Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 82:907–917
DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9601-3
The Effect of Culture and Religiosity
on Business Ethics: A Cross-cultural
Comparison
ABSTRACT. This article examined the effect of culture
and religiosity on perceptions of business ethics among
students in a tertiary institution in Malaysia. A structured
questionnaire was developed with scenarios on various
aspects of business ethics, and self-administered to the
students in the business studies program. The results from
767 respondents showed that there were significant dif-
ferences among the Malays, Chinese, and Indian students
on seven scenarios namely selling hazardous products,
misleading instructions, selling defective products, pad-
ding expense account, taking sick to take a day off,
keeping quiet on defective products, and respond to
supplier’s take good care of clients attitude. There was
also an association between culture and religiosity. The
MANOVA results also showed that culture and religiosity
have an effect on perceptions of business ethics.
KEY WORDS: ethical scenarios, culture, religiosity,
Malays, Chinese, Indians
Introduction
Business ethics has gained the attention of many
scholars and executives in the public and private
sectors in recent years. This is due to many unethical
practices reported in the local and international
media. Large international organizations like Enron
and Arthur Anderson have created chaos in the
business scene with their unethical practices reported
in the media. Even in Malaysia, in the year 2004, top
managers in key institutions like the National Pil-
grimage Board were not spared with breach of trust
in investment decisions. Such incident showed the
extent and prevalence of unethical practices in
Malaysia and worldwide.
Ó Springer 2007
Md. Zabid Rashid
Saidatul Ibrahim
According to Ferrell and Gresham (1985), the
ethical decision-making of an individual could be
influenced by many factors like the individual
attributes, social, and cultural environment. The
individual factors may include those factors that are
inherent like nationality, sex, and age, and also those
factors resulting from the human development and
socialization process like personality, attitudes, val-
ues, education, religion, and employment (Ford and
Richardson, 1994). Hunt and Vitell (1986) sug-
gested that religiousness have an influence on an
individual’s perception of ethics. They believed that
religiousness could affect ethical decision-making in
three ways, namely the cultural environment, the
personal characteristic, and finally the religion,
which is often a dominant basis for individual’s
deontological norms. Vitell et al. (2005) found that
intrinsic religiousness was a significant determinant
of consumer ethical beliefs, but extrinsic religious-
ness was not related to those beliefs. It was also found
that both religiousness and one’s money ethic were
significant determinants of most types of consumer
ethical beliefs (Vitell et al., 2006). Thus, religious-
ness has some influence on people’s values, habits
and attitudes. Religion also fosters or frown social
behavior, and, therefore, an important institution
that exercises control over beliefs and behaviors
(Kennedy and Lawton, 1998). While this may be
true, such practices could also be affected by cultural
values, suggesting the variations in interpreting what
is considered appropriate and inappropriate. For
example, Okleshen and Hoyt (1996) found that U.S.
students were less tolerant of business situations
involving fraud, coercion, and self-interest as com-
pared to New Zealand students. Allmon et al. (1997)
found differences in the views of students in
908 Md. Zabid Rashid and Saidatul Ibrahim
Australia, U.S., and Taiwan. There were also some
differences between the Malaysian and New Zealand
students on attitudes toward ethical dilemmas
(Goodwin and Goodwin, 1999). Culture, therefore,
seems to have some effect on perceptions of business
ethics.
One key question guiding this study is to deter-
mine whether culture and religiosity have an effect
on perceptions of business ethics, and to what extent
do culture and religiosity affect their perceptions of
business ethics?
This article, therefore, purports to investigate the
influence of culture and religiosity on perceptions of
business ethics. This is particularly important as dif-
ferent cultures have varying interpretations of what
is considered appropriate or right and what is con-
sidered inappropriate. In an Eastern culture, for
example, employing relatives in an organization is
part of the collective culture, while such activity may
be considered as ‘nepotism’ and inappropriate in the
Western culture. Similarly, in a Chinese culture, ‘gift
giving’ is considered appropriate in that culture, but
can be construed as giving ‘incentives’ or ‘bribes’ in
another culture. The findings of this study can
provide better insights on what is considered ethical
or unethical in a cross-cultural context. Further, the
findings will provide implications on teaching of
business ethics in higher institutions or training
management executives in a cross-cultural contexts.
Literature review
Culture
Culture refers to the norms, values, and beliefs of a
particular group or community in a particular area or
geographic location, and shared by its members
(Hofstede, 1980). This means that the beliefs, norms
and value systems can influence the members of the
community to behave and act in a particular way
considered acceptable by the other members in the
