Social Responsibility and Ethics:
Clarifying the Concepts
ABSTRACT. Students coming into a third-year business
ethics course I teach are often confused about the use and
meaning of the terms social responsibility and ethics. This
motivated me to take a closer look at a sample of the
management and business ethics literature for an expla-
nation of their confusion. I found that there are incon-
sistencies in the way the two terms are employed and the
way the concepts are defined. This paper identifies the
different ways the relationship between social responsi-
bility and ethics has been represented, the various uses of
these two terms, and the contrasting views regarding the
connection between morality and ethics. While this
analysis does not resolve any difficult substantive ques-
tions, it does provide conceptual clarity as a necessary first
step towards facilitating students’ critical engagement with
the substantive issues.
KEY WORDS: business ethics, descriptive ethics, ethics,
morality, normative ethics, social responsibility
Introduction
Students coming into a third-year business ethics
course I teach are often confused about the use and
meaning of the terms social responsibility and ethics.
This motivated me to take a closer look at a sample
of the management and business ethics literature for
an explanation of their confusion. I found that there
are inconsistencies in the way the two terms are
Josie Fisher is a lecturer in the New England Business School at
the University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Aus-
tralia. Her research interests include business ethics, corporate
governance and bioethics. She has published in a variety of
refereed journals including the Journal of Business Ethics, The
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, the
Journal of Medical Ethics and Medicine, Health Care and
Philosophy.
Journal of Business Ethics 52: 391–400, 2004.

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Josie Fisher
employed and the way the concepts are defined. In
some cases the two terms are used interchangeably
while some texts on business ethics do not have the
term social responsibility in their indices at all. More-
over, these terms are employed both in descriptive
and normative ways often with no discussion of the
difference between the two uses. What makes the
situation even more complicated is that it is not
simply a case of the management literature treating
these concepts in one way and the business ethics
literature treating them in another way, there are
inconsistencies within the disciplines.
This paper provides an overview of the different
uses and definitions of these terms as a first step in
addressing the confusion demonstrated by students.
In the following sections I identify the different ways
the connection between social responsibility and
ethics has been represented, I then go on to consider
the various ways the term social responsibility has been
employed, next the relationship between morality
and ethics is considered and, finally, I canvass the
uses of the terms ethics and business ethics. In the
conclusion, some practical steps that teachers of
business ethics could take to address the confusion
are identified.
Social responsibility and ethics
The evolution of the modern concept of corporate
social responsibility has been mapped by Archie
Carroll (1999). In the 1950s, according to Carroll, a
formal literature on the subject began to be devel-
oped. During the 1960s and 1970s definitions of
corporate social responsibility were expanded and
proliferated. A focus on empirical research and
alternative themes such as corporate social perfor-
mance and stakeholder theory marked the 1980s.
392
This focus continued through the 1990s to the
present with the concept of corporate social
responsibility providing the basis or point of depar-
ture for related concepts and themes. Parallel to the
research into corporate social responsibility, man-
agement researchers began studying business ethics
in the 1960s and at first it was claimed that this was
just another management fad, however, interest in
business ethics has increased ever since (Trevino and
Nelson, 1999). During the 1970s business ethics
emerged as a field of study building on the foun-
dation provided by theologians (Ferrell et al., 2000).
During the 1980s centres for business ethics were
formed which published research and offered cour-
ses, conferences and seminars. It has only been since
the 1980s that the study of business ethics has been
promoted in business school curricula. Today,
business ethics is still an evolving field. The issues
can be approached from various disciplinary per-
spectives including philosophy and the social sci-
ences, or they can be treated pragmatically by
looking for solutions to specific problems (Ferrell
et al., 2000).
From a business perspective, the main focus has
been on corporate social responsibility, while phi-
losophers have been involved in applying ethical
theory and analysis to structure the discipline of
business ethics (Epstein, 1987; Ferrell et al., 2000).
Unsurprisingly, business leaders have taken concepts
from these various approaches ‘‘with little interest in
the definitional niceties so intriguing to scholars’’
(Epstein, 1987, p. 103). The current situation is that
concepts of social responsibility and ethics are often
used interchangeably despite each having a distinct
meaning (see, for example, Epstein, 1987; Ferrell
et al., 2000).
There are four views concerning the relationship
between social responsibility and ethics that can be
identified in the literature. First, social responsibility
is ethics in an organisational context; second, social
responsibility focuses on the impact that business
activity has on society while ethics is concerned with
the conduct of those within organisations; third,
there is no connection between social responsibility
and ethics; and, fourth, social responsibility has
various dimensions one of which is ethics. In the
following sections these different views are discussed
and the most plausible view is identified.
