The Center's Director, Fellows and affiliated faculty from Seattle University are actively engaged in timely research examining business ethics, corporate responsibility and role of business in society. Explore this recent work below.
Caitlin Ring Carlson, Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Communication & Media, Seattle University
This discussion brings the most recent research regarding corporate social responsibility to bear on the most pressing questions about digital content moderation. The discussion begins with an overview of the content moderation process and then makes a case for why corporate social responsibility can and should be used to offer fresh insights into these complex questions. It then undertakes a thought exercise, which uses the four major theories of modern corporate social responsibility, to determine what guidance these approaches can provide social media companies. The end result of this analysis is a set of recommendations and potential directions for social media organizations to consider in their decision-making around content moderation. Any firm wrestling can utilize the process itself with complex ethical questions regarding the impact of its business practices.
Onur Bakiner, Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Political Science, Seattle University
This discussion identifies major risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, introduces the reader to the terms of today’s debates on the ethical uses of AI, defined as attempts to understand, criticize, reform and transform AI systems for social good, and then examines proposed solutions to mitigate or eliminate these risks. It pays specific attention to the interaction of business- and industry-level solutions with government regulation and draws upon the latest academic research on AI ethics as well as news coverage of the topic.
Marc Cohen, Faculty Fellow and Professor of Management and Philosophy, Seattle University
This paper explores how to build a culture of trust in organizations. The experimental research shows that a culture of trust is created when leaders treat employees and other business partners as if they are reliable, even when there is little information to be had about their reliability. The research also suggests that attempts to monitor and control the actions of employees and partners can backfire, creating less trustworthy behavior. Finally, there are ongoing positive effects of trusting behavior, economically and psychologically, which reduces opportunistic behavior within and between organizations.
Valentina Zamora, Faculty Fellow and Associate Professor of Accounting, Seattle University
This paper highlights some key insights from academic research on corporate social responsibility disclosures (CSRD) and their perceived credibility. Research suggests that companies need to provide credibility cues regarding the knowledge, veracity, and intent standing behind their CSRD. Accordingly, different stakeholders, including investors, consumers, and employees, judge CSRD as more credible when the disclosures are: assured by third parties users deem as reliable; mapped to an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) measurement framework users view as relevant; and aligned with actions reflective of the company’s authentic commitment to corporate social responsibility.
Faculty from the Albers School of Business and Economics have published widely in areas related to business ethics, corporate responsibility and the role of business and society. Review their work across different disciplines below.
Kimbro, M. (2011). Corruption primer: the role of culture, religion, wealth and governance. Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting 3(3): 166-193.
Kimbro, M. (2002). A cross-country empirical investigation of corruption and its relationship to economic, cultural and institutional variables. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 17(4): 325-350.
Le, Q., Rishi, M. (2006). Corruption and capital flight: an empirical assessment. International Economic Journal 20(4): 523-540.
Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T., Magnan, G. (2018). How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 25(8): 672-682.
Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., Zamora, V. (2018). CSR disclosure items used as fairness heuristics in the investment decision. Journal of Business Ethics 152(1): 275-289.
Brown-Liburd, H., Zamora, V. (2015). The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in investors’ judgments when managerial pay is explicitly tied to CSR performance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34(1): 75-96.
Cotten M. & Lasprogata, G. (2012). Corporate citizenship and creative collaboration: best practices for cross-sector partnership. Journal of Law, Business and Ethics. 18.
Goel, G. & Rishi, M. (2012). Tackling the menace of poverty by capacity building: case-based evidence on multi-sectoral partnerships in India. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 1: 361-372.
Lasprogata, G. & Cotten, M. (2003). Contemplating ‘enterprise’: the business and legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal Volume 41(1): 67-114.
Ludescher, J. & Mahsud, R. (2010). Opening Pandora’s box: corporate social responsibility exposed. The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy 15(1):123-131.
Obermiller, C., Burke, C., Talbott, E., Green, G. (2009). Tastes great or more fulfilling: the effect of brand reputation on consumer social responsibility advertising for fair trade coffee. Corporate Reputation Review 12(2): 159-176.
Jensen, G., Johnson, R., Phillips, J. (1993). Socially responsible investing: using human resource policy as a selection criterion. Journal of Business and Economic Studies 2(1):9-22.
Jensen, G., Johnson, R., Phillips, J. (1994). Catholic social teaching and human resource policy: implications for equity investors. On the Condition of Labor and the Social Question One Hundred Years Later, edited by Thomas O. Nitsch, Joseph M. Phillips and Edward Fitzsimmons, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994.
Cohen, J., Manzon, G., Zamora, V. (2015). Contextual and individual dimensions of taxpayer decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics 126(4): 631-647.
Smith, J. & Dubbink, W. (2011). Understanding the role of moral principles in business ethics: a Kantian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(2): 205-231.
Arneson, D & Weis, W. (2008). Saving American business: changing the culture of corporate leadership beyond the next quarter’s profits. Journal of Business Leadership 13(2):1.
Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., Prussia, G. (2013). Ethical and empowering leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology 28(2): 133-146.
Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., Prussia, G. (2010). Leader empathy, ethical leadership and relations-oriented behaviors as antecedents of leader-member exchange. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25(6): 561-577.
Rothausen, T.J. (2017). Integrating leadership development with Ignatian spirituality: A model for designing a spiritual leader development practice. Journal of Business Ethics 145(4), 811-829.
Rothausen, T.J. (2007). Making the impact of gender on business leadership visible: A tool for use in organizations and education. Leadership Review 7, 93-110.
Tyler, T., Dienhart, J., Thomas, T. (2008). The ethical commitment to compliance: building value-based cultures. California Management Review 50(2): 31-51.
Carrithers, D. & Peterson, D. (2011). Integrating a social justice perspective in economics education: creating a distinctly catholic education. A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 13(4) 415-436.
Carrithers, D. & Peterson, D. (2006). Conflicting views of markets and economic justice: implications for student learning. Journal of Business Ethics 69(4): 373-387.
Arnesen, D. & Blizinsky, M. (1995). Cable television: will federal regulation protect the public interest? American Business Law Journal 32(4): 627-650.
King, N., Pillay, S., Lasprogata, G. (2006). Workplace privacy and discrimination issues related to genetic data: a comparative law study of the European Union and the United States. American Business Law Journal. Volume 43: 79-171