Search results

This study delves into the impact of an ethical mindset on the efficacy of ethical awareness within the tax profession and aims to ascertain whether the presence of an ethical mindset can account for the discrepancies in the literature and enhance the effectiveness of ethical awareness initiatives.

The research used a tax experiment involving both treatment and control groups. Both groups were presented with a tax-related scenario, with the treatment group subjected to a specific ethical awareness intervention. To gauge the participants’ ethical mindsets, they were divided into strong self-interest and mild self-interest mindset groups based on their Machiavellian scores. The analysis was conducted utilizing ANOVA to scrutinize the results.

The key findings shed light on the fact that while ethical awareness endeavors can enhance the likelihood of individuals making ethical choices in tax decisions, their effectiveness varies significantly depending on the individual’s ethical mindset. Furthermore, results show that gender affected the relationship between ethical mindset and ethical awareness effectiveness, and males with mild self-interest score reacted more to the ethical awareness intervention. Results support that individuals’ ethical mindset, measured as strong self-interest and mild self-interest, is pivotal in determining the effectiveness of ethical awareness efforts.

This study is unique because it evaluates the effect of ethical mindsets to provide a novel way to improve tax ethical awareness initiatives.

Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.

This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.

The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.

This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.