Josie Fisher
Social responsibility is ethics in an organisational context
According to the first view found in some man-
agement literature, the difference between ethics and
social responsibility is that people ‘‘have’’ ethics
while organisations ‘‘have’’ a social responsibility to
protect and enhance the society in which they
operate. This view appears in Davidson and Griffin
(2000), which is adapted from Griffin (1999). To
understand this view it is necessary to identify how
Davidson and Griffin define social responsibility and
ethics. Their definition of social responsibility is
similar to many others writers: ‘‘The set of obliga-
tions an organisation has to protect and enhance the
society in which it functions’’ (p. 127). Ethics is
defined as ‘‘… an individual’s personal beliefs
regarding what is right and wrong or good or bad’’
(p. 114). This definition of ethics is discussed in
more detail below. For the purposes of this section,
the important point is that according to Davidson
and Griffin, individuals within organisations have
ethics however, organisations themselves do not.
Presumably this is because organisations cannot have
‘‘personal beliefs’’ about anything. Interestingly the
authors say (p. 127) ‘‘… organisations do relate to
their environment in ways that often involve ethical
dilemmas and decisions’’. The way they respond,
however, must have to do with social responsibility
not ethics.
In discussing organisations and social responsibil-
ity, Davidson and Griffin (2000) take a descriptive
approach. The level of social responsibility demon-
strated by an organisation is represented on a con-
tinuum that identifies social obstruction, social
obligation, social response and social contribution. It
is only organisations whose actions and decisions fall
above social obligation on the continuum that do
any more than comply with the law. Organisations
that adopt a social response approach meet their basic
legal and ethical obligations and do more in selected
cases, while organisations that adopt a social contri-
bution approach are proactive in promoting the
good of society.
This text provides a very limited definition of
ethics and does little more than assert that organi-
sations do not have ethics, rather they have social
responsibility. Furthermore, the authors go on to
contradict this statement referring to the ethical
 Social Responsibility and Ethics
dimension of organisations’ interactions with their
environment and ethical obligations of organisations.
Another popular management text by Scher-
merhorn (2002) takes a similar approach. The
definition he provides of ethics is ‘‘… the code of
moral principles that sets standards of good or bad,
or right or wrong, in one’s conduct and thereby
guides the behaviour of a person or group’’ (p.
146). In the introduction to corporate social
responsibility he states ‘‘[i]t is now time to shift our
interest in ethical behavior from the level of the
individual to that of the organization’’ and ‘‘…
corporate social responsibility is defined as an
obligation of the organization to act in ways that
serve both its own interests and the interests of its
many external stakeholders’’ (p. 157). However, it
has already been claimed that ethics guides the
behaviour of both persons and groups so it is un-
clear what Schermerhorn means by his introduction
to social responsibility. Implicitly at least he seems
to be saying that ethics has to do with individual
behaviour while social responsibility has to do with
organisational behaviour, yet this is inconsistent
with the way he goes on to discuss social respon-
sibility. Like Davidson and Griffin, Schermerhorn,
claims that organisations can be described as
adopting one of four strategies for addressing social
responsibility and although the terminology differs
slightly the scale is the same: obstructionist,
defensive, accommodative and proactive. The last
two strategies include fulfilling ethical responsibili-
ties.
The view that social responsibility has to do with
the activities of organisations while ethics has to do
with the actions of individuals expressed by both
Davidson and Griffin, and Schermerhorn is clearly
inadequate. In discussing social responsibility the
term ethics is used in relation to organisations’
activities, which leads to confusion and suggests that
this distinction is unhelpful.
Social responsibility focuses on the impact that business
activity has on society while ethics is concerned with the
conduct of people within organisations
The second view (found in the business ethics lit-
erature) concerning the distinction between ethics
and social responsibility is that ethics has to do with
393
the actions of employees and social responsibility has
to do with the consequences of business activity.
According to Boatright (2000, pp. 360–361),
[c]orporations are increasingly paying attention to
ethics in the conduct of employees at all levels of the
organization. Unlike the emphasis on corporate social
responsibility, which focuses on the impact of business
activity on society at large, the corporate ethics
movement addresses the need to guide individual
decision making and to develop an ethical workplace
environment.
There is however a chapter in this text titled ‘‘Ethics
and Corporations’’ with an opening case study –
Campbell Soup Company – which details the treat-
ment of farm workers who are employed by suppliers
contracted to Campbell (p. 336). Clearly, this dis-
cussion is not confined to activities or people within
the organisation. Another chapter in this text is titled
‘‘Ethics in International Business’’, which again has
to do with the impact of organisational activities in a
broader context. Moreover, when defining the
concept of social responsibility, Boatright (2000, p.
