Ethics surely matters to people, but to ignore the fact that other things matter as well is to oversimplify human motivation and behavior. Human action is often the ungainly resolution of conflicts between ethical and egotistical impulses, and the challenge for moral psychology is to understand these conflicts and their resolution.

This review offers a cautious acceptance of the Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) developed by Robin, Gordon, Jordan and Reidenbach. While the contribution of the MES to future empirical research of individuals’ moral reasoning is welcomed, a number of reservations or criticisms are raised regarding theory confusion, instrument confusion, and fears arising when using the MES. I conclude that the MES is a valuable compliment to existing moral reasoning instruments — the Moral Judgment Interview and the Defining Issues Test — but not a replacement of these instruments.

The subject of journal quality has received little attention in the business ethics literature. While there are reasons for this past neglect, there are important new considerations which make it vital that researchers now address this topic. First, virtually all business school departments use evaluations of journal quality as an important indicator of scholarly achievement, yet business ethics has no such studies. Second, as many schools are beginning to ask ethicists to publish in the wider management literature, it is important to find a way to compare journal quality across these domains. In the absence of such studies, performance review committees (including tenure decisions) may well make incorrect inferences about journal quality within business ethics or assume that ethics journals are not prestigious unless a candidate can provide evidence to the contrary (i.e. as in a study like this one). This study addresses these two issues. It relies on an opinion-based survey to establish journal quality by incorporating a list of journals within business ethics and the wider management literature. The target population is active business ethics researchers within the Society for Business Ethics (SBE). We present the results of the study and discuss their implications.

This response to Dobson and White's call for a feminine firm argues that such a concept is based on a misinterpretation of Gilligan's research. Moreover, virtue ethics and feminine ethics do not share a common approach to nurturing relationships or the moral orientation of care. Acknowledging the worthwhile goals of Dobson and White's endeavor, the feminist firm is presented as offering greater potential to achieve these goals.

In this comment I challenge two of the arguments made in the paper, “Toward the Feminine Firm.” First I challenge the claim that Gilligan's work on gender differences in moral orientation provides a logically and empirically sound foundation for an alternative theory of the firm. I cite recent work that discredits any concise notion of a feminine ethic. Second I challenge the claim that, if such a firm were to exist, it would flourish in a competitive market economy. I suggest that, far from flourishing, such a firm will rapidly perish.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on two recent papers (Burton and Dunn, “Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory” and Dobson, “The Feminine Firm: A Comment”—both in the April 1996 edition of BEQ) which deal with the subject of feminism in business ethics. Both raise important issues for how we think about the relevance and potential contribution of feminist thought to this area of research.

In his “Why be Moral? A Different Rationale for Managers,” (Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 4, April, 1994), La Rue Tone Hosmer argues that managers should be moral because “acting in ways that can be considered to be ‘right’ and ‘just’ and ‘fair’ is absolutely essential to the long-term competitive success of the firm.” According to Hosmer, moral behavior generates trust among stakeholders, which leads to stakeholder commitment, which leads to increased stakeholder effort, which ultimately leads to corporate success. Though we agree with Hosmer's causal reasoning, we are concerned about an ancient loophole, namely, cases where the mere appearance of morality will generate the same trust, and commitment, and so on, and will thus enable managers to reap the material benefits of morality while nevertheless engaging in immoral practices. We conclude that a virtue ethics perspective will strengthen Hosmer's model so as to cover such cases.

“Business Ethics in Developing Countries: A Response to Rossouw” examines Gedeon J. Rossouw's account of business morality and those preconditions that he seeks in order to develop a moral business culture in South Africa, given the historical reality in that country. The paper argues that Rossouw does not take cognisance of history. Particularly of the decade after the election of the Nationalist Party Government in 1948, when that government strove to impose its ideology upon South African Society. If he did take cognisance of that history, then he would not be able to proffer those proposals which he believes would improve business morality there. The paper also extends a caution against the acceptance of economic advancement as a pre-condition for the appearance of moral business practices. Likewise for the contrary view that economic growth is the harbinger of moral decay.