group. For example, it is the culture of the Malays not
to speak with a high tone to an elderly person or
superior, as it is perceived to be ill mannered. Supe-
riors or people considered in higher hierarchy should
be addressed with appropriate humility with a title
like ‘Pak Long’ or ‘Mak Long’ (means ‘senior uncle’ or
‘senior auntie’) (McLaren and Rashid, 2002).
According to Asma (1992), the Malays (the ethnic
group with the largest majority in Malaysia) are
motivated by their affiliation to groups, families, and
individuals. They responded better to productivity
increases if they see benefits accruing not only to the
organization, but also to their family, community
and nation. Malays are attracted to concrete tangible
rewards. They are also satisfied by doing work if
they have opportunities to show and receive
appropriate respect from superior, peers, and sub-
ordinates. In Malaysia, it is mentioned officially in
the Malaysian constitution that a Malay is a Muslim,
speaks the Malay language, adopts and practices the
Malay culture. The Malays also have strong beliefs in
the concept of Supreme Being – Allah the Almighty.
They also expect their leaders to act as role models
who are spiritually and religiously in tune. In com-
munication, the Malays practiced tact and indirect-
ness. This is done through the use of poems and
metaphors in their daily communication. The
Malays also uphold the value of self-respect or face,
politeness, sensitivity to feelings, and value rela-
tionships. An apologetic behavior is a symbol of
humility to the Malays (Asma, 1992)
In contrast, the Chinese (the second largest ethnic
group in Malaysia) are motivated by financial re-
wards (Hamzah, 1991). They value hard work or
diligent, pragmatic, wealth or prosperity, face, har-
mony, and risk taking. The Chinese are indifferent
or have less concern on religious matter. The
majority of the Chinese were observing the Bud-
dhist–Taoist faith, and a small group is observing the
Christian faith. However, the Chinese culture
emphasizes the respect for superstition (Wu, 1980).
In the Chinese culture, the relationship between
superior and subordinate in work and education was
based on the Confucian ideal of filial loyalty (Yang,
1972).
In comparing the attitudes toward business among
the Chinese and Malays, Sarachek et al. (1984)
found the convergent of the attitudes of the Malays
and Chinese respondents toward business and gov-
ernment (public service). The respondents showed a
greater tendency to trust in government’s honesty
rather than in business’ honesty. The greater will-
ingness to trust government (dominated by the
Malays) may reflect the traditionally higher status of
government in Malay society (Sarachek et al., 1984).
However, with respect to trust levels, the Chinese
 A Cross-cultural Comparison
respondents were more apt to feel comfortable with
peers rather than superiors, whereas Malay respon-
dents were more apt to feel comfortable with
superiors than peers. As such, Malays were more
willing than the Chinese to back up fellow
employees having trouble with their superiors (Sar-
achek et al., 1984).
The Indians (the third largest ethnic group in
Malaysia) value the extended family with hierarchi-
cally structured authority (Chaterjee, 1987). The
Indians are characterized for their loyalty, hard
work, egalitarian, and organization abilities. They
also value face, fear of God, sense of belonging,
‘karma’, champion of causes and filial piety. In terms
of religious faith, the Indians were predominantly
Hindus, but a small proportion is following the
Muslim and Christian faith. It was also suggested that
Indian managers (in India) are speedy and have
reliable information control systems; a high degree of
altruism prominent among employees who are ready
to sacrifice themselves for their firms and their bosses
for no other remuneration than an inner sense of
duty or loyalty; a high level of resourcefulness by
which plans are made, decided upon, and imple-
mented very quickly; heavy reliance on informal
sources of information, even rumors; high level of
interpersonal trust at senior levels (especially among
family members or members of the same commu-
nity); and result orientation (Khandwala, 1980). The
Indian managers would also be willing to ‘bend
ethics to suit the situation’. For example to secure
the organizational objectives, an administrator (or
manager) is entitled to use ‘sama’ (conciliation),
‘dama’ (bribery), ‘danda’ (punishment), and ‘bhed’
(conspiracy) (Khandwala, 1980). Although these
managerial values were known to Indians in India,
there may be similarities in the overall attitudes of
the Indians in Malaysia to some extent. This could
be considered in corollary like the Malaysian Chi-
nese, although originated from China, yet upholding
similar fundamental Chinese values.
Religiosity
McDaniel and Burnett (1990) defined religiosity as a
belief in God accompanied by a commitment to fol-
low principles believed to be set by God. They sug-
gested that religiosity could be measured in terms of
909
cognitive and behavioral dimensions. The cognitive
dimension is also known as the spiritualism refers to
the degree to which an individual holds religious
beliefs in terms of the importance of religion, belief in
God, importance of spiritual values and importance of
religiosity. The behavioral dimension is known as the
devotion is interpreted as overt behavior toward a
religious organization and can be measured in terms of
church/mosque or temple attendance, tithe/mone-
