This commentary argues that industrial-organizational psychology can be a conduit for greater good by focusing on the United Nations sustainable development goal number 8 which calls for decent work for all. However, before industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology can truly be used for the greater good it must reckon with our identity crisis: who does I-O psychology serve, the worker or organization? We argue that under a capitalistic model, there is no clear path to working with organizations to provide decent work and economic growth simultaneously. Thus, it is critical that the I-O psychology field clarifies its purpose and identity.

Tippins et al. (2023) challenge I-O psychologists to more actively – in Miller’s oft-quoted APA presidential address – “give psychology away.” Their article provides stirring examples of the impact several of our colleagues have made in giving psychology away. In thinking about how to encourage and facilitate more of us to volunteer, we’d like to share several thoughts on our roles as I-Os, both as individuals and as a community. In particular, we propose that volunteerism is an expression of our calling as I-Os; suggest five roles we can play as individuals; discuss three roles for the community at-large; and conclude with a call to action.

Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and especially since, I-O psychology has demonstrated its ability to adapt and to make meaningful contributions to how work is accomplished in tumultuous environments. Such contributions reflect the ongoing evolution of the field and an increased awareness of the potential for I-O psychologists to effect meaningful societal change. We believe that I-O psychology must embrace this evolution and, using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to help us target our efforts, become a resource and a voice for workers and organizations around the world, and a force for the greater good.

Opinions have been divided regarding the relevance of the APA Ethics Code to non-mental health specialties and even whether the code should attempt to encompass all psychology specializations. However, these opinions have crystallized without the benefit of any appreciable empirical data, until now. This study investigates the applicability of the ethical principles and standards of the code to 398 first-person narratives of ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists. On average, 2.8 (of the 5) principles enumerated in the code were deemed applicable to each incident, and each principle was applicable to more than half the incidents provided. Of the code’s 89 ethical standards, 75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident. Among the 10 categories of standards, resolving ethical issues and human relations were the most frequently applicable, whereas therapy standards were virtually never applicable. However, for 42.7% of the incidents, trained judges identified a substantive deficiency or ambiguity for I-O psychologists in the code. These deficiencies were subsequently grouped into seven higher order categories (assessments in organizations; research practices; data management; professional interactions; business practices; student ethics; and proactive ethical behavior). Recommendations are offered for improving those putative deficiencies, and implications are discussed for I-O psychologists, the APA’s Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), and other nonclinical domains of psychology.