Journal of Business Ethics(JBE)
About This Journal
Aims and scope
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term 'business' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while 'ethics' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups.
Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.
Communicate with respect
At Grey Bridge we believe that only through relationships based upon mutual respect can we build trust and deliver quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve. Our staff are expected to behave professionally and respectfully at all times when engaging with authors, reviewers and readers. Likewise, we expect the same standards of behavior from the academic community and the public in their interactions with our staff. We do not tolerate aggressive behavior, or any form of harassment, bullying or discrimination directed against Grey Bridge staff. We reserve the right to bring serious cases to the attention of employers or local authorities, if needed, and may refuse to interact, or do business, with individuals who repeatedly or seriously violate this policy.
Authorship definition
These guidelines describe authorship principles and good authorship practices to which prospective authors should adhere to.
Authorship clarified
Grey Bridge assumes that all authors agreed with the content and that all gave explicit consent to submit and that they obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
The Publisher does not prescribe the kinds of contributions that warrant authorship. It is recommended that authors adhere to the guidelines for authorship that are applicable in their specific research field. In absence of specific guidelines it is recommended to adhere to the following guidelines a,b:
All authors whose names appear on the submission
made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work;
drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
approved the version to be published; and
agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Grey Bridge journals encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted, and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfill all authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section
Disclosures and declarations
All authors are requested to include information regarding sources of funding, financial or non-financial interests, study-specific approval by the appropriate ethics committee for research involving humans and/or animals, informed consent if the research involved human participants, and a statement on welfare of animals if the research involved animals (as appropriate).
The decision whether such information should be included is not only dependent on the scope of the journal, but also the scope of the article. Work submitted for publication may have implications for public health or general welfare and in those cases it is the responsibility of all authors to include the appropriate disclosures and declarations.
Data transparency
All authors are requested to make sure that all data and materials as well as software application or custom code support their published claims and comply with field standards. Please note that journals may have individual policies on (sharing) research data in concordance with disciplinary norms and expectations. Please check the Instructions for Authors of the Journal that you are submitting to for specific instructions.
Role of the Corresponding Author
One author is assigned as Corresponding Author and acts on behalf of all co-authors and ensures that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately addressed
The Corresponding Author is responsible for the following requirements:
ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission, including the names and order of authors;
managing all communication between the Journal and all co-authors, before and after publication*;
providing transparency on re-use of material and mention any unpublished material (for example manuscripts in press) included in the manuscript in a cover letter to the Editor;
making sure disclosures, declarations and transparency on data statements from all authors are included in the manuscript as appropriate (see above).
*The requirement of managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors during submission and proofing may be delegated to a Contact or Submitting Author. In this case please make sure the Corresponding Author is clearly indicated in the manuscript.
Author contributions
Please check the Instructions for Authors of the Journal that you are submitting to for specific instructions regarding contribution statements.
In absence of specific instructions and in research fields where it is possible to describe discrete efforts, the Publisher recommends authors to include contribution statements in the work that specifies the contribution of every author in order to promote transparency. These contributions should be listed at the end of the submission.
Examples of such statement(s) are shown below:
Free text:
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [full name], [full name] and [full name]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [full name] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Affiliation
The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may additionally be stated. Addresses will not be updated or changed after publication of the article.
Changes to authorship
Authors are strongly advised to ensure the correct author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors at submission. Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author. Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not permitted after acceptance of a manuscript.
Please note that author names will be published exactly as they appear on the accepted submission.
Please make sure that the names of all authors are present and correctly spelled, and that addresses and affiliations are current.
Adding and/or deleting authors at revision stage are generally not permitted, but in some cases it may be warranted. Reasons for these changes in authorship should be explained. Approval of the change during revision is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Please note that journals may have individual policies on adding and/or deleting authors during revision stage.
Author name change
An author who has changed their name for reasons such as gender transition or religious conversion may request for their name, pronouns and other relevant biographical information to be corrected on papers published prior to the change. The author can choose for this correction to happen silently, in which case there will be no note flagging the change on either the pdf or the html of the paper, or alternatively they may do so by a formal public Author Correction.
For authors who’ve changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, please see GBCS Contact Form: Inclusive Name Change Policy : Grey Bridge Support.
Author identification
Authors are strongly recommended to use their ORCID ID when submitting an article for consideration or acquire an ORCID ID via the submission process.
Deceased or incapacitated authors
For cases in which a co-author dies or is incapacitated during the writing, submission, or peer-review process, and the co-authors feel it is appropriate to include the author, co-authors should obtain approval from a (legal) representative which could be a direct relative.