tary giving, and activity involvement. Allport (1950)
viewed religious motivations in terms of intrinsic
religiousness and extrinsic religiousness. The
‘‘extrinsically motivated person uses his religion,
while intrinsically motivated person lives his religion’’
(Allport and Ross, 1967).
Magill (1992) mentioned that personal religiosity
provides a basic foundation to understand the nature
of one’s ethical behavior. Weaver and Agle (2002)
asserted that religiosity is known to have an influ-
ence on human attitudes and behavior. This
behavior is influenced by religious self-identity,
which was formed as a result of the internalization of
the role expectations offered by the religion. These
suggest the potential influence of religiosity on one’s
behavior and consequently what is considered right
or wrong in that perspective.
In trying to relate religiosity with business ethics,
Hegarty and Sims (1978, 1979) conducted an
experiment by using a student sample to examine the
influence of personal factors on ethical behavior and
found religiousness to be not significant. Similarly,
Kidwell et al. (1987) found that there was no rela-
tionship between church attendance and perceptions
of what was ethical. McDonald and Pak (1997)
found that religious orientation does not influence
responses to ethical scenarios.
However, Weibe and Fleck (1980) found that
people who accepted religion as the central focus of
their life (intrinsic) tended to have more concern for
higher moral standards, discipline, and responsibility
than those who were non-religious. McNichols and
Zimmerer (1985) used a scenario technique and
found that strong religious beliefs were significantly
associated with negative attitudes toward accept-
ability of unethical behaviors. Barnett et al. (1996)
found high religiousness to be negatively correlated
with relativism, but not correlated with idealism.
Okleshen and Hoyt (1996) showed evidence to
support that religious orientation affects an individual’s
910 Md. Zabid Rashid and Saidatul Ibrahim
moral reasoning. Clark and Dawson (1996) found
that religious perceived actions to be less unethical
than non-religious.
Kennedy and Lawton (1998) examined the rela-
tionship between religiousness and ethical behavior of
students in the Evangelical, Catholic, and non-reli-
gious institutions. The results of the study showed
partial support that students at religiously affiliated
institutions (evangelical) have higher levels of intrinsic
religiousness than students at public institutions.
There was no difference between Catholic and public
institutions. The results also showed that students who
were least willing to engage in unethical behavior are
the Evangelicals, but there were not significant dif-
ference between those students in the Catholic and
other public institutions. They also found there was a
significant negative correlation between the willing-
ness to behave unethically and religious fundamen-
talism, conservatism, and intrinsic religiousness.
Conroy and Emerson (2004) examined whether
the ethical attitudes of students were affected by
religiosity, courses in ethics, religion, or theology.
Using 25 vignettes, their results showed that religi-
osity is statistically a significant predictor of responses
in a number of ethical scenarios, but completing
religion or ethics courses explained little of the
variation in ethical attitudes. Vitell et al. (2005)
investigated the role of religiosity in determining
consumer attitudes/beliefs in various situations
regarding questionable consumer practices. Religi-
osity was measured by the intrinsic and extrinsic
religiousness scale adopted from Allport and Ross
(1967). They found that intrinsic religiousness ap-
pears to explain one’s attitude toward questionable
consumer practices with those having a stronger
intrinsic religiousness tending to be more likely to
believe that the consumer activities presented were
unethical. The ‘no harm/no foul’ dimension was the
only one not significantly related to intrinsic reli-
giousness. They also found that extrinsic religious-
ness (an external manifestation of religion, but not
necessarily sensitive to ethics) does not affect one’s
view on questionable consumer behavior as wrong.
Cross-culture
Although socio-cultural background presumably
influences ethical perceptions, uncertainty exists
concerning the actual strengths of the effect. Some
studies do not support cultural influences on ethical
beliefs. Abratt et al. (1992) found no significant dif-
ferences between the sample of South African and
Australian managers regarding ethical beliefs. These
findings were consistent with other studies reporting
little variation in ethical beliefs from culture to culture
(Izraeli, 1988; Lee, 1981; Tsalikis and Nwachukwu,
1988). A study comparing business students from
United States and New Zealand indicated little
deviation in ethical orientation (values) among cul-
tures though varying degrees of sensitivity toward
those values do occur (Lysonski and Gaidis, 1991).
Small (1992) also reported that attitudes toward
business ethics among United States, Australia and
Israeli business students varied in strength but did not
necessarily reflect opposing viewpoints.
Fisher et al. (1999) examined the ethical predis-
position of Malaysian business students in two Wes-
tern Australia’s Business Schools. They examined 14
business scenarios, each on consumer ethics and
business ethics. Out of the 14 consumer scenarios,
only three were deemed acceptable. In the case of
business scenarios, six were acceptable. Of these
