Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As business ethics is grappling with criticisms of its relevance for ethical practice, it may find perspective and direction in various conceptions of ethos. While ‘ethics’ is rooted in ‘ethos’, a term with a long and rich history of interdisciplinary research, conceptions of ethos are so far scarcely discussed in business ethics. The purpose of this conceptual article is to explore the potential of a pivot towards business ethics as an ethos-driven practice, drawing on John Dewey’s work. First, it introduces four conceptions of ethos from interdisciplinary research and explores their varied resonance in business ethics. Second, it offers a unified conception of ethos that builds on John Dewey’s approach to economics, moral life and ethics, particularly on his understanding of habits and forms of valuation. It is then argued that understanding ethos in terms of ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct’ encourages business ethics to engage in the intelligent, practical and meaningful reconstruction of evolving business practices. The article concludes that an ‘ethotical turn’ for business ethics would not only invigorate practical, corporeal and environmental perspectives but also open the field to interdisciplinary insights and ideas.

Keywords

Ethos ethic ethical practice business ethos pragmatist business ethics John Dewey

Introduction: Ethos as Foundation of Ethics?

Different conceptions of ‘ethos’ are recurring but isolated and underrated in business ethics. I propose that when reviewed together, they prompt a reconsideration of the role of business ethics in regard to strengthening ethical practices. First, in terms of the history of ideas, the root of ‘ethics’ itself lies in the ancient understanding of ‘ethos’ (Pieper, 2017, p. 22; Hübner 2018, p. 10). Diverse understandings of ethos implicitly shape our understanding of ethics itself. Second, the term ethos has had a lively career of its own across millennia, cultures and disciplines. Business ethics may be fundamentally enriched by ideas, instruments and insights from an interdisciplinary inquiry into ethos. Third, from a perspective of applied ethics, different ethoi provide the empirical context and exemplary result of past ethical practice, and hence we would get ethics ‘in’ or ethics ‘as’ practice. Fourth, in terms of normative ethics, the diversity of ethoi goes beyond the usual suspects in moral theory based on rules, goods or virtues to offer a rich and diverse empirical fund of normative ideas and conceptions and their historical genesis and efficacy. So, from a metaethical point of view, the course of inquiry into the fund of conceptual and empirical forms of ethos is likely to stimulate ideas for the direction, function and focus of business ethics.

In this conceptual article (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015), I relate four different conceptions of ethos as discussed in interdisciplinary approaches to recent discussions of ethos in business ethics, illustrating insights as well as blind spots. Drawing on John Dewey’s understanding of ethics, moral life, business and economic affairs, I then attempt to integrate these four conceptions into an inclusive framework of ethos pertaining to ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied, and associational conduct’. In consequence, I propose that the task of business ethics is participation in the practical reconstruction of existing ethoi, understood as such valued modes of conduct in business. In conclusion, I summarize the argument, outline larger implications of an ‘ethotical turn’ and point out the necessities of further interdisciplinary inquiry and experiment.

Conceptions of Ethos in Business Ethics

Conceptions of ethos are steadily used in different disciplines, such as rhetoric (Amossy, 2001; Aristotle, 1926; Baumlin & Meyer 2018; Hyde, 2004), political or practical philosophy (Aristotle, 1925; Charpenel, 2017; Cherniss, 2021; Foucault & Rabinow, 1997; Hatzisavvidou, 2016; Höffe, 2008; McNeill, 2006; White, 2009) sociology (Kalleberg, 2007; Merton, 1942; Urban, 2012; Weber, 2001), anthropology (Epstein, 1978; Rabinow, 2009) and educational studies (Cramer & Oser, 2019; McLaughlin, 2010). Ethos has even spawned its own discipline in the twentieth century: Since the 1930s, ‘ethology’ is the study of animal behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait in natural settings, while ‘human ethology’ pertains to the study of human behaviour as shaped by biology, culture and the environment (Calarco, 2018; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989).

A typical etymological approach traces ethos back to two spellings in Greek: (a) ‘éthos’ with epsilon (ἔθος), meaning habit, (external) habituation or custom (in Latin rendered as consuetodo or mos), and (b) more commonly, ēthos with eta (ἔθος), which originally meant place of residence, habitual seat and habitual abode. It later came to denote character, customs, habits, mode of thought or disposition (Düwell et al., 2011; Hatzisavvidou, 2016; Horn & Rapp, 2008). In colloquial use, ethos is often understood to either denote customary practices that constitute a collective, which I call ‘ethos-in-customs’, or a virtuous, trustworthy ‘ethos-in-character’. Below, I will demonstrate the plausibility of the claim that these are predominant in business ethics. Two other conceptions of ethos that may be labelled ‘ethos-as-habitat’ and ‘ethos-as-careful-dwelling’ are sidelined. While each conception may on its own enlighten research and empower ethical conduct, I suggest an integrative framework of ethos is even more relevant than just the sum of four conceptions.

The term ethos is used in 455 articles I reviewed from the Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility (until 2021 Business Ethics: A European Review), the Humanistic Management Journal and the Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics (Poff & Michalos, 2020) for the time between 2012 and 2022. My argument draws on that fund and other pertinent works. A more detailed future survey should account for the fact that ‘ethos’ is sometimes rendered as ‘ethic’, making it challenging to discern with search engines primed on stemming, and important aspects of ethos are often discussed without the term itself or even under the label of ‘ethics’ broadly understood as an approach of typical valuations or value practices. Weber’s ‘protestant ethic’ comes to mind, the original title of which properly translates as ‘protestant ethics’ (Weber, 2001).

Ethos as Habitat (Ethos 1)

The first meaning of ethos is usually traced back to Homer, Hesiod and Herodotus. Here, ethos denoted geographically bound spatiality for animals and humans. In Homer, éthea symbolized familiar locations for animals, such as stables for pigs or domesticated horses. Wild horses yearned for their éthos, the open pastures that symbolized freedom but were also governed by nómos, law (Scott, 1990, p. 143). Hesiod and Herodotus used éthea to describe human abodes, places of association, dwellings, haunts, towns, territories and homeland, and such typical places of certain forms of life correlate with habituation, safety and accustomed behaviour (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 24). This first ancient understanding of ‘ēthos-as-topos’ or ‘ethos-as-habitat’ is mirrored today in (human) ethology, the study of behaviour in certain environments. This gives rise to other notions of ethos: location shapes identities, with dwelling places defining the grounds where ethics and moral character develop (Hyde, 2004, p. xx), and ethos becomes the space where members of a polis project their shared values and customs, their commonality (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 32). Uses of ethos-as-habitat include Meyer’s exploration of the Oglala Lakota’s ethos of the ‘dwelling place’, where cultural identity is deeply rooted in the land, forming an ecology-based ethology (2019). Hans Küng’s (1990) ‘Weltethos Project’ emphasizes ‘planetary consciousness’ that acknowledges the fragile environment of humankind. Like ethologist Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989), Küng (1990) anticipates a ‘new global ethos’ of human survival in the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Schwägerl, 2011).

