009. This peer reviewed video ethnography explores the discrepancies consumers have with respect to their green attitudes and green behaviors, and also looks at the importance of “green” in representation of self. (17 minutes). Film available at: http://explore.georgetown.edu/publications/index.cfm?Action=View&Documen...

International business faces a host of difficult moral conflicts. It is tempting to think that these conflicts can be morally resolved if we gained full knowledge of the situations, were rational enough, and were sufficiently objective. This paper explores the view that there are situations in which people in business must confront the possibility that they must compromise some of their important principles or values in order to protect other ones. One particularly interesting case that captures this kind of situation is that of Google and its operations in China. In this paper, I examine the situation Google faces as part of the larger issue of moral compromise and integrity in business. Though I look at Google, this paper is just as much about the underlying or background views Google faces that are at work in business ethics. In the process, I argue the following: First, the framework Google has used to respond to criticisms of its actions does not successfully or obviously address the important ethical issues it faces. Second, an alternative ethical account can be presented that better addresses these ethical and human rights questions. However, this different framework brings the issue of moral compromise to the fore. This is an approach filled with dangers, particularly since it is widely held that one ought never to compromise one’s moral principles. Nevertheless, I wish to propose that there may be a place for moral compromise in business under certain conditions, which I attempt to specify.

Before the credit crisis that started in mid-2007, it was generally believed by top regulators that credit derivatives make banks sounder. In this paper, we investigate the validity of this view. We examine the use of credit derivatives by US bank holding companies with assets in excess of one billion dollars from 1999 to 2005. Using the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Bank Holding Company Database, we find that in 2005 the gross notional amount of credit derivatives held by banks exceeds the amount of loans on their books. Only 23 large banks out of 395 use credit derivatives and most of their derivatives positions are held for dealer activities rather than for hedging of loans. The net notional amount of credit derivatives used for hedging of loans in 2005 represents less than 2% of the total notional amount of credit derivatives held by banks and less than 2% of their loans. We conclude that the use of credit derivatives by banks to hedge loans is limited because of adverse selection and moral hazard problems and because of the inability of banks to use hedge accounting when hedging with credit derivatives. Our evidence raises important questions about the extent to which the use of credit derivatives makes banks sounder.

This article examines a feature of the ethics of entrepreneurship that is infrequently directly discussed, viz., rule breaking. Entrepreneurs are widely said to engage in rule breaking. Many examples of this appear in popular and academic literature. But how may this be integrated into an account of the ethics of entrepreneurship? One response would be that when entrepreneurs break legal and moral rules then what they do is wrong and ought to be condemned. There is a great deal to be said for this rule model of entrepreneurial ethics. However, this view is also mistaken. Instead, this article defends a virtue-based account of the ethics of entrepreneurship in which certain instances of rule breaking, even if morally wrong, are nevertheless ethically acceptable and part of the creative destruction that entrepreneurs bring not only to the economy but also to morality.

The purpose of this paper is to formulate and defend a set of moral principles applicable to management. Our motiviation is twofold: 1) to increase the coherence and utility of Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT); and 2) to initiate an alternative stream of busines ethics research. To those ends, we specify what counts as adequate guidance in navigating the ethical terrain of business. In doing so, a key element of ISCT, Substantive Hypernorms, is found to be flawed beyond repair. So we propose and defend a remedy: prime facie moral principles. After delineating the appropriate criteria and format for such principles, we formulate, explain, and defend five of them. We conclude with a brief comment on future research possibilities.

Article Outline: What's incivility; What are the costs?; Another Angle on Losses; Losses Multiplied; Losses Associated with Managing Incivility; The effects on teams; What's a leader to do?; Set zero-tolerance expectations; Look in the mirror; Weed out trouble before it enters your organization; Teach civility; Train employees and managers how to recognize and respond to signals; Take complaints seriously; Don’t make excuses for powerful instigators; Invest in post-departure interviews; Conclusion

Forecasting changes in business environments is critical for appropriate responses by policy makers and corporate decision makers. This article reports on a Delphi study which features three rounds of interchanges between experts on possible changes in the international business environment and practice in the next years. Results indicate that terrorism and corruption issues have risen in importance while trade negotiations have declined. Corporate strategies are seen to need significant reform to deliver on the promise of globalization. As trends are becoming more multidimensional, regular solicitation of stakeholder perspectives becomes more important.

We introduce the incivility construct and demonstrate that witnessing an incident of employee‐employee incivility causes consumers to make negative generalizations about (a) others who work for the firm, (b) the firm as a whole, and (c) future encounters with the firm, inferences that go well beyond the incivility incident. We demonstrate the process by which these effects occur, showing that anger at the uncivil employee induces these effects. We find that anger leads to rumination about the uncivil encounter and causes customers to make quicker and more negative generalizations about related entities. We also identify boundary conditions for the relationship between incivility and negative generalizations. These process and boundary condition results add theoretically to the literature on incivility as well as that on anger’s effect on information processing.