questionable actions, six (two consumer – quoted
cheaper price to negotiate deal, and repeated visit to
buy limited quantity, and four business – comparison
advertising, delay new product entry, exclusive dis-
tribution, children’s toll phone number) were only
slightly acceptable, and three (one consumer – infor-
mation from retailer, and two business – celebrity
endorser, and cheap foreign labor) were acceptable.
The results generally showed that today’s students
showed a relatively high degree of concern about the
ethical treatment of consumers and business practice.
Goodwin and Goodwin (1999) compared the
attitudes to ethical dilemmas of business students in
Malaysia and New Zealand by using a series of
vignettes. The results showed some differences in
responses to ethical issues by students based on both
nationality (Malaysia–New Zealand) and ethnic
origin (European, Chinese, Malay and Indians). In
the scenario relating to whether the respondent
would include other team members in the project to
assess equal contribution of members, the results
showed that Malaysians were more likely to include
their teammates than were New Zealanders. Among
the Malaysians, those of Indian ethnic origin were
the most likely to include their teammates, followed
 A Cross-cultural Comparison
by Malays and then Chinese. In the scenario relating
to whether the respondents would raise the matter
directly with employer on perceived unethical
business practices, the New Zealand students were
less likely than their Malaysian counterparts to raise
the matter with their employer. The Malaysian
counter part was reluctant mainly due to the Malays
than the Chinese or Indians.
Ford et al. (2005) investigated the similarities and
differences of United States and Lebanese students on
their value systems and consumer ethics. The results
showed significant overall differences in means for
values as well as ethical beliefs for the United States
and Middle-eastern students. This means the value
systems of people from different cultural context have
an effect on perceived ethical beliefs.
Hypotheses
From past studies on religiosity, there were two
views on this. One suggests that religiosity does not
have an effect on perceptions of business ethics
(Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979; Kidwell et al., 1987;
McDonald and Pak, 1997), while the other studies
showed that religiosity does have an effect on con-
sumers’ ethical beliefs (Clark and Dawson, 1996;
Conroy and Emerson, 2004; McNichols and Zim-
merer, 1985; Okleshen and Hoyt, 1996; Vitell et al.,
2005, 2006). Further, other studies also showed that
cross-cultural values have an effect on perceptions of
ethics (Fisher et al., 1999; Ford et al., 2005; Good-
win and Goodwin, 1999).
Based on these arguments, the following
hypotheses are advanced:
H1: There are a significant difference between
Chinese, Malays, and Indians on perceptions of
business ethics
H2: There is an association between the ethnic
groups and religiosity
H3: Culture and religiosity have effects on per-
ceived business ethics
Methodology
A structured questionnaire was developed based on
the ethical/unethical scenarios developed by
McDonald and Zepp (1988), Baumhart (1968),
911
Hunt et al. (1989), and Harris (1989, 1990, 1991),
and 13 scenarios were selected based on the rele-
vance in the Malaysian scene. Adaptations were also
made to suit the local environment. The respondents
were asked to rate each of the scenarios on a 7-point
interval scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to
strongly disagree (7). For example, one scenario re-
lated to ‘selling hazardous products’ is as follow:
Bob’s entire line of clothes treated with a flame
retardant agent was found to be cancer-causing and
was banned. To cut losses, the management decides
the entire lot to be sold to countries without such a
ban. To what extent do you think Bob will agree or
disagree with the management’s decision?
In another scenario related to ‘favoring relatives’, the
respondent was asked to respond on a scenario given
below:
Ken’s Vice Chairman calls on him to consider hiring
his nephew although the other applicants have better
qualification and experience than he. As a personnel
executive, to what extent will Ken agree or disagree to
comply with his request?
The religiosity dimension was based on McDaniel
and Burnett (1990), comprising 11 items measured
on a 7-point interval scale, ranging from strongly
agree (1) to strongly disagree (7).
The questionnaire was administered to the under-
graduate students (second and final year) studying in
the business program in a public university. A total of
more than 900 questionnaires were self-administered
by the respondents, but only 767 are usable in this
study. The others non-usable were due to the fact that
the respondents did not complete all the 13 scenarios.
A pretest was conducted prior to distributing the
final questionnaire, after some minor modifications
were made accordingly. The reliability test was
performed, and the Cronbach alpha coefficient for
the 13 items on business ethics was 0.787, suggesting
a fair level of internal consistency in the responses.
The coefficient for the 11 items on religiosity was
0.865, suggesting a high level of internal consistency
in the responses. A factorial analysis was conducted
and it resulted to two dimensions of religiosity,
namely spiritual and devotion, accounting for
56.95% of the variances explained. This supported
the factorial validity of the religiosity dimension.
912 Md. Zabid Rashid and Saidatul Ibrahim