340) identifies the view that social responsibility in-
volves ‘‘… the selection of corporate goals and the
evaluation of outcomes not solely by the criteria of
profitability and organizational well-being but by
ethical standards or judgments of social desirability’’.
The distinction made between ethics and social
responsibility is not sustained.
Similarly, Trevino and Nelson (1999) refer to
ethics within organisations and in considering the
role of business in society and obligations to stake-
holders they refer to social responsibilities. However
this is misleading since, in the same discussion, they
make reference to ethical responsibilities towards all
stakeholders. They also have sections headed ‘‘Ethics
and Consumers’’ (p. 181) and ‘‘Ethics and the
Community’’ (p. 187) which contradict their earlier
distinction. Given the inconsistencies in the use of
the terminology by proponents of the second view
there is no reason to accept this distinction.
Social responsibility and ethics are unrelated concepts
This view, referred to as the classical view of social
responsibility, is commonly associated with Milton
Friedman and Theodore Levitt. The only social
394
responsibility of business managers is to maximise
profits while complying with the ‘‘rules of the game’’.
On this view, firms have a moral duty to maximise
profits and by pursuing their own self-interest they
will thereby maximise overall economic welfare
(Shaw and Barry, 2001). Of course the rules of the
game need to be clarified and a quote from Fried-
man’s article, first published in 1970, is often cited
… there is one and only one social responsibility of
business – to use its resources and engage in activities
designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within
the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open
and free competition without deception or fraud
(2000, p. 12).
However within this seminal article, which it is
claimed denies that business has broad social
responsibilities, there is another for the most part
ignored explication of the ‘‘rules of the game’’.
Friedman (2000, p. 9) claims a corporate executive’s
responsibility is to ‘‘… conduct the business in
accordance with [his/her employer’s] desires, which
generally will be to make as much money as possible
while conforming to the basic rules of the society,
both those embodied in law and those embodied in
ethical custom’’ (emphasis added). Levitt, writing in
1958, put it this way: ‘‘[i]n the end business has only
two responsibilities – to obey the elementary canons
of face-to-face civility (honesty, good faith, and so
on) and to seek material gain’’ (quoted in Shaw and
Barry, 2001, p. 204).
While profit maximisation without constraint has
never been seriously advocated, the classical view is
that business is required to meet the moral mini-
mum, that is, comply with the rules of the game as
determined by society. Despite first appearances, this
account of the social responsibility of business re-
quires compliance with society’s ethical norms, so it
cannot correctly be claimed that social responsibility
and ethics are unrelated concepts.
Social responsibility has various dimensions one of which is
ethics
The fourth, and most widely supported view, is that
there are four dimensions of corporate social
responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and philan-
Josie Fisher
thropic. Carroll’s ‘‘Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility’’ (1991, p. 42) is widely cited (see, for
example, the following business ethics texts: Kitson
and Campbell, 1996; Ferrell et al., 2000; Trevino
and Nelson, 199l). This pyramid places economic
responsibilities at the foundation and moving up the
pyramid are legal, ethical and philanthropic respon-
sibilities. Society requires business to discharge its
economic and legal responsibilities, it expects busi-
ness to fulfil its ethical responsibilities and it desires
that business meet its philanthropic responsibilities
(Ferrell et al., 2000). Interestingly, Boatright (2000)
also includes this account of social responsibility in
addition to his claim that ethics has to do with the
actions of employees while social responsibility has
to do with the consequences of business activity.
This view of the relationship between social
responsibility and ethics is consistent with the ap-
proach taken by many business ethics texts. The
focus of these texts is predominantly on the rela-
tionship between businesses and their stakeholders,
both within the organisation and outside it
(including the natural environment and society).
Epstein (1987, p. 104) claims that social responsi-
bility ‘‘… relates primarily to achieving outcomes
from organizational decisions concerning specific
issues or problems which (by some normative stan-
dard) have beneficial rather than adverse effects upon
pertinent corporate stakeholders’’.
This view is also found in some management
texts. For example, according to Samson and Daft
(2003, p. 147) ‘‘[e]thics deals with internal values
that are a part of corporate culture and shapes
decisions concerning social responsibility with re-
spect to the external environment’’. Carroll’s pyra-
mid is included in this text.
Having identified this as the most common view
of the relationship between ethics and social
responsibility, it is nonetheless important to be aware
of the other ways the relationship has been charac-
terised. In the following section I consider social
responsibility in more detail before turning to ethics.
Social responsibility
While corporate social performance is receiving
increasing attention, especially in management
 Social Responsibility and Ethics
literature, I have confined my discussion to social
responsibility. This is because a clear understanding
of the social responsibility of business is necessary
before turning to the question of how well a par-
ticular business has met its social obligations, that is,
an assessment of its social performance.