While one might expect ethos-as-habitat to feature in business ethics literature on topics like environmental ethics, few works discuss it explicitly. Most articles only contribute to this conversation inadvertently (e.g., Allen et al., 2019; Alcaraz et al., 2021). A rare exception is Alistair Wardrope’s piece on ‘Medical Ethics and the Land Ethic’ (2023) which builds on Aldo Leopold’s (2014) ecology-based ethical extension towards a ‘land ethic’.

Ethos in the Customs of Business Affairs (Ethos 2)

Ethos-as-habitat informs cultural and social consciousness through interpretation of the local environment, shaping epistemic structures (Urban, 2012, p. 127) and creating a formative space of history, socialization, habituation and conscious internalization of socially approved habits (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, pp. 11–12). Where ethos is understood to mean collectively shared worldviews, ideas, values, norms and practices, we find the dominant conception of ethos in business ethics. Ethos as (the spirit of) a collective way of life is a basic concept in moral philosophy and sociology. In a comprehensive philosophical definition, it implies a set of views believed by the majority of a religious, ethnic, civic or professional group about essential matters, expressed in guiding principles and patterns of behaviour, which reveal a certain, clearly established ‘dogmatic form of thought’ and guarantee a predictable and regulated coexistence characterized by trust, reliability and understanding (Funke & Reiner, 1972, pp. 312–313).

A tendency to understand ethos-as-customs can lay claim to Plato’s conception of ethos as obedience to a collective code of moral rules (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 282). Likewise, Bourdieu’s conception of ethos highlights the regulating effect of a collective ethos on individual behaviour. In his view, a collective set of attitudes, behaviours and values is not only expressive but also generative of specific power structures and social hierarchies. These are cultivated, reinforced and reproduced in the internalized dispositions and behaviours, known as the ‘habitus’ of individuals (Grenfell, 2014). Yet, other authors insist that ethos is more than just a behavioural programme of group morality in the sense of the Latin ‘mores’ or Hegel’s Sitten (Gröschner, 2013, p. 45; Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 26; Urban, 2012, p. 134). In an affirmation of that view, I suggest that ‘ethos in customs’ means shared ideas, worldviews, beliefs and values that are expressed in a reflective practice of customs but may also inspire critiques and innovations of ossified customs.

Business ethics research often focuses on two main areas: societal, religious or cultural influences on business conduct and the intrinsic ethos within such conduct. For the first area, Max Weber’s (2001) work on the Protestant ethic’s role in capitalism serves as a foundational reference (Hanemaayer, 2017). Various faith traditions and their impact on capitalism have been studied, from Catholicism and Judaism to Islam and Confucianism (Asutay et al., 2021; Ghafran & Yasmin, 2020; Kahane, 2012; Kornoukhova, 2018; Lew et al. 2011; Melé, 2012; Novak, 1993; Rice, 1999). The Indian ethos is also explored through texts like the Bhagavad Gita (Mulla & Krishnan 2014; Mukherjee & Bhattacharjee, 2022; Sinha et al., 2021). Hans Küng’s (1990) Weltethos Project, inspiring the UN Global Economic Ethic Manifesto in 2009, has similarly garnered attention (Dierksmeier, 2016; Gohl, 2018; Keir 2017; Küng, 1998; Leisinger, 2010, 2018; Wieland, 2010).

For the second area, Melé (2012) suggests the term ‘humanist business ethos’ as an alternative to profit-maximization models (p. 89). Other perspectives range from endorsing a ‘Morality of Profit-Making’ (Padelford & White, 2009; 2010) to exploring ‘institutional ethos’ in decision-making and organizational behaviour (Munro, 2010). Cumulative discussions address ‘organizational ethos’ through an Aristotelian lens on virtues (Caza et al., 2004; Cummings, 2003), while other studies explore ethos in Human Resource Management, public service and academia (Corlett, 2023; Costea et al., 2012; Lozano, 2012; Rayner et al., 2012; Vriens et al., 2018). Lastly, the study of professional ethos, the ethical norms shaping professional engagement (Loacker, 2022), spans from medical and legal fields to management (Khurana & Nohria, 2008; Poff & Michalos, 2020; Romani & Szkudlarek, 2014; Rozuel, 2011; Sullivan, 1990). Loacker’s (2022) exquisite study, for instance, investigates the ethos of lawyers, revealing the intricate interplay between practices, identity and ethics.

Ethos in the Character of Business Actors (Ethos 3)

Ethos-in-character, rooted in Aristotle’s tradition and often transmitted through MacIntyre (1985) and Solomon (1992), involves an individual’s continuous, consciously cultivated moral and ethical conduct in the public sphere, resulting in their perceived ‘character’ (Cherniss, 2021, pp. 31–32). Aristotle’s works offer different interpretations of ethos: In Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, it relates to conduct-guiding dispositions acquired through habituation, while in Rhetoric, it reflects an orator’s moral authority among the audience, integrating practical wisdom, virtue and goodwill into character. This (moral) character, publicly enacted or performed as a self-concept, is proven to be trustworthy through speech and social interaction with those who judge the individual (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, p. 18; Cherniss, 2021, pp. 31–32; Hühn & Meyer, 2023; Kinneavy & Warshauer, 1994, p. 179). Ethos appears in character as ‘an embodied consciousness clothed in culture and “made visible” in language’ (Baumlin, 2020, p. 2), or as ‘the subject’s mode of being and a certain manner of acting visible to others’ (Foucault, as quoted in McNeill, 2006, p. 67). In this conception of ethos, the publicly constructed aspect of ethos-in-character is assumed to be rooted in an inner constitution or habituation, variously described as shaped by natural (aesthetic, temperamental and affective) dispositions, acquired virtues and the capacity for discursive reason, or a combination of dispositional, characterological and doctrinal elements. Unlike external moral codes, this internal ethos informs individual actions without dictating their course (Charpenel, 2017, pp. 106–107; Cherniss, 2021, pp. 32–33).

Influential in interdisciplinary discussions, Heidegger and Foucault stress the importance of freedom and ethical self-care in shaping one’s individual ethos. Heidegger views ethos as a ‘basic stance of dwelling in the world’ requiring ethical cultivation, Foucault as a free and intentional practice of self-care. Both views involve an understanding of selfhood within the context of action, world and historical determination (Foucault & Rabinow, 1997, p. 286; McNeill, 2006, p. 55).

