Several theories, both ancient and recent, suggest that having the time to contemplate a decision should increase moral awareness and the likelihood of ethical choices. Our findings indicated just the opposite: greater time for deliberation led to less ethical decisions. Post-hoc analyses and a followup experiment suggested that decision makers act as if their previous choices have created or lost moral credentials: after an ethical first choice, people acted significantly less ethically in their subsequent choice but after an unethical first choice, people acted significantly more ethically in their subsequent choice. These findings provide the basis for a model of compensatory ethics.

Across four studies, including one involving an actual monetary decision, the authors demonstrate that forming a product consideration set by excluding versus including alternatives induces consumers to place more weight on ethical attributes, such as company labor practices and animal testing. This nonnormative difference reflects a compatibility between exclusion and ethics, and it holds regardless of attribute framing or consumer emotion. The authors also find that consumers judge others' behavior more negatively for excluding ethical products than for including ethical products. These results have implications for the marketing of ethical products, both specifically (e.g., it is important to encourage exclusion modes) and generally (e.g., the failure to consider ethical products may reflect seemingly minor contextual issues guiding the decision process and not consumer disinterest in ethical issues).

Global firms often struggle to replicate practices among their culturally and geographically dispersed subsidiaries. Part of the reason for this is that certain practices, including human resource management (HRM) practices, are complex and context specific. In this study, we develop a framework to help identify how firms might overcome challenges of practice replication through alignment of information systems, application processes, and people. We find that managerial alignment of formal processes and systems, along with informal alignment of people (shared objectives), improve the capability of a multinational corporation (MNC) to replicate human resource practices across subsidiaries. We also discuss managerial implications.

Organizational scholars have long touted the myriad benefits of trust for organizational functioning and performance. Recent surveys, however, document pervasive deficits in such trust. This article addresses the important topic of reducing these deficits. Our attack on this problem is two pronged. First, we examine approaches to repairing damaged trust within organizational settings. Specifically, we assess the state of organizational theory and knowledge regarding effective approaches to trust repair after internal or external events have weakened or damaged trust in an organization. We define what is meant by trust repair, review the most common ways that trust is broken, and then explore the three major approaches that have received the most attention in trust-repair research. We then address the question of how trust, once repaired, can be enhanced and made more durable and stable. Specifically, we examine theory and evidence regarding the antecedent conditions that support the development and maintenance of what we term presumptive trust among organizational members. We conclude the article with some recommendations of fruitful directions for future research.

We examine changes in the disclosure behavior of firms involved in 827 disclosure-related class-action securities litigation cases filed between 1996 and 2005. We find no evidence that the firms in our sample respond to the litigation event by increasing or improving their disclosures to investors. Rather, we find consistent evidence that firms reduce the level of information provided post-litigation. Our results suggest that the litigation process encourages firms to decrease the provision of disclosures for which they may later be held accountable, despite the increased protections afforded by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Although base of the pyramid markets are significant sources of entrepreneurial opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurship in these markets is not well understood. Additionally, these markets remain largely underserved by multinational enterprises (MNEs). Given theoretical and practical gaps associated with these issues, we integrate entrepreneurship, institutional, and network theories to discuss how the entrepreneurship process of MNEs is negatively affected in base of the pyramid markets. We then explain how partnerships with nongovernment organizations (NGOs) can offset such negative effects due to NGOs' high degree of localized knowledge, social embeddedness within multiple informal networks, and ambidexterity in dealing with diverse stakeholder groups. Both economic and social benefits can result from such partnerships.

The accounting profession has faced considerable criticism in recent years for failing to effectively combat reporting manipulation. A particular point of contention is the use of audit thresholds. The tendency for auditors to suppress inconsistencies that are deemed immaterial has been viewed as an open invitation for abuse. This paper revisits the effectiveness of audits and the misreporting of private information in light of audit thresholds. The paper demonstrates that while audit thresholds may create incentives for misstatements, the predictability of such misstatements may actually serve to promote efficiency. In effect, an environment in which parties are expected to systematically bias their reports can bring the threat of audit consequences for further exaggeration to the forefront. Such a consideration also suggests that more relaxed audit thresholds (and the ensuing increase in equilibrium misstatements) may be condoned by report recipients and can actually lessen inefficiencies wrought by adverse selection.

People who are demographically different from one another face a fundamental challenge in developing high-quality relationships in organizations. We build theory about how the status differences that often accompany demographic characteristics can hinder this development through their influence on disclosure of personal information. We theorize about the construct of status distance and how, ironically, disclosure of personal information may increase status distance instead of bringing individuals closer together. Beyond status distance, we also discuss how status characteristics and identification with one's characteristics influence disclosure of status-relevant information.