The concept of social responsibility is ambiguous.
De George (1999) has identified four different ways
the term is used: First, when a corporation is de-
scribed as being socially responsible this can mean
simply that it meets its legal obligations. Second,
when a corporation is described as being socially
responsible it sometimes means that, in addition to
meeting its legal obligations, the organisation also
fulfils its social obligations. The important point
about these two uses of the term is that they refer to
the level of commitment that particular organisations
do, in fact, demonstrate, thus these uses are
descriptive.
The possible levels of commitment have been
represented in management texts as a continuum
that, at one extreme, identifies resistance to social
demands, then a defensive or social obligation ap-
proach (the organisation meets its economic and
legal responsibilities), followed by accommodation
or a social response approach (in addition to meeting
its economic and legal responsibilities, the organi-
sation also fulfils society’s ethical expectations) and,
at the other extreme, a proactive, social contribution
approach (see, for example, Davidson and Griffin,
2000 and Schermerhorn, 2002 (discussed above),
and Samson and Daft, 2003). A similar scale is
adopted by Black and Porter (1999): defenders, ac-
commodaters, reactors and anticipators. Robbins
et al. (2000) identify four stages of social responsi-
bility based on the stakeholders to whom the orga-
nisation sees itself as having a responsibility. At stage
one management is responsible only to stockholders,
at stage two employees are added, at stage three
stakeholders in the specific environment (e.g. cus-
tomers and suppliers) are included, and at stage four
society as a whole is added.
The term social responsibility is also used to stand
for the obligations themselves – either those imposed
by society, or those assumed by a particular organi-
sation (whether or not these reflect society’s con-
cerns). These are the third and fourth uses identified
by De George (1999). Since these are obligations
395
that ought to be fulfilled (according to society or the
particular organisation) this indicates a normative use
of the term.
The claim that businesses do have a social
responsibility, that they ought to act in certain ways
and refrain from acting in other ways is not new, it
has been discussed in the literature for over 50 years
(Carroll, 1999). Social responsibility, used this way,
refers to the obligations businesses have toward
society. So far this is uncontroversial, however, there
is debate about how content can be given to the
concept.
A major reason for there being no consensus
about the social responsibilities of business is that
there is no general agreement about the purpose of
business nor who has legitimate claims on it. One
way the debate about the requirements of social
responsibility has been framed is in terms of two
competing views of the role of business in society:
the classical (or free market view, or narrow view)
and the socioeconomic view (or broader view) (see,
for example, Kitson and Campbell, 1996; Robbins
et al., 2000; Schermerhorn, 2002). According to the
former view, attributed to Friedman and Levitt, the
only social responsibility of business is to maximise
profits. It was pointed out above, however, that this
is a misrepresentation. Profit maximisation is con-
strained by the ‘‘rules of the game’’, which require
compliance with the law and other social norms.
Thus, the ‘‘rules of the game’’ identify the social
responsibilities of business. According to Friedman
(2000) these are to engage in open and free com-
petition without deception and fraud, and to con-
form with the norms of society. Levitt is less specific,
however, he identifies the responsibility of business
to act honestly, in good faith ‘‘and so on’’ (cited in
Shaw and Barry, 2001, p. 204). This view might
more accurately be identified as the minimalist ap-
proach to social responsibility. Business has a social
responsibility to do what is demanded by society and
no more.
The socioeconomic view offers a broader account
of social responsibility. According to this view,
business has obligations that go beyond pursuing
profits and include protecting and improving society
(see, for example, Robbins et al., 2000; Shaw and
Barry, 2001). ‘‘The concept of corporate social
responsibility is often expressed as the voluntary
396 Josie Fisher
assumption of responsibilities that go beyond the
purely economic and legal responsibilities of business
firms’’ (Boatright, 2000, p. 340). Boatright goes on
to say that by implication businesses must be willing
‘‘… to forgo a certain measure of profit in order to
achieve noneconomic ends’’ (p. 340). According to
Ferrell et al. (2000) a business that is socially
responsible will maximise the positive effects it has
on society and minimise the negative effects. Writ-
ing in 1975, Backman identified some examples of
corporate social responsibility: ‘‘Employment of
minority groups, reduction in pollution, greater
participation in programs to improve the commu-
nity, improved medical care, improved industrial
health and safety’’ (cited in Carroll, 1999, p. 279).
What level of social responsibility is expected?