If at all quoted as authors in the works surveyed, Heidegger’s and Foucault’s spin on an individual ethos appears a non-entity. In business education and leadership ethics, the concept of ethos-in-character is largely framed by Aristotelian thought. Van Baardewijk & de Graaf (2021) explore Aristotelian moral development in business school curricula, while the ethos of leaders is discussed by Glauner (2018), Yuan et al. (2022) and Fujimoto & Uddin (2020). For some studies, like Caza et al. (2004), individual virtuousness gives rise to a collective ethos-in-customs. Melé (2012, 2016) and Mea & Sims (2019) integrate Aristotelian virtues with Catholic social teaching to explore a humanistic management ethos. Conversely, Padelford and White (2009) and Segal and Lehrer (2013) offer simpler takes, associating ethos with individual worldviews on profit-making and business ethics, respectively.

Ethos as Careful Dwelling (Ethos 4)

A fourth understanding of ethos might be called ‘ethos-as-careful-dwelling’. It encompasses not only self-care but also care for the shared commons, the world or habitat in which one dwells, including one’s future ways of being in the world. One old approach, influenced by Max Scheler and David Koigen, views ethos as the vital axis of cultural activity, generating social behaviour and directing the nomological ordering of society (Urban, 2012, pp. 127, 128, 134). In this view, ethos-in-customs and ethos-in-character habitually direct the aspirational cultivation of one’s habitat or community. Another approach, suggested by Heidegger’s reading of ethos-as-habitat as ‘the open region in which the human being dwells’, considers ethos a practice of open inhabitation, allowing the possibilities of being to emerge (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, p. 14; Hyde, 2004). Ethos is understood to be a participative practice of care in which the self-engages with the challenges and opportunities of a world that arises, shaping one’s way of being as a human (Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 90). Ethotical agents develop diverse judgments, convictions and practices, shifting their modes of dwelling in the world (and in memory, language, history and culture) while embodying responsible continuity of their ways of life (Baumlin & Meyer, 2018, p. 22; Hatzisavvidou, 2016, p. 12). Ethos becomes a creative mode of caring inhabitation, and ethotic action involves co-knowing, co-experiencing and co-acting (Urban, 2012, p. 133).

In a highly perceptive paper, Donna Ladkin (2006) applies Heidegger’s idea of ‘dwelling’ to organizational leadership, linking it to Gilligan’s ‘ethic of care’ and Aristotelian virtue ethics. Her work, which has influenced others like Marsh (2013) and Pérezts et al. (2019), showcases ethos as key to understanding selfhood, leadership and sustainability. Painter-Morland & ten Bos (2016) further expand on how Heidegger’s concept enriches organizational environmentalism. Although numerous articles centre on similar themes like the ethics of care or sustainable development (e.g., Molterer et al., 2020; Gherardi & Laasch, 2022), they rarely engage directly with Heidegger’s ethos or Ladkin’s (2006) contributions (e.g., Elley-Brown & Pringle, 2021; Küpers, 2013).

An Emergent Understanding of Ethos in Business

While exhaustive neither in terms of breadth nor depth, this initial survey of four interdisciplinary ethos conceptions in business ethics discourse plausibly illustrates their varying relevance. Typically, ethos is viewed through the lenses of customs or character rather than habitat or careful dwelling.

Different conceptions highlight different aspects of business life. Ethos 1 underscores how deeply rooted business is in both ecological and sociocultural environments, extending beyond mere context to assert that such conditions inform or even shape (typical or aspirational) behaviour. This viewpoint enriches discussions of context, space, sense of place, socio-materiality, the evolutionary origins and cultural variety of moral pluralism (Graham et al., 2018) and dynamics of the Anthropocene era.

Ethos 2 emphasizes the role of shared ideas, values, perspectives, ways of life and customs in shaping institutions, organizations and communal identities. Here, environing nature and culture instantiate in customs, and ethoi serve both as a basis for ethical discourse and as ongoing practices that influence and guide individual behaviour. This perspective enriches discussions on collective morality, its evolutionary and historical origins, ideological frameworks, power dynamics and educational and relational aspects of business.

Ethos 3 turns to questions of embodied disposition and individual character development, agency and identity. Shaped by ethos-in-customs, individuation integrates traits and moral foundations (Haidt, 2012) with the reflexive acquisition of habits, among them habits of reasonable or prudent judgement, self-awareness and self-care. This perspective carries significant implications for business education and responsible economic behaviour, including individual agency and leadership, teamwork and stakeholder relations.

Finally, Ethos 4 pertains to ethos as a mode of tending to one’s world. In one approach, the habitual practice of Ethos 2 and 3 now appears as automated force of an aspirational reordering of the environing conditions. In the Heideggerian approach, conscious and creative agency realizes emergent possibilities of future conduct within and through the environing conditions which are cared for, safeguarding a process of ‘creative continuity’ that reforms and sustains an ethos in the face of challenges, and that stands in marked contrast to the ‘creative destruction’ of the Schumpeterian kind. Heidegger’s ‘dwelling’ relates to careful, adaptive action via explorative, participative, cooperative and dialogical modes of ‘negotiation’ (Loacker, 2022) or ‘tinkering’ (Molterer et al., 2020) with different goods, means and aspirations in problematic situations, extending into areas like stewardship and sustainable development.

While each conception of ethos deserves deeper study, a unified framework that accounts for the dynamic interplay between different conceptions and their functional, normative and practical implications may offer valuable benefits. Such a unified ethos approach may serve as an adaptive tool that facilitates not only the comparative analysis of diverse real-world ethical and moral practices but could also offer practical guidance for their reconstruction in business settings. Steering clear of single-minded approaches, it would welcome interdisciplinary insights and provide a focused direction for the evolving field of business ethics.

As a point of departure for developing such a unified approach, I propose the continuous feedback process that emerges from the exploration of the four functional conceptions of ethos: Ethos 1 gives rise to typical customs of Ethos 2, while both together shape the individual’s lived Ethos 3 which feeds not only back into the current performance of Ethos 2 but, together with it, feeds into Ethos 4, the (habitual or creative) treatment of one’s habitat, modifying Ethos 1 in ways that promote a change in customs and conduct, and so forth. A habitat habituates (collective and individual) habits which, as they change, change the habitat.

For the purposes of business ethics, any attempt at a unified approach would also have to capture the moral and ethical dimension of practices in business—how moral and ethical factors bear on business affairs, and how business affairs bear on moral and ethical concerns. I attempt to satisfy the ambitions of a unified and comprehensive conception of ethos with a pragmatist reconstruction based on the works of John Dewey.