Confidentiality
Authors should treat all communication with the Journal as confidential which includes correspondence with direct representatives from the Journal such as Editors-in-Chief and/or Handling Editors and reviewers’ reports unless explicit consent has been received to share information.
Authorship issues or disputes
In the case of an authorship dispute during peer review or after acceptance and publication, the Journal will not be in a position to investigate or adjudicate. Authors will be asked to resolve the dispute themselves. If they are unable the Journal reserves the right to withdraw a manuscript from the editorial process or in case of a published paper raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its guidelines.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Grey Bridge is monitoring ongoing developments in this area closely and will review (and update) these policies as appropriate.
1. AI Authorship
2. Generative AI Images
3. AI use by peer reviewers
AI Authorship
Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria (imprint editorial policy link). Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. The use of an LLM (or other AI-tool) for “AI assisted copy editing” purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, we define the term "AI assisted copy editing" as AI-assisted improvements to human-generated texts for readability and style, and to ensure that the texts are free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and tone. These AI-assisted improvements may include wording and formatting changes to the texts, but do not include generative editorial work and autonomous content creation. In all cases, there must be human accountability for the final version of the text and agreement from the authors that the edits reflect their original work.
Generative AI Images
The fast moving area of generative AI image creation has resulted in novel legal copyright and research integrity issues. As publishers, we strictly follow existing copyright law and best practices regarding publication ethics. While legal issues relating to AI-generated images and videos remain broadly unresolved, Springer Nature journals are unable to permit its use for publication.
Exceptions:
Images/art obtained from agencies that we have contractual relationships with that have created images in a legally acceptable manner.
Images and videos that are directly referenced in a piece that is specifically about AI and such cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
The use of generative AI tools developed with specific sets of underlying scientific data that can be attributed, checked and verified for accuracy, provided that ethics, copyright and terms of use restrictions are adhered to.
*All exceptions must be labelled clearly as generated by AI within the image field.
As we expect things to develop rapidly in this field in the near future, we will review this policy regularly and adapt it if necessary.
NOTE: Examples of image types covered by this policy include: video and animation, including video stills; photography; illustration such as scientific diagrams, photo-illustrations and other collages, and editorial illustrations such as drawings, cartoons or other 2D or 3D visual representations. Not included in this policy are text-based and numerical display items, such as: tables, flow charts and other simple graphs that do not contain images. Please note that not all AI tools are generative. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to allow a case-by-case review.
AI use by peer reviewers
Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while Grey Bridge explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.
If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.
Data Availability Statement
Introduction
Reproducibility of scientific claims is integral to the integrity of published research. At the heart of research claims is the data from which results are obtained and conclusions are drawn. Without access to the original data, scientific claims can be difficult (if not impossible) to replicate. And if a study cannot be reproduced, how can we with certainty draw any subsequent conclusions? Sharing of research data strengthens scientific integrity and an inclusion of a data availability statement (DAS) will immediately satisfy if and how data can be made available to a third-party researcher. The benefits of mandatory DAS include encouraging the reuse of data, as well as enhancing compliance with relevant funder and institutional policies; this was the basis for the Grey Bridge research journals introduction of mandatory DAS in 2016. [1]
Many funding agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Wellcome Trust, Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation require data sharing as a condition of grants. Some of these funding agency policies, such as the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)’s policy also requires statements about data accessibility and links to data to be included in articles. In addition, Medline now requires the inclusion of a data sharing policy statement on the journal website.
Since 2016, Grey Bridge has been rolling out standard data policies across our journals. All Grey Bridge journals now have a policy requiring data availability statements. Mandated data availability statements will be rolled out to Grey Bridge journals, please check individual submission guidelines for the status of the implementation and whether the journal is currently mandating these statements.
Policy
Mandatory data availability statements consolidate information on availability of data associated with the manuscript, whether data are in repositories, available on request, included with supplementary information or figure source data files.
This policy requires all Grey Bridge journals to adopt a research data policy which requires data availability statements. This policy does not introduce any data sharing mandates, but simply aims to make the availability of the data transparent.
Upon implementation of this policy, all Grey Bridge journals will satisfy the requirements of Level 1 ToP (Transparency and Openness Promotion) Guidelines. Grey Bridge was an early signatory in this initiative that aims to promote transparency and reproducibility in research. The journals will also satisfy tier three requirements as set out in a multi-publisher data research policy framework, which we anticipate being endorsed by the STM Association in 2019.