Sethi claims that social responsibility can be defined
as ‘‘… bringing corporate behaviour up to a level
where it is congruent with the prevailing social
norms, values, and expectations’’ (quoted in Boat-
right, 2000, p. 340). Social responsibility encom-
passes those expectations society has of
organisations (economic, legal, ethical and discre-
tionary) at a given point in time. They are ‘‘… the
behaviours and norms that society expects business
to follow (Carroll, 1999, p. 283)’’. Society expects
businesses to make a profit and obey the law and,
in addition, to behave in certain ways and conform
to the ethical norms of society. These behaviours
and practices go beyond the requirements of the
law, and seem to be constantly expanding (Carroll,
1999). The focus of the socioeconomic view is on
how society believes business ought to behave,
therefore it is a normative view. Society identifies
what business firms are expected to do beyond
making a profit, and this varies over time and is
becoming more demanding (De George’s third use
of the term). De George (1999, p. 208) sounds a
warning about the level of social responsibility
business can reasonably be expected to bear:
If as a society we decide that corporations should be
forced to rebuild the inner city, should not be allowed
to close down unprofitable plants, or should be made
to train the hard-core unemployed, these demands
should be thought through, discussed in the political
forum, and then clearly legislated. They are contro-
versial social demands and should not be confused with
what is morally required.
The reason society can make demands on business
is because business functions by public consent and
its purpose is to serve society (see for, example,
Carroll, 1999; Grace and Cohen, 1998; Robbins
et al., 2000). ‘‘We can expect organisations to be
socially responsible because that is part of the con-
tract out of which they were created, a condition of
the permission that society granted that they exist in
the first place’’ (Kitson and Campbell, 1996, p. 98).
Since society does expect business firms to demon-
strate genuine social responsibility, and stakeholder
expectations receive a lot of public attention, there
are prudential reasons for businesses to take seriously
their social responsibility.
Since the 1960s it has been claimed that social
responsibility and long-term profits are not
incompatible, however, it was Drucker writing in
1984 who claimed he was proposing a ‘‘new idea’’
– that being socially responsible could be converted
into business opportunities (Carroll, 1999). Studies
on the relationship between social responsibility
and financial performance are, however, ambiguous
(Robbins et al., 2000). In examples where there is
both good financial and social performance it is
unclear whether good social performance leads to
increased financial performance, or if good financial
performance provides the resources to fund good
social performance. In contrast, there is evidence
that there is a link between social irresponsibility
and negative stock market returns (Trevino and
Nelson, 1999).
According to an alternative view,
[t]o qualify as socially responsible corporate action, a
business expenditure or activity must be one for which
the marginal returns to the corporation are less than
the returns available from some alternative expendi-
ture, must be purely voluntary, and must be an actual
corporate expenditure rather than a conduit for indi-
vidual largesse (Carroll, 1999, p. 276).
This is consistent with Boatright’s (2000) claim,
identified above, that a business should be prepared
to sacrifice some profit in order to promote non-
economic goals. Of course, this view does not rule
out the possibility of good financial performance,
rather it claims that maximum economic returns
have not been achieved because of the focus on
social performance.
 Social Responsibility and Ethics
The views expressed by Drucker, on the one
hand, and Carroll and Boatright, on the other,
represent diverse opinions about social responsibility.
The former suggests that being socially responsible
can be made to serve the economic interests of the
business, while the latter claims that it is only when
economic interests are sacrificed that an action or
decision counts as being socially responsible.
The above discussion draws attention to the var-
ious ways – descriptive and normative – the term
social responsibility is employed in the literature. It is
easy to see how these different uses can cause readers
unfamiliar with these various concepts to become
confused.
Ethics
Just as there are several ways the term social respon-
sibility is employed in the literature, so too are there
ambiguities in the use of the terms ethics and business
ethics. It is not my purpose to argue that any par-
ticular use is to be preferred, rather, it is to draw
attention to the differing uses and the resulting po-
tential for confusion. First, I focus on competing
views concerning the relationship between ethics
and morality, then I turn my attention to ethics and,
finally, to business ethics.
Ethics and morality
Some authors make a distinction between morality
and ethics. For example, Beauchamp and Bowie
(2001) claim that morality refers to the principles or
rules of moral conduct as defined by society. An
analogy is drawn between morality and political
constitutions and language. ‘‘… [M]orality exists
prior to the acceptance (or rejection) of its standards
by particular individuals. In this respect morality
cannot be purely a personal policy or code’’ (p. 1).
Ethical theory, a branch of philosophy, on the other
hand, has to do with reflecting on the nature and
justifications of right and wrong.
A similar view is expressed by De George (1999,
p. 19):
Ethics studies morality. Morality is a term used to
cover those practices and activities that are considered
397
importantly right and wrong; the rules that govern
those activities; and the values that are embedded,
fostered, or pursued by those activities and practices.