Towards A Unified Conception of Ethos in Business: A Deweyan Reconstruction

John Dewey flatly identified ethos with customs (LW7, p. 9).¹ I intend to show, however, that his work on moral life, ethics, economic affairs and business conduct offers a fitting framework to integrate the four conceptions of ethos into a continuous cycle of interdependent influence and to determine a corresponding understanding of business ethics. I read his work as an extended treatise on various interdependent factors of generative moral and ethical practices which I will reconstruct as ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied, and associational conduct’. These are, I claim, the subject matter that should drive the practice of business ethics.

Ethos 1, 2 and 3 in Dewey’s Conception of ‘Habit’

Dewey’s approach to economics and business is commonly rooted in his naturalist ontology of association (MW14; LW3; Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019; Kassner, 2019) and his pragmatist epistemology and methodology of inquiry as action (LW12; Khalil, 2004). Both roots inform the central conception of ‘habits’ (Caruana & Testa, 2020), key for reconstructing interdependencies between habitat, habits and their adaptations to sustain life. In Dewey’s approach, habits are more than acquired patterns of behaviour. They also carry ‘valuations’ into effect, both affective ‘valuings’ and deliberate ‘evaluations’ that mould habits to certain effects, turning them into what Ott calls (2010) ‘value practices’.

In more detail: Human lives are shaped by an association of internal organic elements and external environmental factors (LW3, 41). Initially, our actions are guided by innate impulses, affective-motor attitudes and reflexes which Dewey calls valuings. These include natural drives, appetites, intuitions and instincts that lead us either towards or away from certain things (EW5, 124; Anderson 2023). Dewey refers to these natural dispositions as our ‘first nature’ (LW13, p. 108). In terms of Ethos 3, they are one key component of our inner constitution.

Dewey’s naturalism takes environmental conditions to consist of a continuity of nature and culture. Inspired by Darwin’s evolutionary principles, ecological and natural, as well as social and cultural factors are deeply intertwined with organic life (EW1, p. 49; Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019; Särkelä, 2015). Life sustains itself by converting surrounding (physical) resources and energies into ‘means’ (methods, operations, tools and instruments) for its own survival (MW9, pp. 4–5). Dewey believed that the ability to control these energies made life a self-renewing process (MW9, pp. 4–6). Economic life, then, is the primary social process sustaining organisms within their environment (Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019, p. 11), while values are concrete practices emerging from the interaction of human organisms with their surroundings, an understanding that paralleled Aldo Leopold’s view (Ott, 2010). This view incorporates the role of environmental conditions, or what could be termed ‘Ethos 1’, in understanding economic life.

Marked by association, human life is thus ‘interaction’—a ‘series of related doings and undergoings’ (LW10, p. 109). Such interaction between subject and object, self and world and organism and environing conditions constitutes ‘experience’ within an individual, a stream of conscious activity that links action and consequences and mental and physical factors together (MW9, p. 146; LW10, p. 251). From the experiments of experience come learning, knowledge, and meaning as capacities that empower the self to control and direct future activity (LW11, p. 501). As such activity leaves traces in the world, it is ‘conduct’, a continuous stream of meaningful ‘interaction between elements of human nature and the environment, natural and social’ (MW14, p. 9). Both in personal experience or in worldly conduct, interaction draws on and adds to the material matter and ideal components of ‘culture’, not least in private ‘cultivation’ (LW1, p. 361; MW9, p. 128). All forms of interaction also change the natural, material and ecological parts of the environment (McDonald, 2004, p. 78).

When, in the course of conduct, interaction becomes problematic or uncertain, ‘intelligent inquiry’ seeks to restore a sense of coherence and purpose to conduct (LW5, p. 109–116). Such inquiry is ‘intelligence in operation’, a method that controls and directs transformation of a problematic, indeterminate ‘situation’ into one that is determined as unproblematic and thus a unified whole (LW4, p. 163; LW12, p. 108). An inquiry into the constituent elements of the situation involves imagination and experiments that test facts and ideas as tools of satisfactory resolution (MW12, p. 116). Present material is tested and even accumulated and reshaped into a means (resource, tool and method) to leverage ends possibly achieved with such means (LW12, pp. 381–382), an understanding that suggests the organic continuity of ends and means (MW14, p. 28). Such experiments are guided by practical ‘evaluations’, judging the desirability of the effects of various proceedings with various means. The ‘knowledge’ that emerges in a problematic situation is validated by its effectiveness in guiding actions towards desired ends (LW4, p. 129) and may be synthesized into the general understanding of meaning (LW8, p. 242).

New knowledge then refines existing ‘habits’, the ‘acquired and embodied patterns of behaviour’ formed through the evaluation of past and present experiences (Gregoratto & Särkelä, 2020, p. 444). Habits associate elements of action (among them, instrumental means to operate upon the world) into larger associations of automated behaviour, becoming building blocks of future conduct. In habits, evaluations become automated ‘valuings’ which shape, until actualization in future evaluation, the continuous direction of future activity (Anderson, 2023), forming both conduct and, as self and deed are identical, ‘character’ as ‘the interpenetration of habits’ (MW14, p. 29; EW4: p. 341–342). Thus, ‘every habit introduces continuity into activity; it furnishes a permanent thread or axis’ (LW7, 185), with good habits empowering, and bad habits limiting us (MW14, 48). Habits of reflective intelligence used to explore possibilities and reconstruct habits are especially potent (Ansell, 2011, p. 14).

In Dewey’s framework, habits for individuals are what ‘customs’ are for collectives—not only ‘solidified natural histories of association’ (Gregoratto & Särkelä, 2020, p. 445) but species of valuings that guide efficient and valued conduct without requiring constant conscious judgment (Anderson, 2023; Gregoratto & Särkelä, 2020, p. 444; LW7, 185). Evolving customs express trustworthy expectations and direct future activities among collectives. They may evolve into formal ‘institutions’ when codified by social, legal or moral norms (Dewey, 1973, pp. 86–88). As they are species of collectively dominant valuings, customs and institutions (Ethos 2) channel, shape and crystallize individual impulses into dominant individual habits of conduct and character (Ethos 3), our ‘second nature’ (MW14, p. 86; LW13, p. 108). Dewey’s biosociocultural understanding of how (tangible) places shape social habits and individual dispositions (Gaudelli, 2005; LW13) is a resource to understand Ethos 1 as an originary space of Ethos 2 and Ethos 3.

