CHAPTER 10

Teaching Ethics in the International Business Discipline

Tabani Ndlovu

Nottingham Business School

Introduction

Advances in telecommunications, transport, and technology have reduced constraints on international travel, increasing intercultural interactions and making the world a seemingly smaller place. This increased interaction has enhanced the importance of international business education, as many employers seek graduates with an appreciation for a globalized economy.¹ Globalization has brought with it, a new set of challenges however, especially for educators who have to equip business graduates with the requisite skills to function in an increasingly complex and dynamic multinational area.²

One aspect of international business education that has raised many questions is the area of teaching ethics to disparate groups of international students, especially at postgraduate levels in general and MBA in particular.³ This is especially pertinent, considering the fact that many students at this level come to the lecture room with defined expectations of what they think they should focus on, considering their previous experience in industry.⁴ Teaching business ethics and sustainability has become an increasing priority in business management education, especially following the aftermath of the 2007 to 2009 global financial crisis, which was partly attributed to a lack of ethics in corporate leadership.⁵ The consequence of the alleged lack of ethics in corporate leadership resulted in the business school coming into the spotlight again, with calls for international business curricula to offer more emphasis on business ethics as a way of equipping business leaders with the necessary aptitude to competently deal with ethical dilemmas.⁶

In response to this, many business schools have added aspects of sustainability and business ethics to their curricula, perhaps without sufficient thought as to the effectiveness of this move, beyond students passing an assessment and the university ticking a box to say they have covered the area.⁷ There are serious questions to consider regarding how business schools can best teach ethics, especially to a diverse cohort, in increasingly crammed syllabi, to students with seemingly defined expectations of what they expect to cover during their program of study. The increased focus on student satisfaction further complicates issues and means that business schools have to tread carefully in prescribing a fixed suite of modules as they want to get good ratings from their cohorts while meeting the needs of different accrediting bodies such as the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and the Association of MBAs (AMBA) among others.⁸

This chapter focuses on some of the issues around teaching ethics to international business postgraduate students in general and MBA students in particular, given this background. The chapter offers some suggestions on how educators can navigate this treacherous area before proposing areas for further exploration.

The International Business Discipline

International business curricula tend to deal with business issues spanning multinational and multicultural dimensions.⁹ By its very nature, this discipline is fraught with differences emanating from the diverse cultural backgrounds of its participants. Although arguably, there is a universality of ethical principles, the challenge for teaching ethics in international business management relates to how to teach what is in fact universal to an audience that is diverse in nature.¹⁰ This is especially so within the context of a narrow discipline such as economics or indeed international business. This makes it difficult to produce a universal template for teaching ethics to students from very disparate cultural backgrounds, each with different and contextual approaches to dealing with ethical issues.¹¹ The bulk of content tends to expose students to contextual versions of ethical challenges approached from different contexts with challenges centered on how to navigate these.¹²

Usual approaches employ case studies dealing with scenario-based examples and discussions around possible approaches and consequences arising from the different set of options available. While these approaches are helpful in giving students some semblance of issues they are likely to face, the approaches assume clear-cut ethical dilemmas as opposed to the grey areas typical of today’s international business dilemmas.¹³ Furthermore, the case studies tend to be static and fail to capture the dynamic issues faced by today’s business executives. There are questions on the effectiveness of these approaches questioning how well they sell the ethical agenda to students and how well this aligns to the chosen student specialisms (i.e. how transferable the experience is to the students’ core areas of finance, marketing, human resource management, etc.).¹⁴

Embedding ethical content into the curriculum comes at a time when many institutions already have a reputation for offering particular specialisms, suggesting that teaching ethics becomes “bolted-on” rather than “built into” the fabric of the institution’s curriculum.¹⁵ There have been overwhelming calls for business ethics to be proactively embedded into all modules as opposed to institutions offering stand-alone ethics modules that offer students, dedicated but seemingly isolated, ethical training.¹⁶ Despite the preference for ethics content to be embedded into all business education courses, there are still questions as to how this can be operationalized and mainstreamed to ensure that all students get exposed to the pivotal area of ethics education. The following section considers the typical practical issues faced in teaching ethics to students in international business disciplines, drawing insights from teaching ethics to MBA students.