The morality of a society is related to its mores, or the
customs that a society or group accepts as being right
and wrong, as well as those laws of a society that add
legal prohibitions and sanctions to many activities
considered to be immoral. Hence, ethics presupposes
the existence of morality, as well as the existence of
moral people who judge right from wrong and gen-
erally act in accordance with norms they accept and to
which they and the rest of society hold others.
This notion that morality is the subject of ethical
enquiry is also found in Boatright (2000), Ferrell
et al. (2000), Iannone (1989), and Petrick and Quinn
(2001).
It is, however, common for the terms morality and
ethics to be used interchangeably in public debates.
Some authors also use these terms interchangeably
without comment, while others do address the issue.
Shaw and Barry (2001) acknowledge that some
philosophers distinguish morality and ethics on the
basis that morality refers to human conduct and
values while ethics is the study of morality. They go
on: ‘‘[e]thics does, of course, denote an aca-
demic subject, but in everyday parlance we inter-
change ‘‘ethical’’ and ‘‘moral’’ to describe people we
consider good and actions we consider right. And
we interchange ‘‘unethical’’ and ‘‘immoral’’ to
describe what we consider bad people and
wrong actions. This book follows that common
usage’’ (p. 4).
For Grace and Cohen (1998, p.4),
… there is no reason to make a distinction in meaning
between ‘‘ethical’’ and ‘‘moral’’. There is certainly no
difference in meaning which could be attributed to
their etymological roots. Sometimes some moral phi-
losophers or ‘‘ethicists’’ distinguish them from each
other, but not all philosophers do; and those who do
distinguish them from each other do not all distinguish
them in the same way… It is recommended here that
the words be considered as synonymous…
While not explicitly stating that the terms morality
and ethics are used interchangeably, Trevino and
Nelson (1999, p. 12) define ethics as ‘‘… the prin-
ciples, norms, and standards of conduct governing an
individual or group’’ and Schermerhorn (2002, p.
398 Josie Fisher
146) provides a similar definition: ‘‘[E]thics can be
defined as the code of moral principles that sets
standards as to what is good or bad, or right or
wrong in one’s conduct and thereby guides the
behavior of a person or group’’.
The different uses of the terms morality and ethics
highlight the need for care when trying to understand
just what particular authors are saying. For example,
for those who maintain a distinction there is a sig-
nificant difference between claiming that some ac-
tion is immoral (it contravenes society’s accepted
norms) and the claim that some action is unethical
(which could mean that society’s norms are found
wanting according to some ethical theory).
Descriptive and normative ethics
Just as the term social responsibility can be employed
either in a descriptive or a normative way, so too can
the term ethics. ‘‘Descriptive ethics refers to the
general beliefs, values, attitudes, and standards that,
as a matter of fact, guide behavior … descriptive
ethics examines the typical beliefs or values that
determine what is customarily done’’ (DesJardins
and McCall, 2000, p. 4). Beauchamp and Bowie
(2001, p. 6) define the descriptive approach as the
‘‘[f]actual description and explanation of moral
behaviour and beliefs’’. This activity is typically
carried out by anthropologists, sociologists and his-
torians.
Normative ethics (sometimes also referred to as
moral philosophy) in contrast to describing the val-
ues, beliefs and norms that influence actual behav-
iour, evaluates behaviour by appealing to standards
or norms that are independent of custom. ‘‘Rather
than describing the actual beliefs, values, and atti-
tudes, normative ethics prescribes what we should
believe or value. The difference between descriptive
and normative ethics, therefore, is the difference
between what is and what ought to be’’ (DesJardins
and McCall 2000, p. 5 italics in original). Beau-
champ and Bowie (2001, pp. 6–7) make the same
point: ‘‘[n]ormative moral philosophy aims at
determining what ought to be done, which needs to
be distinguished from what is, in fact, practiced’’.
Iannone (1989) distinguishes three uses of the
term ethics: First, personal ethics (or morals) are
individuals’ beliefs and assumptions about what is
right and wrong, good and bad. Second, social or
group ethics are the beliefs and assumptions about
right and wrong, good and bad held by a particular
group. In these two uses, ethics are something that a
person or a group has. Third, the term ethics refers to
an activity; it involves critical inquiry into ethical
issues. The first two uses are connected to descrip-
tive ethics, while the third is connected to normative
ethics.
Davidson and Griffin (2000, p. 114) define ethics
as ‘‘[a]n individual’s personal beliefs regarding
what is right and wrong or good and bad’’. They
claim that what constitutes ethical behaviour
can vary from person to person, however, it will
usually be behaviour that is consistent with widely
accepted social norms. This definition relates to the
first two uses of the term ethics as identified by
Iannone.