Introduction
All research articles, and most other article types, published in Grey Bridge journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review processes (e.g. open or blinded); refer to the specific journal's Ethics and Disclosures page for details.
Peer review policy
All submissions to Grey Bridge journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.
Peer reviewer selection
Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable.
Editor Responsibilities (from the Grey Bridge Code of Conduct for Editors):
● Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
● Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
● Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
● Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s); if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.
In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.
● Editor must have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the area if acting as a second reviewer
● Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
● Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
● The first reviewer should be senior, on topic and have published recently on the subject
Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.
Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers, and to request that some be excluded from consideration (usually a maximum of two people/research groups). Editors will consider these requests, but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.
Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information which will help the Editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer’s institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.
Peer reviewer diversity
Grey Bridge journals are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion and we strive for diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.
Peer reviewer misconduct
Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in line with Grey Bridge misconduct policy, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers. Grey Bridge journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). More information about peer reviewer fraud/falsification can be found here.
Peer review models
● Open peer review: Peer reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. If the manuscript is published, reports with peer reviewer names are published online alongside the article(on rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article). Authors are aware of the peer reviewers’ names during the peer-review process and vice versa. There should not be direct correspondence between authors and peer reviewers; communication is mediated by the Editor.
● Transparent peer review: If the manuscript is published, the peer review reports appear online alongside the article. Names of peer reviewers are not published. On rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article.
● Blinded peer review: Most journals use a single-blind peer review process; that is, author identities are known to peer reviewers, but peer reviewers identities are not revealed to the authors. In double-blind peer review, identities of neither authors nor peer reviewers are disclosed; peer review mediated by Research Square is double-blind. The pre-publication history of articles is not made available online.
Peer reviewer guidance
The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.
Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.
Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.
Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.
The following conventions should be respected:
Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Journal before revealing their reviewer role.
Reviews should be conducted objectively.
Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.
Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the editorial team.
We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor.
Please make sure to check if author(s) have followed our Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER Guidelines).
Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief/Grey Bridge (contact person from respective journal) if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.
Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it through and put yourself in the place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone offend you? Is it courteous and professional? Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.
Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the peer reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have a set of questions that reviewers will need to specifically address. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the reviewers feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific peer-reviewing standards, reviewers can contact the Editor for guidance.
Grey Bridge journals are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion. The peer reviewer should flag any concerns that may affect this commitment.
It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Peer reviewers should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.
Grey Bridge journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
Peer reviewer recognition
Grey Bridge is committed to recognizing the invaluable service performed by our dedicated peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, we offer our peer reviewers the opportunity to credit their ORCID and Publons (where available) profiles with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.
Abstracted and indexed in
ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide
ANVUR
Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List
BFI List
Baidu
CLOCKSS
CNKI
CNPIEC
Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences
Dimensions
EBSCO
ECONIS
ERIH PLUS
EconLit
FNEGE
Google Scholar
JSTOR
Naver
Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals and Series
OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
PhilPapers
Philosopher’s Index
Portico
ProQuest
PsycINFO
Research Papers in Economics (RePEc)
SCImago
SCOPUS
Social Science Citation Index
TD Net Discovery Service
Wanfang
eLibrary.ru
Collections and Special Issues
Collections and Special Issues may include original primary research Articles, Reviews, and other content types published by the journal.
All manuscripts submitted to Grey Bridge Journal Collections or Special Issues are assessed according to the journal’s standard editorial criteria and are subject to all of the standard Editorial Policies, including the Competing Interests policy. The content of the submission will also be assessed to ensure it lies within the scope of the Collection or Special Issue.
All submissions that meet the journal’s criteria for peer review will undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. Please visit the journal’s website for information on the review process used. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors of the Collection or Special Issue, have competing interests is handled by another Editor, who has no competing interests, to ensure the evaluation of these submissions is objective.