Typical Ethical Issues

Recent corporate scandals have highlighted the need for a rethink on how international business leaders respond to ethical issues arising from operating in different international environments.¹⁷ The categorization of ethics in this chapter is viewed primarily from human ethical actions and behaviors within the confines of their roles as proxies for their allocated corporations. This discussion therefore does not consider ethical stances of individuals acting in their private lives, although there are pervasive arguments regarding whether individuals should be two-faced, that is, whether they should have a work identity and a private, personal identity when it comes to ethical decision making.¹⁸ General consensus tends to sway toward individuals maintaining a single identity that transcends work and home.¹⁹ Some of the typical business management issues can be categorized into the groups shown in Table 10.1.²⁰

Table 10.1 Typical ethical issues in international business management

	Typical ethical issues
1	Inappropriate use of organization resources such as assets, cars, money, and time
2	Falsifying records
3	Inequitable treatment of workers; bias
4	Circumventing procedures to gain unfair advantages
5	False claims and misrepresentations
6	Unfair trade practices and abuse of market positions

At the center of many ethical dilemmas are temptations that require business leaders to consider the consequences and implications of their actions before they act. In their seminal book, Crane and Marten²¹ discussed the ethical imperative of “doing unto others as we would want them to do unto us.” This universal ethical and moral philosophy requires business leaders to put themselves in the shoes of others whenever they make decisions to ensure that they fully appreciate the impacts of their decisions. By their nature, these types of ethical issues are difficult to teach in theoretical and abstract terms without immersing students in simulations of real-life business environments. The next section considers the typical strategies employed for teaching ethics in international business management.

Ethics Teaching Strategy

The teaching of business ethics to postgraduate students in general and MBA students in particular is fraught with challenges. Business schools teaching students from international backgrounds have to consider not only the relevant content, but also the most engaging form of teaching that will critically challenge students and afford them opportunities to grapple with the fluid concepts of unethical business practices in diverse contexts. A clear agenda and rationale for teaching business ethics needs to be articulated.

Typical ethical issues

The agenda for teaching business ethics has to be aligned to the design of business ethics content embedded into the students’ core modules so that there are no misalignments between ethics content and the technical specialist modules that students study. Further, educators have to justify to the discerning students why the study of ethics and its framing is important to them.²² In introducing ethics to Executive MBA students at a UK business school, the author polled students using Turning Point²³ to gauge their attitudes toward learning about responsible business practices in general, and business ethics in particular. The results are summarized in Figure 10.1.

From Figure 10.1, students strongly intimated that they wanted to concentrate on their specialist modules rather than other fluid areas that they felt were not considered key technical skills in their respective fields. This made the offering of business ethics content difficult to sell to these students, especially since they went on to emphasize the need for them to choose their preferred modules rather than be offered a nonnegotiable menu comprising compulsory modules. There seemed to be some slight misunderstanding of ethics education when they felt they were being taught how to be ethical as opposed to being equipped with the aptitude to competently handle ethical dilemmas in different contexts. An important element of engendering ethics education was the context driving the need for ethical decision making and placing this area of study as crucial for today’s business executives.

Figure 10.1  How I want to learn business ethics

Despite the emphasis by students that ethics were relative to their different cultural contexts, buttressing the need for them to be equipped with insights that will help them appraise ethical dilemmas in different contexts, it was still difficult to teach ethical concepts in a universal way. The tutor had to consider students’ varied interpretations of different issues in their local context, which inadvertently affected considerations of whether such practices could be said to be ethical or unethical. It is therefore imperative that creative means be found to revitalize business school syllabi and integrate ethical concepts into mainstream business management education in an engaging and creative manner that will allow students to develop transferable skills.