In this study, high and low religiosity was based students on the following scenarios: ‘selling hazard-
on the scores obtained from the spiritual and devo- ous products’, ‘misleading instructions’, ‘selling
tion dimensions. Those respondents who have a defective products’, ‘padding expense account’,
total score of less than 40 was considered as high ‘taking sick to take a day off’, ‘keeping quiet on
religiosity, and those above 41 was considered as low defective products’, and ‘respond to suppliers’ take
religiosity. Consequently, a total of 12.8% of the good care of client’s attitude’ (significant at p < 0.01).
total respondents were considered as high religiosity From the results, the Indians were highly ethical
and 87.2% were low religiosity. on the following situations on business ethics: ‘sell-
Table I summarized the profile of the respon- ing hazardous products’, ‘selling defective products’,
dents. and ‘keeping quiet on defective products’ as com-
Descriptive statistics like means, standard devia- pared to the Malays and Chinese. These three sce-
tion, Chi-square tests, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and narios were more related to business ethics that
MANOVA were used to analyze the relevant data. could affect the consumers. Thus, the Indian stu-
dents were more concerned on such issues than the
Malays or Chinese.
The results also showed that the Chinese were
Findings and discussion highly ethical on the following situations: ‘mislead-
ing instructions’, ‘padding expense account’, ‘taking
Perceptions of business ethics by Malays, Chinese, and sick leave to take a day off’, and ‘respond to sup-
Indians plier’s take good care of client attitude’ than the
Malays or Indian students. The first scenario is more
Table II showed the perceptions of the Chinese, concerned with the consumers, while the second
Malays, and Indian students toward business ethics. and third scenario was related to employees. The last
The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed scenario was related to business relationships.
that there were significant differences in 7 out of the As compared to the Indians and Chinese, the
13 scenarios of business ethics. As such, H1 is par- Indian students were more concerned on business
tially supported. ethics that affect the consumers (suggesting a
The results showed that were significant differ- champion of causes), while the Chinese students
ences among the Malays, Chinese, and Indian seemed to have a greater concern on employees,
consumers, and business relationships. This means
that the Chinese students have a broader perspective
TABLE I
of business ethics than the Indian students. This can
Profile of respondents (N = 767) be related to the pragmatic value inherent among
Chinese community. In other words, while the need
Chinese Malays Indians Total for wealth and prosperity or money is important, it is
(%) (%) (%) (%)
also necessary to maintain ‘face’, ‘harmony’, and
Gender loyalty of subordinate (Yang, 1972).
Male 5.2 18.3 2 25.4 From these results, it was clear that there were
Female 24.1 24.1 5 74.6 differences between Malays, Chinese, and Indians on
Age perceptions of business ethics. Therefore, the dif-
Less than 20 years 3 6.3 0.8 10 ferences in culture could provide one of the reasons
21–30 years 26.3 57.1 6.1 89.6 for such variations. Goodwin and Goodwin (1999),
Above 30 years 0 0.4 0 0.4 for example, found that there were differences
Highest qualifications among the Malaysians of different ethnic origin on
High school 13.6 22.4 3.5 39.5 perceptions of ethical/unethical scenarios. This
Diploma 0.4 4.6 0.1 5.1 supports the potential effect of culture on percep-
Degree 14.7 33.9 3.3 51.9
tions of business ethics.
Postgraduate degree 0.7 0.8 0 1.4
The results also showed that 6 out of the 13
Others 0 2.1 0 2.1
business scenarios were found to be non-significantly
 A Cross-cultural Comparison 913