Editorial Board
Editorial board
Editors in Chief
Michelle Greenwood, Monash University, Australia
Gazi Islam, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France
Charlotte M. Karam, University of Ottawa, Canada
Past Editor in Chief
R. Edward Freeman, University of Virginia, USA (2015 - 2020)
Managing Editor
Sivakani Jayaprakash
jbe.managingeditor@springer.com
Consulting Managing Editor, Special Issues
Juna Tan
jbe.specialissues@springer.com
Consulting Editors
Shuili Du, University of New Hampshire, USA
Robert Phillips, York University, Canada
Laura J. Spence, King's College London, UK
Scott Taylor, University of Birmingham, UK
Wim Vandekerckhove, EDHEC Business School, Lille, France
James P. Walsh, University of Michigan, USA
Stephen T. Ziliak, Roosevelt University, USA
Founding Editors
Alex C. Michalos, University of Northern British Columbia, Canada (1982 - 2015)
Deborah C. Poff, Brandon University, Canada (1982 - 2015)
Section Editors
Accounting and Business Ethics
Steven Dellaportas, International Business School Suzhou, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China
Charles H. Cho, Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada
Konan A. Seny Kan, emlyon business school, France
Aziza Laguecir, EDHEC Business School, France
Arts, Humanities, and Business Ethics
Christopher Wong Michaelson, University of St. Thomas, Opus College of Business, USA
Behavioral Business Ethics
Rommel O. Salvador, California State University, Fullerton, USA
Filipe Sobral, Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration, Brazil
Julena M. Bonner, Utah State University, USA
Book and Media Reviews
Rita Mota, ESADE Business School, Spain
Business Ethics Learning and Education
Andrew West, QUT Business School, Australia
Consumer Ethics
Michal Carrington, University of Melbourne, Australia
Louise M. Hassan, University of Birmingham, UK
Verena Gruber, Emlyon Business School, France
Ross Gordon, University of Technology Business School, Australia
Corporate Governance and Business Ethics
Jeroen Veldman, Nyenrode Business University, Netherlands
Tanusree Jain, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark
Christian Hauser, University of Applied Sciences of the Grisons, Switzerland
Stelios Zyglidopoulos, Carleton University, Canada
Paul Dunn, Brock University, Canada
Corporate Responsibility and Business Ethics: Quantitative Issues
Ming Jia, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China
Assaad El Akremi, University of Toulouse Capitole, TSM-R, France
Irene Henriques, Schulich School of Business, Canada
Jill Brown, Bentley University, USA
Juelin Yin, Sun Yat-sen University, School of Business, China
Alan Muller, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Corporate Responsibility and Business Ethics: Theoretical/Qualitative Issues
Antonino Vaccaro, IESE Business School, Spain
Elisabeth Garriga, University of Northern British Columbia, Canada
Jukka Veikko Mäkinen, Estonia Business School, Estonia
Corporate Sustainability and Business Ethics
Cory Searcy, Toronto Metropolitan University, Canada
Kai Hockerts, Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark
Pilar Acosta, Toulouse Business School, France
Arno Kourula, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Jonatan Pinkse, King’s College London, UK
Critical Studies and Business Ethics
Alessia Contu, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
Bernadette Loacker, Karlshochschule International University, Germany
Cultural Dynamics and Business Ethics
Christof Miska, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
Economics, Political Economy, and Business Ethics
Helen Mussell, Cardiff University and University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Environment and Business Ethics
Steffen Böhm, University of Exeter Business School, UK
Martina Linnenluecke, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Domenico Dentoni, Montpellier Business School, France
Feminisms and Business Ethics
Lauren McCarthy, Bayes Business School, City University of London, UK
Finance and Business Ethics
Greg Shailer, Australian National University, Australia
Omrane Guedhami, University of South Carolina, USA
Hao Liang, Singapore Management University, Singapore
Global Issues and Business Ethics
Suhaib Riaz, University of Ottawa, Canada
Judy Muthuri, The University of the West Indies, Jamaica
Human Rights and Business Ethics
Harry Van Buren, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Gary W. Rollins College of Business, USA
Human Resource Management and Development and Business Ethics
Nelarine Cornelius, Queen Mary University of London, UK
Fida Afiouni, American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Thomas Köllen, University of Bern, Switzerland
Indigeneity and Business Ethics
Ana María Peredo , University of Ottawa, Telfer School of Management, Canada
Labour Relations and Business Ethics
Ernesto Noronha, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India
Premilla D'Cruz, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India
Law, Public Policy, and Business Ethics
David Hess, University of Michigan, USA