The drive for ethics education needs a well-articulated rationale especially, followed by a clinical teaching strategy that taps into the students’ backgrounds and experience to allow students to grapple with ethical issues drawn from both familiar and unfamiliar contexts. As discussed earlier, the approaches adopted in teaching ethics tend to take one of three forms:

1. Offering stand-alone business ethics modules;

2. Embedding business ethics content into different disciplines via selected topics;

3. A combination of the two previous approaches.

Each of the previous options has implications for the delivery of business ethics content and, in particular, the skills required to effectively deliver business ethics education. This ultimately affects the integration of business ethics content into different subject specialisms to ensure that students relate the different ethical concepts to their specialist areas and draw out requisite transferable skills that they can use in real life beyond academia. Figure 10.2 offers a conceptual summary of options listed previously and draws inferences thereof on teaching faculty, focusing on some of the key drawbacks of each option. Noted benefits of each of the discussed approaches are denoted with a (+), while disadvantages are denoted with a (-) in Figure 10.2.

Figure 10.2  Teaching approaches versus teaching faculty

Source: Compiled from various academic sources.

Stand-Alone Business Ethics Modules

Where the teaching of business ethics is done via stand-alone ethics modules, educators may face constraints of creating space within already crowded curricula with further challenges of justifying this to students and, most importantly, ensuring that the stand-alone content integrates seamlessly into what students perceive to be their core areas.²⁴ This is highlighted in Q1 of Figure 10.2. A further dilemma is whether to make the stand-alone business ethics modules compulsory (core) or make them optional modules. With respect to the former, there are challenges for educators regarding which of the existing core modules to drop/replace with the new business ethics modules, while the latter case risks too few students choosing to do business ethics modules and therefore making it uneconomic to run them as optional modules should there not be enough take-up. Resourcing the teaching of business ethics is a further challenge that business schools have to contend with, especially considering the fact that the existing faculty may not be sufficiently equipped to teach business ethics (see Q2 in Figure 10.2).

Notwithstanding these, stand-alone modules introduced into a curriculum tend to lack embeddedness or seamless integration into the rest of the curriculum, especially students’ different specialisms. The danger in this “bolt-on” approach is that despite students acquiring theoretical ethical knowledge, this is delivered outside of their practitioner modules and therefore its operationalization may be a challenge for a lot of students. This approach therefore requires further thinking to ensure that it allows students to transfer skills from the stand-alone modules into their practitioner modules.

The conclusion is that embedding ethics into different specialist modules seems more advantageous as it allows for the application of ethics concepts to the different specialisms (see Q3 and Q4 in Figure 10.2).²⁵ This is different from approaching ethics in isolated ethics modules that may not lend themselves to easy integration into students’ diverse specialisms.

Embedding Business Ethics Content into Existing Business Management Courses

Embedding business ethics content into existing modules offers opportunities for students to relate relevant concepts to their core technical areas.²⁶ Transferable skills can therefore be acquired with students applying business ethics concepts to their diverse specialisms. As highlighted in Figure 10.2, the downside with this approach is that there may not be adequate resources to map business ethics content into existing core areas. This requires a lot of time and resources, suggesting that dedicated business ethics tutors need to work with different subject specialists to map and integrate business ethics concepts into existing core specialisms.

Failure to do a complete remap and redesign of all the content to incorporate business ethics content risks business ethics content being imposed on the existing content with possible misalignment.²⁷ An approach could be to train existing subject specialist tutors to integrate business ethics into their areas but this depends on the willingness of subject specialists to acquire new skills in this area and may mean that the pedagogic depth can be compromised with a “light touch” approach to teaching ethics by nonspecialist tutors.

Advice for Tutors

The effectiveness of teaching ethics as an optional and stand-alone module has increasingly come into question, especially as corporate scandals have continued to suggest a lack of ethics among corporate leaders, most of whom have been identified as graduates from some of the world’s leading international business schools.²⁸ As an alternative to the use of traditional case studies and theoretical teaching of business ethics, the introduction of gaming and game simulations presents exciting opportunities to get students involved in simulated games involving ethical decision making. This not only simulates different business scenarios, but it also allows for students to play around with different scenarios using engaging technological simulations with some immediate feedback on different courses of action open to them. The use of gamification in engaging students is discussed in more detail in the following section.