Ethos 4 as Ethical Practice Within Moral Life

Ethos 4, finally, may be understood as ethical practice. It goes beyond merely resolving problems attendant in the shared public space of environing conditions (Ethos 1) to creatively shaping, through deliberate intelligent reflection (which itself is structured by habits of reflective intelligence), future valued habits, conduct and social customs. This approach to careful inhabitation of one’s place or space encompasses both habitual cultivation and the creative exploration of possibilities of future living.

The dynamic interplay of moral life and ethics is on exhibit in Dewey’s ‘Ethics’ of 1932, written with James Tufts (LW7; Frega & Levine, 2021), an exploration of leading a moral life directed by intelligence (LW7, p. 462). For Dewey, moral life is a complex tapestry woven from human nature and biological needs, socializing and rationalizing agencies, group morality of customs and individual conscience (LW7). Rather than being a separate activity, ethics is deeply embedded in moral life, serving as a reflective process that discovers and carries into effect via intelligent moral judgement, ethical concepts like ends or goods, obligations or duties and social approval or virtues as ‘three independent factors in morals’, each central to a major tradition of moral philosophy (LW5; LW7, p. 462). In effect, ethical reflection and moral judgement generate practical knowledge and wisdom with an eye to shaping conduct, character and customs.

The intelligent moral judgements that advance moral life are ‘a species of judgements of value’ (LW7, p. 264). All such judgements actualize prior intuitive and affective valuings, which themselves are individual and social habits that channel natural impulses and have been moulded by prior practical judgements or evaluations (compare LW13, pp. 191–251). Hence, ethical practice in terms of intelligent moral judgement (Ethos 4) means not only updating Ethos 2 and Ethos 3 but reconstructing the world of our lives, Ethos 1, in a stream of creative continuity.

Towards Business Ethics as Ethos-Driven Practice

Here, then, a Deweyan expectation of the task of ethics for and in business life becomes apparent. As a practice of reflective and reconstructive intelligence (Ethos 4), business ethics sharpens moral judgements as tools to shape conduct through character (Ethos 3), customs (Ethos 2) and ultimately, conditions not only ‘in’ but also ‘of’ business (Ethos 1). In this approach, the purpose of business ethics extends beyond a reconstruction of business life to economic life in general. As laid out above, Dewey tackles economic life as the central process by which human beings draw on surrounding energies and resources for means to sustain and maintain their lives (Bazzoli & Dutraive, 2019, p. 11). Satisfying organic wants and evolving human demands requires not only the transformation of resources of nature into serviceable commodities on the supply side but also the economic provision of means (methods, instruments, tools, techniques and equipment) to realize moral and ethical ends (LW4, p. 225–226). As economic conduct operates means to satisfy ends that are both material and moral or ethical (LW1, 359; LW7, p. 10), Dewey’s philosophy treats economic (or industrial and business life) not as separate spheres but as inherently moral and ethical endeavours. Thus, seen as the practice of engaging in a reconstruction of economic life, business ethics relies not only on moral theories but also on a more practical understanding of the interdependence of factors involved in business conduct.

Valued Modes of Conduct: Toward A Unified Conception of Ethos

As a first step towards a more practical understanding of the factors of business conduct apparent through conceptions of ethos, I suggest a unified conception of ethos based on Dewey’s framework: ‘Ethos as a suite of valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct’. In this conception, ‘modes of conduct’ pertain to ways, styles or manners which integrate personal performance and customary patterns; habitual behaviour and creative agency; impulses, interest and institutions; and re-, inter- and pro-active agency. It is worth reiterating that Dewey’s conception of conduct exceeds the common understanding of a course through the social world informed by individual temperament, collective etiquette and social approval. Rather, conduct refers to a continuous flow of activity that also involves the operation of means and methods upon the material, ecological and natural conditions of the surrounding world.

The term ‘suite’ implies a comprehensive, interconnected range of modes of conduct that, taken together, form the generally discernible approach to moral or ethical life that we deem real-existent versions of ethos-in-customs or ethos-in-character. Again, Ethos 2 and Ethos 3 are not just exercises in desirable social coordination but draw from, and bear on, the natural and cultural conditions of the environment, Ethos 1, as perceived in a certain world view.

Thus, modes of conduct are invariably ‘embedded’ within ecological and cultural conditions (Ethos 1) and simultaneously ‘embodied’ in two distinct yet interconnected ways: First, in ingrained customs and institutional roles (Ethos 2); second, manifested through personal habits, bodily memory or even innate organic functions, all of which become visible for social evaluation in the patterns of customs and culture (Ethos 3). The term ‘associational’ reiterates that these behaviours and values are continuously interconnected, constantly influencing, and reshaping each other. This dynamic resonates with Ansell’s (2011) observation of pragmatism’s ‘processual structuralism’ where structure and process are co-dependent (p. 14).

Finally, these modes are always ‘valued’, associating habits that both carry valuings into proceedings and are subject to continuous evaluation, judgement and (dis)approval in public interaction. Both forms of valuation shape, but do not rigidly program, our future conduct (and may ethically be reconstructed in terms of goods aspired to, rules adopted and virtues cultivated). Ethos 4 is the crucible of intelligent evaluation that inscribes (such ethical) ideas, worldviews, beliefs and values into embodied habits of conduct and character (Ethos 3) as well as of customs and institutions (Ethos 2), and ultimately, into the environing conditions used and formed thereby (Ethos 1). As cultural habits (including economic habits) not only extract energy from environmental processes, but also inject energy and direction into them, natural cycles and ecological dynamics can be transformed. This is the foundational idea of the Anthropocene.

The Subject Matter of Business Ethics: Valued Modes of Conduct in Business

Dewey finds conditions of economic life often prohibitive where they should be empowering and advises their reconstruction through intelligent inquiry (Gohl, 2020). Reconstructing economic life in terms of ‘valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct’ means reconstructing modes of conduct in business that operate means and resources to solve problems intelligently, create value and provide goods and services. Among such modes are methods and procedures of resource extraction, production, distribution, trade, consumption and recycling of goods; the division of labour, the organization of cooperation and corporations, value chains of business models, manners of innovation and investment, varieties and styles of management, virtuous leadership, ways of enacting corporate social responsibility and citizenship, stakeholder engagement, codes of professional conduct; vocational training and business education; and modes of regulation through law and institutions for access to means of economic participation, good working conditions, fair competition, union bargaining or price formation. All these elements of economic life are modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct that may be evaluated in regard to the values they realize or inhibit.