Benjamin van Rooij, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands and University of California, Irvine, USA
Leadership and Ethics: Philosophical Perspectives and Qualitative Analysis
Leah Tomkins, University of the West of England (UWE), UK
Leadership and Ethics: Quantitative Analysis
Suzanne van Gils, BI Norwegian Business School, Norway
Mayowa Babalola, The University of Western Australia, UWA Business School, Australia
Armin Pircher Verdorfer, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School, Netherlands
Marketing and Business Ethics
Paolo Antonetti, EDHEC Business School, Lille, France
Danae Manika, Brunel Business School, Brunel University London, UK
Carmen Valor Martínez, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Spain
Measuring and Communicating Business Ethics
Stéphanie Giamporcaro, Kedge Business School, France
Jean-Pascal Gond, Bayes Business School, UK
Rieneke Slager, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Organizational Behavior and Business Ethics
Joan Finegan, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Baniyelme Zoogah, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Canada
Tae-Yeol Kim, China Europe International Business School, China
Philosophy and Business Ethics
Boudewijn de Bruin, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Thomas Donaldson, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, USA
Political Theory and Business Ethics
Sandrine Blanc, INSEEC Grande Ecole, France
Rutger Claassen, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Practice in Business Ethics
Adrian Keevil, PlusTick Management, USA
Yoann Bazin, CEROS - Université Paris Nanterre, France
Psychology and Business Ethics
Yvonne G.T. van Rossenberg, Radboud University, Institute for Management Research, Netherlands
Matthew McDonald, Fulbright University, Vietnam
Annika Hillebrandt, University of Waterloo, Canada
Religion, Spirituality and Business Ethics
K. Praveen Parboteeah, University of Wisconsin – Whitewater, USA
Prabhir Vishnu Poruthiyil, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Small Business, Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics
Julia Roloff, ESC Rennes School of Business, France
Social Entrepreneurship and Ethics
Tina Dacin, Queen’s University, Canada
Benjamin Huybrechts, IÉSEG School of Management, France
Sociology and Business Ethics
Masoud Shadnam, Sharif University of Technology, Iran
Strategy and Business Ethics
Robert Phillips, York University, Canada
Sergiy Dmytriyev, James Madison University, College of Business, USA
Johanne Grosvold, University of Bath, School of Management, UK
Supply Chains, Inter-organisational Networks and Business Ethics
Anne Touboulic, Nottingham University Business School, United Kingdom
Martijn Boersma, University of Sydney, Australia
Technology and Business Ethics
Vikram R. Bhargava, George Washington University School of Business, USA
Mihailis Diamantis, University of Iowa College of Law, USA
Developmental Editor
Tracy Wilcox, University of New South Wales Business School, Australia
Research Integrity Editors
Jared L. Peifer, Franklin and Marshall College, USA
Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury, Bond University, Australia
Julia Benkert, University of Luneburg, Germany
Ghulam Murtaza, Kedge Business School, France
Social Media Editor
Onna Malou van den Broek, University of Exeter Business School in Cornwall, UK
Follow us on LinkedIn Journal of Business Ethics
Special Issues Editors
Mary F. Sully de Luque, Arizona State University, USA
Glen Whelan, University of Quebec in Montreal, Canada
Editorial Board
Laura Albareda, LUT University, Finland
Anne Antoni, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France
Julio Anthony Andrade, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Oana Apostol, Tampere University, Finland
Daniel Arenas, Universitat Ramon Llull-ESADE, Spain
Denni Arli, University of Tasmania, Australia
Neal Mark Ashkanasy, The University of Queensland Australia, Australia
Nishat Babu, Loughborough University, UK
Christopher Bauman, University of California, Irvine, USA
Debra Z. Basil, University of Lethbridge, Canada
Connie Rae Bateman, University of North Dakota, USA
Michael Baumann, The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
Suneal Bedi, Indiana University, USA
Frank Belschak, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Guido Berens, RSM Erasmus University, Netherlands
Clive Boddy, Anglia Ruskin University, UK
Steven A. Brieger, University of Sussex, Business School, UK
Jacob Brower, Queen’s University, Canada
Timo Busch, University of Hamburg, Germany
Kenneth Daniel Butterfield, Washington State University, USA
Jerry M. Calton,University of Hawaii at Hilo, USA
Giovanna Campopiano, University of Bergamo, Italy
Francesca Capo, University of Bergamo, Italy
Matthew Caulfield, Fordham University, USA
Christopher Chan, York University, Canada and Australian Catholic University, Australia
Nobuyuki Chikudate, Hiroshima University, Japan
Rashedur Chowdhury, University of Essex, UK
Richard Coughlan, University of Richmond, USA