Gamification and Its Use in Teaching Business Ethics to International Business Students

Gamification involves “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts.”²⁹ The aim is to engage players and turn them into active participants in determining the outcomes of the game. In an academic context, gamification would use game techniques in engaging students with serious academic content by making such content fun and involving.³⁰

According to Singh,³¹ the primary objective of gamification is “to achieve higher levels of engagement, change behaviors and stimulate innovation.” Use of traditional lecture room methods needs revisiting to continue to engage the international business student who ostensibly spends a lot of time engaging with the digital media and finds most of their information through such channels.

The use of gaming techniques, employing online technological channels promises to bring a new dimension to ethics.³² As a start, the digital concepts of real-life ethical problems with computerized responses allows for participants to receive immediate feedback.

This approach however suffers from static responses preprogrammed into the computerized response databases of the game simulations.³³ A further improvement would be to make games that involve interactions between participants in different contexts with dynamic responses to mimic shifting ethical issues in real life. This would involve participants responding to problems posed online with the added dynamism of likely interaction with other players.

Rather than the tutor being the driver of the learning experience, gamification shifts the focus and installs the student as a key and active player.³⁴ With the different game outcomes specified, the student seeks information that will enable them to manage different gaming scenarios and make informed decisions to attain a desired outcome. In the process of going through the game motions, the student assimilates to the implications of the different actions and requisite outcomes and therefore attains the content learning outcomes.

Use of different techniques can allow for specific learning outcomes to be incorporated within each game and progress trackers included so that students can assess their own progress and receive feedback on the different actions that they take. Where things are not clear, or performance leads to negative or undesired gaming outcomes, they can seek clarifications. Implications of each action can be offered so that students understand and consider the effects of taking each action. This brings each action into focus especially if this is related to students’ real-life business environments.

From the different approaches to teaching ethics referred to earlier, business ethics modules tend to fare better if mainstreamed into the core content that students have to take.³⁵ Offering business ethics content in stand-alone modules suffers from silo application where students may fail to transfer the skills gained from the stand-alone ethics modules to their specialism modules. The suggestion therefore is that, where possible, educators ought to consider redesigning their curricula to ensure that business ethics content is integrated into the core specialisms. This allows for students to view business ethics as an integral part of whatever their specialisms are. This approach ensures that examples and content relate to the specialist areas and therefore is relevant and practical.

The fact that students have to grapple with business ethics issues across different areas is not necessarily a problem as this seeming repetition can serve to underscore the multifaceted nature of ethical dilemmas and raise the profile of ethical issues to students. The problem lies in the integration of what may appear to be isolated and disparate concepts that students may fail to operationalize within their core areas of specialism.³⁶

The use of gaming suggested previously further means that students do not just engage with business ethics issues superficially at a theoretical level. Use of game techniques heavily immerses students into the game scenarios and evokes their emotions, visualizing decision impacts in terms of human effects to highlight the fact that all decisions have people at the other end whether business executives have sight of this or not.³⁷ Very few students (and indeed business executives) intentionally plan on making unethical decisions.³⁸ Consequently, appreciation and internalization of ethics education in very theoretical contexts may tend to be superficial as students view this as remote and likely to be a problem for other business leaders other than themselves. Gamification bridges this distance and brings ethical issues closer by allowing students to get personally involved.

The author has utilized a number of gaming techniques such as the Soybean Derivative Research Initiatives (Soy-DRI), a behavioral simulation that mimics a product misuse scenario, balancing ethics and organizational interests and impacts on consumer welfare to engender ethical decision making amongst employees of the product manufacturer.³⁹ The simulation brings into the learning experience the students’ competitive urges, prompting maximum engagement with a focus on the outcomes and implications thereof.

Because business ethics issues tend to be multifaceted and relative depending on contexts, use of game simulations involving multiple players with the possibility to approach issues from different perspectives offers the prospect for real-life engagement by different players, bringing different dimensions to the game (Wolfe and Fritzsche, 1998; Kapp, 2012). The suggestion here is that business ethics games should allow participants to view different attempts by other participants and begin to evaluate the logic and effect of the different approaches. This helps to view their approaches in the context of broader possible options.