Conclusion: Towards an Ethotical Pivot and Approach in Business Ethics

Drawing on John Dewey, this article has made a case for invigorating business ethics as an ethos-driven practice. A cursory review of existing literature has demonstrated the plausibility of the claim that the field has primarily focused on ethos in customs (Ethos 2) or character (Ethos 3), often overlooking ethos as habitat (Ethos 1) or careful dwelling (Ethos 4). To address this gap and capitalize on a comprehensive approach, I have offered a Deweyan framework that conceives of any given ethos as a suite of valued modes of embedded, embodied and associational conduct. I have suggested to conduct business ethics as a practice of Ethos 4. This approach embeds business ethics within economic life, and economic life within what John Dewey calls the ‘moral life’, what anthropologist Webb Keane calls the ‘ethical life’ (Keane, 2015a), or what might be better understood in a synergistic approach as the ‘ethotical life’. Corresponding with the Deweyan framework of ethos and Dewey’s understanding of ethics, business ethics would be enacted by both academics and practitioners who are concerned with the intelligent direction of valued modes of conduct and participating to that end in ongoing inquiries and reconstructions of existing and evolving ethoi. The latter acting as experts in the intricacies of certain modes of conduct, the former as experts in the intelligent reconstruction of a fund of mental models that inform modes of conduct, both enriching each other’s efforts, ideally in joint inquiries.

Grounded in a unified framework of ethos, business ethics would experiment with a multifaceted script for understanding the interdependent factors, dynamics, structures and nuances of ethotical life. This multidimensional ‘ethotical turn’ integrates and reinforces a pragmatist turn (Visser, 2019), practical orientation (Clegg et al., 2007), a corporeal turn (Shadnam et al., 2021), environmental perspectives (Rolston III, 2020), an institutional turn (Dubbink, 2010) and cross-disciplinary interest in anthropology, ethology, psychology, sociology, political science, rhetoric and educational studies (Keane, 2015a, 2015b). It also allows for shifting perspectives between evolutionary and historically emergent, culturally contingent and personally enacted forms of valued conduct, integrating first-, second- and third-person stances, and navigating the interdependencies of, and tensions between, four conceptions of ethos.

Many open questions remain, not the least in regard to different ethoi that structure the practice of real-existing business ethics itself. Future studies should explore in more depth, breadth and nuance the expansive landscape of (inter)disciplinary ethos conceptions. A Deweyan framework needs to address questions of power dynamics and freedom raised by Foucault and Bourdieu. Above all, conceptual refinement in operationalizing the transitions between different ethos conceptions should both guide and be informed by interdisciplinary empirical investigations into real-world ethoi as suites of valued modes of conduct. To fully validate this new ethos-focused paradigm, its relevance, applicability and practicality might best be tested against the grand challenges of the Anthropocene (Mailho & Lachapelle, 2022).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research,authorship and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Alcaraz

J. M.

, Tirado

, & Gálvez

(2021). Dark times for cosmopolitanism? An ethical framework to address private agri-food governance and planetary stewardship. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(4), 697–715.

Allen

, Cunliffe

A. L.

, & Easterby-Smith

(2019). Understanding sustainability through the lens of ecocentric radical-reflexivity: Implications for management education. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 781–795.

Amossy

(2001). Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today, 22(1), 1–23.

Anderson

(2023). Dewey’s moral philosophy. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2023 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/dewey-moral

Ansell

(2011). Pragmatist democracy. Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (1925). The Nicomachean ethics ( Ross

, Trans.). Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (1926). Aristotle: The ‘art’ of rhetoric ( Freese

J. H.

, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Asutay

, Buana

G. K.

, & Avdukic

(2021). The impact of Islamic spirituality on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: Exploring mediation and moderation impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 181, 913–932.

Baumlin

J. S.

(2020). From postmodernism to posthumanism: Theorizing ethos in an age of pandemic. Humanities, 9(2), 46.

10.

Baumlin

J. S.

, & Meyer

C. A.

(2018). Positioning ethos in/for the twenty-first century: An introduction to histories of ethos. Humanities, 7(3), 78.

11.

Bazzoli

, & Dutraive

(2019). Economic issues in John Dewey’s social philosophy: An evolutionary and ethical account. Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy, (9–4), 689–721.

12.

Calarco

(2018). The three ethologies. In Ohrem

& Calarco

(Eds.), Exploring animal encounters. (pp. 45–62). Palgrave.

13.

Caruana

, & Testa

(Eds.). (2020). Habits: Pragmatist approaches from cognitive science, neuroscience, and social theory. Cambridge University Press.

14.

Caza

, Barker

B. A.

, & Cameron

K. S.

(2004). Ethics and ethos: The buffering and amplifying effects of ethical behavior and virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 169–178.

15.

Charpenel

(2017). Ethos und praxis: Der charakterbegriff bei Aristoteles (Vol. 91). Verlag Karl Alber.

16.

Cherniss

J. L.

(2021). Liberalism in dark times: The liberal ethos in the twentieth century. Princeton University Press.

17.

Clegg

, Kornberger

, & Rhodes

(2007). Business ethics as practice. British Journal of Management, 18(2), 107–122.

18.

Corlett

J. A.

(2023). Social construction of businesses. In Poff

D. C.

& Michalos

A. C.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer.

19.

Costea

, Amiridis

, & Crump

(2012). Graduate employability and the principle of potentiality: An aspect of the ethics of HRM. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 25–36.

20.

Cramer

, & Oser

(Eds.). (2019). Ethos: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf den Lehrerinnen-und Lehrerberuf: in memoriam Martin Drahmann. Waxmann Verlag.

21.

Crutzen

P. J.

, & Schwägerl

(2011, January 24). Living in the Anthropocene: Toward a new global ethos. Yale Environment 360.

22.

Cummings

(2003). Strategy as ethos. In Cummings

& Wilson

(Eds.), Images of strategy. Wiley-Blackwell.

23.

Dewey

(1882–1888/1969). Early essays and Leibniz’s new essays ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 1). Southern Illinois University Press.

24.

Dewey

(1893–1894/1971). Early essays and the study of ethics, a syllabus ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 4). Southern Illinois University Press.

25.

Dewey

(1895–1898/1972). Early essays ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 5). Southern Illinois University Press.

26.

Dewey

(1915/1980). Democracy and education ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 9). Southern Illinois University Press.

27.

Dewey

(1920/1982). Essays, miscellany, and reconstruction in philosophy ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 12). Southern Illinois University Press.

28.

Dewey

(1922/1983). Human nature and conduct ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 14). Southern Illinois University Press.

29.

Dewey

(1925/1981). Experience and nature ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 1). Southern Illinois University Press.

30.

Dewey

(1927–1928/1984). Essays, reviews, miscellany, and “Impressions of Soviet Russia” ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 3). Southern Illinois University Press.

31.