TABLE II
Perceptions of business ethics by Malays, Chinese and Indian students

Chinese Malays Indians F-value

Selling hazardous products elsewhere 4.92** 4.36** 5.05** 9.393*

Misleading instructions 4.08 3.67 3.88 4.681*
Selling defective products 4.64 4.22 4.92 7.93*
Padding expense account 4.68 4.19 4.32 6.04*
Taking sick leave to take day off 4.27 3.77 3.96 6.55*
Insider information 3.43 3.18 3.45 2.55
Favoring relatives 4.88 4.75 4.64 0.65
Falsifying reports 4.87 4.62 5.00 2.14
Keeping quiet on defective products 4.86 4.38 5.01 9.03*
Pay foreign officials 4.17 4.23 4.47 0.68
Respond to supplier’s ‘take good care of him’ 3.72 3.29 3.15 7.48*
Gift giving during festive seasons 2.72 2.62 2.64 0.42
Spend small to earn big money 3.99 4.11 4.05 0.42

*Significant at p < 0.01

**Low mean score suggests respondents are highly unethical (respondents perceive the situation as ethical) and high mean
score suggests respondents are highly ethical (or low unethical) (that is the respondent perceive the situation as unethical)

different among the ethnic groups, although the
mean scores of each scenario were found to be dif-
ferent among the ethnic groups. This can be
attributed to the fact that some aspects of business
practices like ‘insider information’, ‘favoring rela-
tives’, ‘falsifying reports’, ‘pay foreign officials’, ‘gift
giving during festive seasons’, and ‘spend small to
earn big money’ were considered quite ambiguous
for each of the ethnic groups to respond differently
in the given scenarios presented to the respondents.
In other words, some have considered it to be
‘acceptable business practices’, while others may not
see the potential unethical practices due to their
understanding of ‘perceived appropriate cultural
values’. For example, the Malays and Chinese or
Indians may have viewed ‘gift giving during festive
season’ as a natural gesture of showing one’s appre-
ciation during the festive season without any ‘bad
intentions’. Similarly, the scenario related to ‘spend
small to earn big money’ may be conceived as an
‘investment costs’ to obtain highly profitable busi-
ness ventures. Each of the ethnic groups, Malays,
Chinese and Indians would also have difficulties in
‘favoring relatives’ as it may be conceived as helping
one’s compatriot, which is part of an extended
family values or collectivist culture.
Ethnic groups and religiosity
Table III showed the Chi-square test of ethnic
groups and religiosity. The results showed that there
is an association between ethnicity and religiosity
(significant at p < 0.001). As such, H2 is supported.
The results showed that 87.2% of the respondents
have high religiosity and 12.8% have low religiosity.
Among the Malays, 97.8% have high religiosity,
while among the Chinese, 64.4% have high religi-
osity. Among the Indians, 86.8% have high religios-
ity. This means that the Malays considered themselves
to have high religiosity than the Chinese or Indians.
This is not unusual as the Malay values appeared to
have given such aspect of greater importance (Asma,
1992). As for the Indians, the findings support the
values of the Indians (Chaterjee, 1987; Khandwala,
1980). In relation to the Chinese, it cannot be denied
that they have more pragmatic values, and conse-
quently, the issue of religiosity does not have higher
priorities as compared to the Malays and Chinese. It
should be noted that this does not imply that the
Chinese are not as religious as the other ethnic
groups, but relative to the other ethnic groups, Ma-
lays and Indians, it is not unreasonable to deduce that
the Chinese were less concern on religiosity.
914 Md. Zabid Rashid and Saidatul Ibrahim

TABLE III
The association between ethnicity and religiosity

Ethnicity Total

Chinese Malays Indians

High religiosity
Count 145 478 46 669
% within religiosity 21.7 71.4 6.9 100.0
% within ethnic 64.4 97.8 86.8 87.2
% of total 18.9 62.3 6.0 87.2
Low religiosity
Count 80 11 7 98
% within religiosity 81.6 11.2 7.1 100.0
% within ethnic 35.6 2.2 13.2 12.8
% of Total 10.4 1.4 0.9 12.8
Total
Count 225 489 53 767
% within religiosity 29.3 63.8 6.9 100.0
% within ethnic 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
% of Total 29.3 63.8 6.9 100.0
Value df Asymp. sig. (2-sided)
Chi-square tests
Pearson Chi-square 153.393a 2 0.000
Likelihood ratio 146.712 2 0.000
Linear-by-linear association 97.440 1 0.000
N of valid cases 767
Value Asymp. std. errorb Approx. Tc Approx. sig.
Symmetric measures
Interval by interval
Pearson’s R )0.357 0.040 )10.559 0.000d
Ordinal by ordinal
Spearman Correlation )0.380 0.040 )11.373 0.000d
N of valid cases 767
a
0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.77
b
Not assuming the null hypothesis
c
Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis
d
Based on normal approximation

Influence of culture and religiosity on perceived business
ethics
Tables IV and V showed the multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) results of culture and religi-
osity on perceived business ethics. The multivariate
results (F = 237.340, p < 0.001) showed that culture
(F = 1.97, p < 0.05) and religiosity (F = 3.545,
p < 0.001) have an effect on perceived business
ethics. As such H3 is supported.
The results showed that the interaction effects
(culture and religiosity, F = 2.379, p < 0.001) were
found on the following scenarios: ‘selling hazardous
products’, ‘taking sick leave to take a day off’, ‘pay
foreign officials’, and ‘gift giving during festive
seasons’ (p < 0.05). In the scenario related to ‘sell-
ing hazardous products’, the Indians have high
ethical values as compared to the Malays or Chi-
nese in the high religiosity group. In the low
religiosity group, the Chinese appeared to be
 A Cross-cultural Comparison 915

TABLE IV These results clearly showed the variations in

Multivariate tests of culture and religiosity on perceived terms of the perceptions of business ethics among
business ethics different culture and religiosity. This implies that
different cultures have differing levels of religiosity
F-value Significant and consequently affect their perceptions of business
(Roy’s largest root) ethics. This is consistent with the results of Clark and
Dawson (1996), Conroy and Emerson (2004), Fisher
Intercept 237.340 0.000 et al. (1999), Ford et al. (2005), Goodwin and
Religiosity 3.545 0.000
Goodwin (1999), Kennedy and Lawton (1998),
Culture 1.970 0.021
Lysonski and Gaidis (1991), McNichols and Zim-
Religiosity * Culture 2.379 0.004
merer (1985), Okleshen and Hoyt (1996), Small
(1992) and Vitell et al. (2005, 2006). This imply that
highly ethical in such scenario as compared to the cultural factors, as defined in terms of the ethnicity
Malays or Indians. group, have an effect on perceptions of business
In relation to the scenario of ‘taking sick leave to ethics, and the levels of religiosity also have such
take a day off’, the Chinese were highly ethical in effects.
the high and low religiosity group, as compared to
the Malays and Indians.
In the scenario of ‘paying foreign officials’, the Conclusion
Indians have high ethical values as compared to the
Chinese or Malays in the high religiosity group, but The results of the study showed that culture and
the Chinese have high ethical values as compared to religiosity have effects on perceptions of business
the Malays or Indians in the low religiosity group. ethics. One implication is that different cultures have
As for ‘gift giving during festive seasons’, the Chi- differing perceptions of business ethics. Some cul-
nese have high ethical values compared to the Malays tures considered some practices as more unethical
or Indians in the high religiosity group. However, in than other cultures. This means that the tolerance
the low religiosity group, the Malays have high ethical level of business ethics among cultures differed. This
values as compared to the Chinese or Indians. finding, therefore, strengthened the relationship and