Schermerhorn (2002, pp. 146–147) provides a
similar definition:
For our purposes, ethics can be defined as the code of
moral principles that sets standards of good or bad,
right or wrong, in one’s conduct and thereby guides
the behaviour of a person or group. Ethics provide
principles that guide behaviour and help people make
moral choices among alternative courses of action. In
practice, ethical behaviour is what is accepted as
‘‘good’’ and ‘‘right’’ as opposed to ‘‘bad’’ or ‘‘wrong’’
in the context of a governing moral code.
The way Davidson and Griffin, and Schermer-
horn define the term ethics implies that the standards
of right and wrong, and good and bad can be known
by identifying the beliefs and values of a particular
person or group. This use of the term ethics connects
with descriptive ethics. If, however, it is claimed that
people ought to act in accordance with these ac-
cepted beliefs and values, then it becomes a nor-
mative view that implicitly endorses ethical
relativism. Ethical relativism is a contested theory
according to which an action is right if it is accepted
by the relevant person or group (see for example
Beauchamp and Bowie, 2001). Boatright (2000, p.
9), in contrast, claims that ‘‘[m]oral rules should not
be accepted merely because they are a part of the
prevailing morality.’’ Ethics, on his view, is con-
cerned with a critical examination of the rules of
 Social Responsibility and Ethics
morality and represents Iannone’s third use of the
term.
Business ethics
The different uses of the term ethics carry over into
discussions of business ethics. An example that
highlights the distinction between ethics and
morality comes from Petrick and Quinn (2001, pp.
55–56) who claim that at times the morality of
management and management ethics are in conflict.
Morality may permit managers to succeed by con-
forming to current social norms and behaviours,
while ‘‘… management ethics calls for a sensitive,
reflective, and systematic endorsement of those
norms only after they have withstood critical chal-
lenge’’.
The distinction between descriptive and norma-
tive accounts of ethics is also found in discussions of
business ethics. According to DesJardins and McCall
(2000, p. 4), in a business context, descriptive ethics
is concerned with ‘‘… the actual customs, attitudes,
values and mores that operate within business.
Business ethics in this descriptive sense is most at
home in fields such as sociology and management,
which describe for us what goes on in business.’’
Beauchamp and Bowie (2001, p. 6) refer readers to
‘‘Harvard Business Review articles and Forbes magazine
polls that report what business executives believe is
morally acceptable and unacceptable’’.
Robbins et al. (2000, p. 183) also provide a
descriptive account of ethics when they ask
[a]re ethical standards universal? Hardly! Social and
cultural differences between countries are important
environmental factors that determine ethical and
unethical behaviour. Some actions are considered
unethical (and often illegal) in, say, Australia but are
considered standard practice in many other countries.
Other authors slide from descriptive ethics to a
normative view. For example, Ferrell et al. (2000, p.
6) claim that
[m]ost definitions of business ethics relate to rules,
standards, and moral principles as to what is right or
wrong in specific situations. For our purposes and in
simple terms, business ethics comprises principles and
standards that guide behaviour in the world of business.
399
Whether a specific required behavior is right or wrong,
ethical or unethical, is often determined by stake-
holders, such as investors, customers, interest groups,
employees, the legal system, and the community.
Likewise Trevino and Nelson (1999) define eth-
ical business behaviour as conforming to the prin-
ciples, norms and standards that society accepts as
constraining business behaviour. According to Fer-
rell et al. and Trevino and Nelson, right and wrong
are identified by reference to what is considered
acceptable behaviour for business; the question of
what ought to be considered acceptable behaviour is
not canvassed.
As a form of normative ethics, business ethics
evaluates the rules, standards and moral principles
identified in descriptive approaches. For example,
DesJardins and McCall (2000) claim that a normative
analysis could suggest that a policy of workplace
drug testing violates rights or principles of justice.
Epstein (1987, p. 104) also provides a normative
account: ‘‘Business ethics concerns the systematic,
value-based reflection … on the moral significance
of personal and organizational business action and its
consequences for societal stakeholders.’’ Similarly,
Malachowski (2001, p. 1) defines business ethics as
‘‘… a critical, normative discipline – one which
stands back from the whirlwind of commercial life
and tries to establish impartial ethical standards for
the behaviour of business’’. For Shaw and Barry
(2001, p. 4), ‘‘[b]usiness ethics is the study of what
constitutes right and wrong, or good and bad, hu-
man conduct in a business context’’.