Developing Versus Developed Country Perspectives

Although there is a universality of ethics principles, issues of ethics take different dimensions especially when viewed from a developing versus developed country perspective.⁴⁰ Developing countries tend to be characterized by less developed communication infrastructure with the consequence that awareness may be limited with some people lacking knowledge of their basic rights. This lack of awareness may lend them vulnerable to abuse by powerful corporations. Legal systems may not be transparent and fully developed; there may be a shortage of basic services, forcing users to turn to what is known as the black market.⁴¹

Some developing countries lack clearly defined processes and procedures and this may ferment corruption.⁴² Participants from developing countries may face challenges around less developed infrastructure, hindering access to services with the result that people have to make difficult decisions on whether to act ethically or otherwise when lives depend on that action.⁴³ All these issues may pose challenges to businesses and need executives who can critically engage with the issues and justify their stands.

Examples of ethics challenges in developing countries may center around corrupt public officials diverting provision of services to enrich themselves, forcing service users to make critical decisions on whether to pay the required bribes or do without services altogether.⁴⁴ In other instances, salespeople may be asked to pay bribes in order to make a sale, especially when selling to corrupt government officials.⁴⁵ Notably, businesses operating in loosely regulated markets may be compelled to pay bribes to get licenses required to trade or to access the necessary market opportunities; the temptation of businesses falsifying records in environments with low accountability levels—examples abound.

While all these relate to developing country contexts, developed countries may enjoy more developed legal systems that foster enhanced transparency and accountability. Consequently, ethics challenges in developing countries may not manifest a similar fashion. This may have the consequence that participants from developed countries may not have been exposed to typical developing country ethical challenges and therefore can only theorize different ethical scenarios and implications thereof without the requisite first-hand appreciation of what is involved.

Notwithstanding these, examples of ethical issues in developed countries abound in media circles. The context of the identified ethics challenges in developed countries tends to be different to that of developing countries highlighted previously. The phone tapping scandal by the News of The World in the United Kingdom;⁴⁶ the emissions scandal by Volkswagen (VW) in 2015; the Libor rate scandal where several banks colluded to fix the rates are just a few examples that come to mind and go to show that even in developed countries, ethical issues still surface, requiring corporate leaders to take stands in handling these. Some of the issues tend to be small in nature but the media is unforgiving in highlighting these. This is in contrast to developing countries where smaller issues may go unreported or have less attention paid to them.⁴⁷ The framing of the issues tends to differ even though the underlying ethical principles are the same the world over.

In the different examples discussed earlier, there is the ostensible distance between concerned leaders and the impact of their actions, suggesting that when decisions involve faceless, distant victims, issues are less likely personalized and consequences not appropriately assessed. Business ethics games engage the players in directly rationalizing their options, highlighting the consequences of each option. One example of a business game is the developing country coffee farmers’ simulation, where students play the roles of various stakeholders in the coffee distribution and retail chain, negotiating the split of revenues and ensuring that there is an equitable distribution of coffee revenues, comparing their decisions to what actually happens in real life.

A second example is the Soy-DRI simulation where students play various roles of company employees with multiple role-based and organization-centered conflicts that compel them to approach an organizational product challenge from different ethical angles and seek to resolve this through negotiation.⁴⁸

The use of gamification promises to immerse the players into the moment and engage their feelings and emotions so that they give out a more realistic response as if they were involved in the scenario depicted by the game simulation. It is hoped that in each simulation, the human consequence of decisions and different options be highlighted so that participants develop visual images of the effect of their decisions on real lives rather than abstract conceptualizations.

Summary and Conclusion

Despite the overwhelming consensus that teaching of business ethics in international business education is crucial for today’s business leaders to competently grapple with contemporary business ethical challenges, the practice of carrying this out in an effective way that is both engaging to the student on one hand, and effective in addressing crucial learning outcomes on the other has remained elusive.⁴⁹ The resurgences of corporate scandals attributable to lack of ethics among business leaders continue to nag international business educators, re-emphasizing the need to revisit the teaching of business ethics.