Barbara Culiberg, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Peggy Cunningham, Dalhousie University, Canada
Frederik Dahlmann, University of Warwick, UK
Javier Delgado-Ceballos, University of Granada, Spain
Mert Demir, Baruch College, CUNY, USA
Ozgur Demirtas, Kayseri University, Turkey
Geert Demuijnck, EDHEC Business School, France
Marjo-Riitta Diehl, Aalto University School of Business, Finland
Xingqiang Du, Xiamen University, China
Sadok El Ghoul, University of Alberta, Canada
Guglielmo Faldetta, Kore University of Enna, Italy
Carine Farias, IESEG School of Management, France
Jonathan Farrar, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Yves Fassin, Ghent University, Belgium
Gary Martin Fleischman, Texas Tech University, USA
Naomi Ann Gardberg, Baruch College, USA
Tobias Gößling, Tilburg University, Netherlands
Maja Graso, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Jennifer J. Griffin, Loyola University Chicago, USA
Steven L. Grover, Macquarie University, Australia
Gunnar Gutsche, Paderborn University, Germany
Sean T. Hannah, Wake Forest University, USA
Anna Hannula, Tampere University, Finland
S. Duane Hansen, Western Oregon University, USA
Maretno Agus Harjoto, Pepperdine University, USA
Howard Harris, University of South Australia, Australia
Neil C. Herndon, Retired Marketing Professor, Hong Kong
Vanessa Hill, Bucknell University, USA
Andreas G. F. Hoepner, University College Dublin, Ireland
Stefan Hoffmann, Kiel University, Kiel Institute for Responsible Innovation, Germany
Katharine Howie, University of Southern Mississippi, USA
Marek Hudon, CEB/CERMi, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Laura Illia, University of Freiburg, Switzerland
Julija Jacquemod, University of Latvia and RISEBA University, Latvia
Jae Chul Jung, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA
Tae Wan Kim, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Johanna Kujala, University of Tampere, Finland
Kit-Chun Joanna Lam, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Ulrich Leicht-Deobald, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Chenwei Li, San Francisco State University, USA
Chris MacDonald, Ryerson University, Canada
Jyoti Devi (Brinda) Mahadeo, University of Bradford, UK
Ke Michael Mai, China Europe International Business School, China
Samuel Francis Mansell, University of St Andrews, UK
François Maon, IÉSEG School of Management, France
J. Longinos Marin, University of Murcia, Spain
Kimberly K. Merriman, University of Massachusetts at Lowell, USA
Camille Meyer, University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business, South Africa
Giovanna Michelon, University of Bristol, UK
Saurabh Mishra, George Mason University, USA
Johanna Katarina Moisander, Aalto University School of Business, Finland
Geoff Moore, Durham University Business School, UK
Dirk C. Moosmayer, Kedge Business School, France
Mette Morsing, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
M. Paola Ometto, California State University - San Marcos, USA
Bidhan Parmar, University of Virginia, USA
Moses Pava, Yeshiva University, USA
Kathryn Pavlovich, University of Waikato Management School, New Zealand
Dinah Payne, University of New Orleans, USA
Jason Pierce, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA
Michael Jay Polonsky, Deakin Business University, Australia
Corinne Post, Villanova University, USA
Terry L Price, University of Richmond, USA
Robin R. Radtke, Clemson University, USA
Encarnación Ramos-Hidalgo, University of Seville, Spain
Carl Rhodes, University of Technology, Australia
Darryl Rice, Miami University, USA
Kenneth De Roeck, SKEMA Business School, France
Mariarosa Scarlata, University of Bergamo, Italy
Martin C. Schleper, NEOMA Business School, France
M. May Seitanidi, University of East London, Royal Docks School of Business and Law, UK
Leslie E. Sekerka, Menlo College, USA
John W. Selsky, Institute for Washington’s Future, USA
Amama Shaukat, Brunel University London, UK
David Silver, The University of British Columbia, Canada
Aditya Simha, University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, USA
Jeffery Smith, Seattle University, USA
Vivek Soundararajan, University of Bath, UK
Mark Stevenson, Lancaster University, UK
Yidong Tu, Wuhan University, China
Shoaib Ul-Haq, University of Greenwich, UK
Mike Valente, Schulich School of Business, Canada
Sean Valentine, University of North Dakota, USA
Pietro Versari, Erasmus University (RSM), Netherlands
Lynne Vincent, Syracuse University, USA
Christian Voegtlin, ZHAW School of Management and Law, Switzerland
Tillmann Wagner, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Germany
Taiyuan Wang, China Europe International Business School, China
Andrea Werner, Middlesex University London, UK
Andrew C. Wicks, University of Virginia, USA
Carson Young, State University of New York Brockport, USA
Kun Yu, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
Anica Zeyen, Royal Holloway University of London, UK
Yucheng Zhang, Hebei University of Technology, China
Zhe Zhang, Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Ying Zheng, Bryant University, USA
Qinqin Zheng, Fudan University, China