The above discussion illustrates that the relation-
ship between morality and ethics has been charac-
terised in different ways. In some cases the terms are
used interchangeably while other authors claim there
is a fundamental difference between morality and
ethics – most commonly that morality relates to
accepted principles and rules of conduct while ethics
is the study of morality. Compounding this potential
for confusion is the different ways the terms ethics
and business ethics are employed. In some instances
the terms are used descriptively while in others a
normative meaning is intended. Moreover, there are
examples in which a descriptive use slips into a
normative use. Because authors often do not make
clear the way they are employing the terminology it
is hardly surprising that confusion can result.
400 Josie Fisher
Conclusion
The source of the confusion demonstrated by stu-
dents concerning the use and meaning of the terms
social responsibility and ethics can be explained, at least
in part, by inconsistencies in the way the two terms
are employed and defined in both the management
and business ethics literature. The above analysis
identifies the different ways the relationship between
social responsibility and ethics has been represented,
it draws attention to the distinction between
descriptive and normative uses of these two terms,
and the contrasting views regarding the connection
between morality and ethics are identified. While
this analysis does not solve any difficult substantive
questions, it does provide conceptual clarity as a
necessary first step towards facilitating students’
critical engagement with the substantive issues.
One practical step teachers of business ethics
could take to address any confusion would be to
provide an overview of the different uses and
meanings of the terms social responsibility and ethics in
an introductory lecture, and clearly identify the focus
of the business ethics course they will be teaching.
Throughout the semester there would also be
opportunities to make explicit particular uses and
meanings of the terms, and draw attention to the
implications of using a term in one way rather than
another. To illustrate the differences, part of a
practical session could be devoted to identifying and
discussing different uses and meanings in a selection
of excerpts from various readings. In addition to
addressing any confusion about the terms, such an
approach would provide students with insights into
the subject that would not otherwise be possible.
References
Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie, (eds): 2001, Ethical
Theory and Business, 6th Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ).
Black, J. S. and L. Porter: 1999, Management: Meeting New
Challenges (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Boatright, J. R.: 2000, Ethics and the Conduct of Business,
3rd Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
Carroll, A. J.: 1999, ÔCorporate Social Responsibility:
Evolution of a Definitional ConstructÕ, Business and
Society 38(3), 268–295.
Davidson, P. and R. W. Griffin: 2000, Management:
Australia in a Global Context (Wiley, Brisbane).
De George, R. T.: 1999, Business Ethics, 5th Edition
(Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).
DesJardins, J. R. and J. J. McCall: 2000, Contemporary
Issues in Business Ethics (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
Epstein, E. M.: 1987, ÔThe Corporate Social Policy
Process: Beyond Business Ethics, Corporate Respon-
sibility, and Corporate Social ResponsivenessÕ, Cali-
fornia Management Review 29(3), 99–114.
Ferrell, O. C., J. Fraedrich and L. Ferrell: 2000, Business
Ethics, 4th Edition (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).
Friedman, M.: 2000, ÔThe Social Responsibility of
Business is to Increase its ProfitsÕ, in DesJardins, J. R.
and J. J. McCall (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Business
Ethics (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA), pp. 8–12.
Grace, D. and S. Cohen: 1998, Business Ethics: Australian
Problems and Cases, 2nd Edition (Oxford University
Press, Melbourne).
Griffin, R. W.: 1999, Management, 6th Edition (Hough-
ton Mifflin, Boston).
Iannone A. P. (ed.).: 1989, Contemporary Moral Contro-
versies in Business (Oxford University Press, New
York).
Kitson, A and R. Campbell: 1996, The Ethical Organisa-
tion (Macmillan, Houndmills).
Malachowski, A. R.: 2001, ÔIntroduction: Business Ethics
and Business PracticeÕ, in Malachowski, A. (ed.),
Business Ethics: Critical Perspectives on Business and
Management, Vol. 4 (Routledge, London), pp. 1–3.
Petrick, J. A. and J. F. Quinn: 2001, ÔNature and Value of
Management EthicsÕ, in Malachowski, A. (ed.), Busi-
ness Ethics: Critical Perspectives on Business and Manage-
ment, Vol. 1 (Routledge, London), pp. 55–75.
Robbins, S. P., R. Bergman, I. Stagg and M. Coulter:
2000, Management, 2nd Edition (Prentice Hall, Syd-
ney).
Samson, D. and R. L. Daft: 2003, Management: Pacific Rim
Edition (Thomson, Southbank, Victoria).
Schermerhorn, J. R.: 2002, Management, 7th edition
(Wiley, New York).
Shaw, W. H. and Barry, V.: 2001, Moral Issues in Business,
8th Edition (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
Trevino, L. K. and D. A. Nelson: 1999, Managing Business
Ethics, 2nd Edition (Wiley, New York).
New England Business School,
University of New England,
Armidale NSW 2351,
Australia
E-mail: jfisher@une.edu.au