Traditional teaching methods have so far proved to be ineffective in engaging students on ethical issues and pose challenges of how to build-in this important area without overcramming the already crowded syllabi.⁵⁰ Further, educators face key questions regarding the format and approach to delivering business ethics education. Key questions tend to center on whether business ethics tuition should be delivered via core modules or optional modules; whether the delivery should be via stand-alone modules or be parceled out into every key module such that its delivery becomes embedded in all the key modules.

A further complication with current teaching approaches centers on the argument that current approaches tend to be rather abstract, taking a somewhat static view of an otherwise dynamic and complex area whose tenets are continually changing.⁵¹ MBA students’ engagement with this approach can therefore suffer, especially as such students are likely to come to the lecture room with preconceived ideas of where their focus should lie and being presented with yet another module to deal with may meet resistance and threaten to dampen the student satisfaction scores that universities so much seek.

The teaching of business ethics to international business students therefore has to evolve. Suggestions proffered in this chapter involve embedding business ethics tuition into all the key specialisms that students take to ensure that business ethics education is not viewed in isolation, but is rather embedded into the different specialisms so that students begin to apply the concepts in those specialisms, taking a holistic approach.⁵² Secondly, the chapter suggested the use of gaming techniques as a way to engage students and encourage them to grapple with different aspects of the game simulating different business decision contexts. The flexibility of the games to allow multiple participants and offer them immediate feedback means that participants can evaluate different possible actions and consider implications for themselves and other stakeholders involved in the simulation.

The gaming technique also allows players to see other participants’ approaches and allows them to view their approach in a broader context, mimicking the global business environment. It was suggested that such gaming techniques brought to the fore, the human element behind business decisions and is likely to be a constant reminder to participants that every ethical decision has people at the other end rather than it being an abstract concept. The game therefore brings to the fore, the human face behind ethical decision making. There is, however, a need to further explore the earlier suggestions in a dynamic landscape to iron out possible teething problems to ensure that the suggestions can be successfully operationalized in different contexts.

Suggested Exercises

__________________

¹ Sanyal (2000).

² Crane and Matten (2007).

³ Navarro (2008).

⁴ Molesworth, Nixon, and Scullion (2009).

⁵ Fernández-Feijóo (2009); Murphy (2008).

⁶ Ferrell and Fraedrich (2014).

⁷ Navarro (2008).

⁸ Bovill, Morss, and Bulley (2009).

⁹ Fritzsche (2005).

¹⁰ Donaldson (1996); Crane and Matten (2007).

¹¹ Kaiser et al. (2014).

¹² Christensen et al. (2007).

¹³ Ferrell and Fraedrich (2014).

¹⁴ Jones, Trier, and Richards (2008).

¹⁵ Stevenson and Leconte (2009).

¹⁶ Hartman and Werhane (2009); Baetz and Sharp (2004).

¹⁷ Navarro (2008); Donaldson (1996).

¹⁸ Forsyth (2013); Jones (1991).

¹⁹ Sims (1992).

²⁰ Carroll (2000); Chonko and Hunt (1985); Fritzsche (2005).

²¹ Crane and Marten (2007).

²² Laurillard (2013).

²³ Turning Point is a polling software that involves issuing participants with hand-held polling devices that they use to register their votes in response to questions embedded in PowerPoint presentations. Results come up on the slides and can be collated for analysis later.

²⁴ Hartman and Werhane (2009).

²⁵ Baetz and Sharp (2004).

²⁶ McDonald and Donleavy (1995); Baetz and Sharp (2004).

²⁷ Slocum, Rohlfer, and Gonzalez-Canton (2014).

²⁸ Henisz (2011).

²⁹ Deterding et al. (2011).

³⁰ See, for example, Kapp (2012); Singh (2012).

³¹ Singh (2012, 108).

³² LeClair et al. (1999); Faria (2001); Wolfe and Fritzsche (1998).