Dewey

(1929/1984). The quest for certainty ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 4). Southern Illinois University Press.

32.

Dewey

(1929–1930/1984). Essays, the sources of a science of education, individualism, old and new, and construction and criticism ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 5). Southern Illinois University Press.

33.

Dewey

, & Tufts

J. H.

(1932/1985). Ethics ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 7). Southern Illinois University Press.

34.

Dewey

(1933/1986). Essays and how we think ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 8). Southern Illinois University Press.

35.

Dewey

(1934/1987). Art as experience ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 10). Southern Illinois University Press.

36.

Dewey

(1935–1937/1987). Essays, reviews, Trotsky inquiry, miscellany, and liberalism and social action ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 11). Southern Illinois University Press.

37.

Dewey

(1938/1986). Logic: The theory of inquiry ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 12). Southern Illinois University Press.

38.

Dewey

(1938–1939/1988). Experience and education, freedom and culture, theory of valuation, and essays ( Boydston

J. A.

, Ed., Vol. 13). Southern Illinois University Press.

39.

Dewey

(1973). Lectures in China, 1919–1920. University of Hawaii Press.

40.

Dierksmeier

(2016). What is ‘humanistic’ about humanistic management? Humanistic Management Journal, 1(1), 9–32.

41.

Dubbink

(2010). Institutions and the institutional turn in business ethics. In Dubbink

, Van Liedekerke

& Van Luijk

(Eds.), European business ethics casebook: The morality of corporate decision making (pp. 19–33). Springer.

42.

Düwell

, Hübenthal

, & Werner

M. H.

(Eds.). (2011). Handbuch ethik. Springer.

43.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt

(1989). Human ethology. Aldine de Gruyter.

44.

Elley-Brown

M. J.

, & Pringle

J. K.

(2021). Sorge, Heideggerian ethic of care: Creating more caring organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 168, 23–35.

45.

Epstein

A. L.

(1978). Ethos and identity: Three studies in ethnicity. Transaction Publishers.

46.

Foucault

, & Rabinow

(1997). Ethics. Penguin.

47.

Frega

, & Levine

(Eds.). (2021). John Dewey’s ethical theory: The 1932 ethics. Routledge

48.

Fujimoto

, & Uddin

(2020). Poor-inclusive workplace model: A relational perspective. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 39(8), 881–900.

49.

Funke

, & Reiner

(1972). Ethos. In Ritter

(Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (pp. 312–313). Schwabe Verlag.

50.

Gaudelli

(2005). Locating John Dewey: Place Theory and Dewey’s retirement in Key West. Education and Culture, 21(1), 18–38.

51.

Ghafran

, & Yasmin

(2020). Ethical governance: Insight from the Islamic perspective and an empirical enquiry. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 513–533.

52.

Gherardi

, & Laasch

(2022). Responsible management-as-practice: Mobilizing a posthumanist approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(2), 269–281.

53.

Gilson

L. L.

, & Goldberg

C. B.

(2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130.

54.

Glauner

(2018). Global ethos, leadership styles, and values: A conceptual framework for overcoming the twofold bias of leadership ethics. Humanistic Management Journal, 3(2), 203–220.

55.

Gohl

(2018). Weltethos for business: Building shared ground for a better world. Humanistic Management Journal, 3(2), 161–186.

56.

Gohl

(2020). John Dewey’s economics: A liberal critique of ordoliberalism. In Festl

(Ed.), Pragmatism and social philosophy (pp. 265–286). Routledge.

57.

Graham

, Haidt

, Motyl

, Meindl

, Iskiwitch

, & Mooijman

(2018). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In Gray

& Graham

(Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). The Guilford Press.

58.

Gregoratto

, & Särkelä

(2020). Social reproduction feminism and Deweyan habit ontology. In Caruana

& Testa

(Eds.), Habits: Pragmatist approaches from cognitive science, neuroscience, and social theory (pp. 438–458). Cambridge University Press.

59.

Grenfell

M. J.

(Ed.). (2014). Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts. Routledge.

60.

Gröschner

(2013). Dialogik des Rechts: Philosophische, dogmatische und methodologische Grundlagenarbeiten 1982–2012. Mohr Siebeck.

61.

Haidt

(2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

62.

Hanemaayer

(2017). Protestant work ethic. In Poff

& Michalos

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer.

63.

Hatzisavvidou

(2016). Appearances of ethos in political thought: The dimension of practical reason. Rowman & Littlefield International.

64.

Höffe

(2008). Lexikon der ethik. C. H. Beck.

65.

Horn

, & Rapp

(2008): Wörterbuch der antiken philosophie. Beck.

66.

Hübner

(2018). Einführung in die philosophische Ethik. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

67.

Hühn

M. P.

, & Meyer

(2023). Sophistry or wisdom in words: Aristotle on rhetoric and leadership. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(2), 544–554.

68.

Hyde

M. J.

(Ed.). (2004). The ethos of rhetoric. University of South Carolina Press.

69.

Kahane

(2012). Tikkun olam: How a Jewish ethos drives innovation. Journal of Management Development, 31, 938–947.

70.

Kalleberg

(2007). A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(2), 137–160.

71.

Kassner

(2019). John Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy as a critique of economics discourse. Dewey Studies, 3(1), 5–53.

72.

Keane

(2015a). Ethical life: Its natural and social histories. Princeton University Press.

73.

Keane

(2015b). Lecture 3: Varieties of ethical stance. In Lambek

, Das

, Fassin

& Keane

(2015), Four lectures on ethics: Anthropological perspectives. HAU Books and the University of Chicago Press.

74.

Keir

(2017). A world ethos for humanistic management: Love story or dialogue platform? Humanistic Management Journal, 2(1), 7–14.

75.

Khalil

(Ed.). (2004). Dewey, pragmatism and economic methodology. Routledge.

76.

Khurana

, & Nohria

(2008). It’s time to make management a true profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 70–77.

77.

Kinneavy

, & Warshauer

(1994). From Aristotle to Madison Avenue: Ethos and the ethics of argument. In Baumlin

& Baumlin

(Eds.), Ethos: New essays in rhetorical and critical theory (pp. 171–90). Southern Methodist University Press.

78.

Kornoukhova

G. G.

(2018). Muslim ethics and the spirit of capitalism: The characteristics of Islamic entrepreneurship development in the Russian Empire between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Social Evolution & History, 17(2), 121–139.

79.

Küng

(1990). Projekt Weltethos. Piper.

80.

Küng

(1998). A global ethic for global politics and economics. Oxford University Press.

81.

Küpers

(2013). Embodied inter-practices of leadership – Phenomenological perspectives on relational and responsive leading and following. Leadership, 9, 335–357.