TABLE V
Effects of culture and religiosity on perceived business ethics

Business ethics Religiosity Culture Religiosity * culture

Selling hazardous products elsewhere 1.104 1.752 3.525**

Misleading instructions 0.101 0.774 0.448
Selling defective products 0.610 0.546 0.258
Padding expense account 0.150 2.425 0.244
Taking sick leave to take day off 4.123** 5.791** 3.416**
Insider information 0.042 0.487 0.293
Favoring relatives 3.687 2.783 2.485
Falsifying reports 0.550 1.907 0.834
Keeping quiet on defective products 0.006 1.009 0.566
Pay foreign officials 22.272*** 3.168** 8.608***
Respond to supplier’s ‘take good care of him’ 2.903 1.552 0.898
Gift giving during festive seasons 5.103** 3.156** 4.131**
Spend small to earn big money 0.213 0.109 0.051

**Significant at p < 0.05

***Significant at p < 0.01
916 Md. Zabid Rashid and Saidatul Ibrahim
influence of culture on business ethics. Further, the
present findings clarified the influence of religiosity
on business ethics. As such, it is important to note
the association between culture and religiosity.
However, it does not imply that high religiosity have
high ethical values. This means that what is con-
sidered ethical by one culture may be viewed
unethical by others especially when the issue facing
the students does not provide clear guidelines on
what is considered right or wrong.
The present findings also suggest that Malays have
lower ethical values than the Chinese or Indians.
Malays, therefore, have higher level of tolerance
than others. Another important implication is in
terms of providing more education and training on
ethics and moral values among students so that they
would know how to respond to complex situations
as suggested in the scenarios presented. This will
improve their understanding of what is correct or
right and what is wrong or incorrect for them to
behave. Further, there is a need to enhance the
understanding of cross-cultural interpretations of
business ethics in the eyes of their respective cul-
tures. Further research is also needed to examine the
effects of age, gender, family upbringing (urban
versus rural), and type of study programs (business
versus non-business) students in other cross-cultural
settings.
References
Abratt, R., D. Nel and N. S. Hays: 1992, ‘An Exami-
nation of the Ethical Beliefs of Managers Using
Selected Scenarios in a Cross-Cultural Environment’,
Journal of Business Ethics 11, 29–35.
Allmon, D. E., H. C. K. Chen, T. K. Pritchett and P.
Forrest: 1997, ‘A Multicultural Examination of
Business Ethics Perceptions’, Journal of Business Ethics
16, 183–188.
Allport, G. W.: 1950, The Individual and His Religion: A
Psychological Interpretation (MacMillan, New York).
Allport, G. W. and J. M. Ross: 1967, ‘Personal Religious
Orientation and Prejudice’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 5, 432–443.
Asma, A.: 1992, ‘The Influence of Ethnic Values on
Managerial Practices in Malaysia’, Malaysian Manage-
ment Review 27(1), 3–18.
Barnett, T., K. Bass and G. Brown: 1996, ‘Religiosity,
Ethical Ideology and Intentions to Report a Peer’s
Wrongdoing’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1161–1174.
Baumhart, R. S. J.: 1968, Ethics in Business (Rhinehart &
Winston, USA).
Chaterjee, S. R.: 1987, ‘Malaysian Management: Search
for an Appropriate System’, Paper Presented at the
Southeast Asia Regional Conference of Academy of
International Business, 27–29th August 1987, Kuala
Lumpur.
Clark, J. W. and L. E. Dawson: 1996, ‘Personal Reli-
giousness and Ethical Judgements: An Empirical
Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 359–372.
Conroy, S. J. and T. L. N. Emerson: 2004, ‘Business
Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of
Ethical Awareness Among Students’, Journal of Business
Ethics 50, 383–396.
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ‘A Contingency
Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision
Making in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 49(Sum-
mer), 87–96.
Fisher, J., F. Chou and G. Woodbine: 1999, ‘An
Assessment of the Ethical Behavior of Malaysia’s Stu-
dents’, Malaysian Management Review 34(2), 76–83.
Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical
Decision Making: A Review of the Empirical Litera-
ture’, Journal of Business Ethics 13(3), 205–221.
Ford, C. W., S. A. Nonis and G. I. Hudson: 2005, ‘A Cross-
Cultural Comparison of Value Systems and Consumer
Ethics’, Cross-Cultural Management 12(4), 36–50.
Goodwin, J. and D. Goodwin: 1999, ‘Ethical Judgments
Across Cultures: A Comparison Between Business
Students from Malaysia and New Zealand’, Journal of