³³ Bajari et al. (2010); McWilliams and Nahavandi (2006).

³⁴ Kapp (2012).

³⁵ Sims and Brinkmann (2003).

³⁶ Sims and Brinkmann (2003).

³⁷ Kapp (2012); Hartman and Werhane (2009).

³⁸ Detert, Treviño, and Sweitzer (2008).

³⁹ See, for example, LeClair and Ferrell (2000).

⁴⁰ Fritzsche (2005).

⁴¹ Leonard (2013).

⁴² Donaldson (1996).

⁴³ Ciulla (1991); Koehn (1999).

⁴⁴ Shah (2006); Tanzi (1998).

⁴⁵ Bardhan (1997).

⁴⁶ Johnson (2013).

⁴⁷ Leonard (2013).

⁴⁸ LeClair and Ferrell (2000).

⁴⁹ Sims and Felton Jr. (2006).

⁵⁰ Sims and Felton Jr. (2006); McDonald and Donleavy (1995).

⁵¹ Jones, Trier, and Richards (2008); Christensen et al. (2007).

⁵² Baetz and Sharp (2004).

References

Baetz, M.C., and D.J. Sharp, 2004. “Integrating Ethics Content into the Core Business Curriculum: Do Core Teaching Materials Do the Job.” Journal of Business Ethics 51, no. 1, pp. 53–62.

Bajari, P., H. Hong, J. Krainer, and D. Nekipelov. 2010. “Computing Equilibria in Static Games of Incomplete Information Using the All-Solution Homotopy.” Operations Research 58, pp. 237–45.

Bardhan, P. 1997. “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues.” Journal of Economic Literature 1, no. 3, pp. 1320–46.

Bovill, C., K. Morss, and C.J. Bulley. 2009. “Should Students Participate In Curriculum Design? Discussion Arising From a First Year Curriculum Design Project and a Literature Review.” Pedagogic Research in Maximising Education 3, no. 2, pp. 17–26.

Carroll, A.B. 2000. “Ethical Challenges for Business in the New Millennium: Corporate Social Responsibility and Models of Management Morality.” Business Ethics Quarterly 10, no. 1, pp. 33–42.

Chonko, L.B., and S.D. Hunt. 1985. “Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical Examination.” Journal of Business Research 13, no. 4, pp. 339–59.

Christensen, L.J., E. Peirce, L.P. Hartman, W.M. Hoffman, and J. Carrier. 2007. “Ethics, CSR, and Sustainability Education in the Financial Times Top 50 Global Business Schools: Baseline Data and Future Research Directions.” Journal of Business Ethics 73, no. 4, pp. 347–68.

Ciulla, J.B. 1991. “Why is Business Talking About Ethics? Reflections on foreign conversations.” California Management Review 34, no. 1, pp. 67–68.

Crane, A., and D. Matten. 2007. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. USA: Oxford University Press.

Detert, J.R., L.K. Treviño, and V.L. Sweitzer. 2008. “Moral Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making: a Study of Antecedents and Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 2, p. 374.

Deterding, S., M. Sicart, L. Nacke, K. O’Hara, and D. Dixon. 2011. “Gamification. Using Game-Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts.” In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2425–2428. ACM.

Donaldson, T. 1996. “Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home.” Harvard Business Review 74, no. 5, p. 48.

Fernández-FeijóoSouto, B. 2009. “Crisis and Corporate Social Responsibility: Threat or Opportunity.” International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research 1, no. 1, pp. 36–50.

Ferrell, O.C., and J. Fraedrich. 2014. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. London: CengageLearning.

Forsyth, D.R. 2013. “Judging the Morality of Business Practices: The Influence of Personal Moral Philosophies.” In Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics 265–77. Netherlands: Springer.

Fritzsche, D.J. 2005. Business Ethics: A Global and Managerial Perspective. Irwin Professional Pub.

Hartman, L.P., and P.H. Werhane. 2009. “A Modular Approach to Business Ethics Integration: At the Intersection of the Stand-Alone and the Integrated Approaches.” Journal of Business Ethics 90, no. 3, pp. 295–300.