82.

Ladkin

(2006). When deontology and utilitarianism aren’t enough: How Heidegger’s notion of ‘dwelling’ might help organisational leaders resolve ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(1), 87–98.

83.

Leisinger

(2010). Business ethics by manager ethics. In Küng

, Leisinger

& Wieland

(Eds.), Manifest globales wirtschaftsethos – Konsequenzen und herausforderungen für die weltwirtschaft (pp. 176–207). DTV.

84.

Leisinger

K. M.

(2018). Using the world ethos body of thought as a compass for managers some thoughts on the practical application of a philosophical concept. Humanistic Management Journal, 3(2), 147–159.

85.

Leopold

(2014). The Land ethic: A sand county almanac, and sketches here and there (1949) . Island Press.

86.

Lew

S. C.

, Choi

W. Y.

, & Wang

H. S.

(2011). Confucian ethics and the spirit of capitalism in Korea: The significance of filial piety. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11(2), 171–196.

87.

Loacker

(2022). Does the ethos of law erode? Lawyers’ professional practices, self-understanding and ethics at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–20.

88.

Lozano

J. F.

(2012). Educating responsible managers. The role of university ethos. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 213–226.

89.

MacIntyre

(1985). After Virtue (2nd Ed.). Duckworth.

90.

Mailhot

, & Lachapelle

M. D.

(2022). Teaching management in the context of grand challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning, 13505076221116991.

91.

Marsh

(2013). Business executives’ perceptions of ethical leadership and its development. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 565–582.

92.

McDonald

H. P.

(2004). John Dewey and environmental philosophy. SUNY Press.

93.

McLaughlin

(2005). The educative importance of ethos. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 306–325.

94.

McNeill

(2006). The time of life: Heidegger and ethos. State University of New York Press.

95.

Mea

W. J.

, & Sims

R. R.

(2019). Human dignity-centered business ethics: A conceptual framework for business leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 53–69.

96.

Melé

(2012). The firm as a ‘community of persons’: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 89–101.

97.

Melé

(2016). Understanding humanistic management. Humanistic Management Journal, 1, 33–55.

98.

Merton

R. K.

(1942). A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–26.

99.

Meyer

C. A.

(2019). From wounded knee to sacred circles: Oglala Lakota ethos as ‘haunt’ and ‘wound’. Humanities, 8(1), 36.

100.

Molterer

, Hoyer

, & Steyaert

(2020). A practical ethics of care: Tinkering with different ‘goods’ in residential nursing homes. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(1), 95–111.

101.

Mukherjee

, & Bhattacharjee

(2022). Indian and business ethics. In Poff

D. C.

& Michalos

A. C.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer.

102.

Mulla

Z. R.

, & Krishnan

V. R.

(2014). Karma-yoga: The Indian model of moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 339–351.

103.

Munro

(2010). Not for turning? Power, institutional ethos and the ethics of irreversibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(3), 292–307.

104.

Novak

(1993). Catholic ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Free Press.

105.

Ott

(2010). Value as practice and the practice of value: Dewey’s value theory for environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics, 32(3), 285–304.

106.

Padelford

, & White

D. W.

(2009). The shaping of a society’s economic ethos: A longitudinal study of individuals’ morality of profit-making worldview. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 67–75.

107.

Padelford

, & White

D. W.

(2010). The Influence of historical socialism and communism on the shaping of a society’s economic ethos: An exploratory study of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of business ethics, 97, 109–117.

108.

Painter-Morland

, & ten Bos

(2016). Should environmental concern pay off? A Heideggerian perspective. Organization Studies, 37(4), 547–564.

109.

Pérezts

, Russon

J. A.

, & Painter

(2019). This time from Africa: Developing a relational approach to values-driven leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(4).

110.

Pieper

(2017). Einführung in die Ethik. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.

111.

Poff

D. C.

, & Michalos

A. C.

(Eds.). (2020). Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer Nature.

112.

Rabinow

(2009). Anthropos today: Reflections on modern equipment. Princeton University Press.

113.

Rayner

, Lawton

, & Williams

H. M.

(2012). Organizational citizenship behavior and the public service ethos: Whither the organization? Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 117–130.

114.

Rice

(1999). Islamic ethics and the implications for business. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(4), 345–358.

115.

Rolston III

(2020). A new environmental ethics: The next millennium for life on earth. Routledge.

116.

Romani

, & Szkudlarek

(2014). The struggles of the interculturalists: Professional ethical identity and early stages of codes of ethics development. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 173–191.

117.

Rozuel

(2011). The moral threat of compartmentalization: Self, roles and responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 685–697.

118.

Särkelä

(2015). Der Einfluss des Darwinismus auf Dewey. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 63(6), 1099–1123.

119.

Scott

C. E.

(1990). The question of ethics: Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger. Indiana University Press.

120.

Segal

, & Lehrer

(2013). The conflict of ethos and ethics: A sociological theory of business people’s ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 513–528.

121.

Shadnam

, Bykov

, & Prasad

(2021). Opening constructive dialogues between business ethics research and the sociology of morality: Introduction to the thematic symposium. Journal of Business Ethics, 170, 201–211.

122.

Sinha

, Zaware

, Barbate

, & Thite

(2021). Indian ethos & business ethics. Nirali Prakashan.

123.

Solomon

R. C.

(1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford University Press.

124.

Sullivan

W. M.

(1990). Professional ethics, ethos, and the integrity of the professions. The Centennial Review, 34(2), 187–206.

125.

Urban

(2012). Theodicy of culture and the Jewish ethos. David Koigen’s contribution to the sociology of religion. De Gruyter.

126.

van Baardewijk

, & de Graaf

(2021). The ethos of business students. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(2), 188–201.

127.

Visser

(2019). Pragmatism, critical theory and business ethics: Converging lines. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 45–57.

128.

Vriens

, Achterbergh

, & Gulpers

(2018). Virtuous structures. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 671–690.

129.

Wardrope

(2023). Medical ethics and the land ethic. In Poff

D. C.

& Michalos

A. C.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of business and professional ethics. Springer Nature.

130.

Weber

(2001). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.

131.

White

S. K.

(2009). The ethos of a late-modern citizen. Harvard University Press.

132.

Wieland

(2010). Global economic ethic as transcultural management. In Küng

Leisinger

& Wieland

(Eds.), Manifest globales wirtschaftsethos – Konsequenzen und herausforderungen für die weltwirtschaft (pp. 208–222). DTV.

133.

Yuan

, Chia

, & Gosling

(2022). Confucian virtue ethics and ethical leadership in Modern China. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(1), 119–133.