Henisz, W.J. 2011. “Leveraging the Financial Crisis to Fulfill the Promise of Progressive Management.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 10, no. 2, pp. 298–321.

Johnson, C.E. 2013. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow. Sage Publications.

Jones, P., C.J. Trier, and J.P. Richards. 2008. “Embedding Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education: A Case Study Examining Common Challenges and Opportunities for Undergraduate Programs.” International Journal of Educational Research 47, no. 6, pp. 341–50.

Jones, T.M. 1991. “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model.” Academy of Management Review 16, no. 2, pp. 366–95.

Kaiser, F., P. Maassen, L. Meek, F. van Vught, E. de Weert, and L. Goedegebuure, eds. 2014. Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective. Elsevier.

Kapp, K.M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. John Wiley & Sons.

Koehn, D. 1999. “What can Eastern Philosophy Teach us About Business Ethics.” Journal Of Business Ethics 19, no. 1, pp. 71–79.

Laurillard, D. 2013. Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective use of Learning Technologies. Routledge.

LeClair, D.T. and L. Ferrell. 2000. “Innovation in Experiential Business Ethics Training.” Journal of Business Ethics 23, no. 3, pp. 313–22.

LeClair, D.T., L. Ferrell, L. Montuori, and C. Willems. 1999. “The Use of a Behavioral Simulation to Teach Business Ethics.” Teaching Business Ethics 3, no. 3, pp. 283–96.

Leonard, T.M. 2013. Encyclopedia of the Developing World. Routledge.

McDonald, G.M., and G.D. Donleavy. 1995. “Objections to the Teaching of Business Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 14, no. 10, pp. 839–53.

McWilliams, V., and A. Nahavandi. 2006. “Using Live Cases to Teach Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 67, no. 4, pp. 421–33.

Molesworth, M., E. Nixon, and R. Scullion. 2009. “Having, Being and Higher Education: The Marketisation of the University and the Transformation of the Student into Consumer.” Teaching in Higher Education 14, no. 3, pp. 277–87.

Murphy, A. 2008. An Analysis of the Financial Crisis of 2008: Causes and Solutions. Available at SSRN 1295344.

Navarro, P. 2008. “The MBA Core Curricula of Top-Ranked U.S. Business Schools: A Study in Failure.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 7, no. 1, pp. 108–23.

Sanyal, R.N. 2000. “An Experiential Approach to Teaching Ethics in International Business.” Teaching Business Ethics 4, no. 2, pp. 137–49.

Shah, A. 2006. “Corruption and Decentralized Public Governance.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3824.

Sims, R.R. 1992. “The Challenge of Ethical Behavior in Organizations.” Journal of Business Ethics 11, no. 7, pp. 505–13.

Sims, R.R., and J. Brinkmann. 2003.“Business Ethics Curriculum Design: Suggestions and Illustrations.” Teaching Business Ethics 7, no. 1, pp. 69–86.

Sims, R.R., and E.L. Felton, Jr. 2006. “Designing and Delivering Business Ethics Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Business Ethics 63, no. 3, pp. 297–312. Singh, S.P. 2012. “Gamification: A Strategic Tool for Organizational Effectiveness.” International Journal of Management 1, no. 1, pp. 108–13.

Slocum, A., S. Rohlfer, and C. Gonzalez-Canton. 2014. “Teaching Business Ethics Through Strategically Integrated Micro-Insertions.” Journal of Business Ethics125, no. 1, pp. 45–58.

Stevenson, J., and M.O. Leconte. 2009. “Whose Ethical University is it Anyway? Widening Participation, Student Diversity and the ‘Ethical’ Higher Education Institution.” International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations 9, no. 3, pp. 103–14.

Tanzi, V. 1998. “Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures.” Staff Papers-International Monetary Fund pp. 559–94.

Wolfe, J., and D.J. Fritzsche. 1998. “Teaching Business Ethics With Management and Marketing Games.” Simulation and Gaming 29, no. 1, pp. 44–59.