Business Ethics 18, 267–281.
Hamzah, S.: 1991, ‘Managing in a Multicultural Society –
the Malaysian Experience’, Malaysian Management
Review 26(1), 61–69.
Harris, J. A.: 1989. ‘Ethical Values and Decision Making
Process of Male and Female Business Students’, Journal
of Education for Business, February, 234–236.
Harris, J. A.: 1990, ‘Ethical Values of Individuals at
Different Levels of the Organization Hierarchy of a
Single Firm’, Journal of Business Ethics 9, 741–750.
Harris, J. A.: 1991, ‘Ethical Values and Decision Process
of Business and Non-Business Students: A Four Group
Study’, Journal of Legal Studies Education 9, 216–230.
Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sims, Jr.: 1978, ‘Some
Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An
Experiment’, Journal of Applied Psychology 63, 451–457.
Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sims, Jr.: 1979, ‘Organization
Philosophy, Policies, and Objectives Related to
Unethical Decision Behavior: A Laboratory Experi-
ment’, Journal of Applied Psychology 64(3), 331–338.
Hofstede, G.: 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work Related Values (Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA).
 A Cross-cultural Comparison
Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory of
Marketing Ethics’, Journal of MacroMarketing 8, 5–16.
Hunt, S. D., L. B. Chonko and V. R. Wood: 1989,
‘Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational Com-
mitment to Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 53, 79–90.
Izraeli, D.: 1988, ‘Ethical Beliefs and Behavior Among
Managers: A Cross-Cultural Perspective’, Journal of
Business Ethics 7, 263–271.
Kennedy, E. J. and L. Lawton: 1998, ‘Religiousness and
Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 163–175.
Khandwala, P. N.: 1980, ‘Management in Our Back-
yards’, Vikalpa 5(3), 173–184.
Kidwell, J. M., R. E. Stevens and A. L. Bethke: 1987,
‘Differences in Ethical Perceptions Between Male and
Female Managers: Myth or Reality’, Journal of Business
Ethics 6, 489–493.
Lee, K.-H.: 1981, ‘Ethical Beliefs in Marketing Man-
agement: A Cross-Cultural Study’, European Journal of
Marketing 15(1), 58–67.
Lysonski, S. and W. Gaidis: 1991, ‘A Cross-Cultural
Comparison of the Ethics of Business Students’, Journal
of Business Ethics 10, 141–150.
Magill, G.: 1992, ‘Theology in Business Ethics: Appealing
to the Religious Imagination’, Journal of Business Ethics
11, 129–135.
McDaniel, S. W. and J. J. Burnett: 1990, ‘Consumer
Religiousness and Retail Store Evaluative Criteria’,
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 18, 101–112.
McDonald, G. M. and C. K. Pak: 1997, ‘Ethical Per-
ceptions of Expatriate and Local Managers in Hong
Kong’, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 1605–1623.
McDonald, G. and R. A. Zepp: 1988, ‘Ethical Percep-
tions of Australian and Hong Kong Chinese Manag-
ers’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 835–845.
McLaren, M. C. and M. Z. A. Rashid: 2002, Issues and
Cases in Cross-Cultural Management: An Asian Perspective
(Prentice-Hall, Malaysia).
McNichols, C. W. and T. W. Zimmerer: 1985, ‘Situa-
tional Ethics: An Empirical Study of Differentiators of
Students Attitudes’, Journal of Business Ethics 14, 75–80.
Okleshen, M. and R. Hoyt: 1996, ‘A Cross-Cultural
Comparison of Ethical Perspectives and Decision
Approaches of Business Students: United States of
America Versus New Zealand’, Journal of Business Ethics
15, 537–549.
917
Sarachek, B., A. Abdul Hamid and Z. Ismail: 1984, ‘An
Opinion Survey of Malaysian Middle Level Managers
and Professionals’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
May, 181–189.
Small, M. W.: 1992, ‘Attitudes Towards Business Ethics
Held by Western Australian Students: A Comparative
Study’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 745–752.
Tsalikis, J. and O. Nwachukwu: 1988, ‘Cross-Cultural
Business Ethics: Ethical Belief’s Differences Between
Blacks and Whites’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 745–
754.
Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo and J. J. Singh: 2005,
‘Religiosity and Consumer Ethics’, Journal of Business
Ethics 57, 175–181.
Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo and J. J. Singh: 2006, ‘The
Role of Money and Religiosity in Determining
Consumer Ethical Beliefs’, Journal of Business Ethics 64,
117–124.
Weaver, G. R. and B. R. Agle: 2002, ‘Religiosity and
Ethical Behavior in Organisations: A Symbolic Inter-
actionist Perspective’, Academy of Management Review
27(1), 77–98.
Weibe, K. F. and J. R. Fleck: 1980, ‘Personality Corre-
lates of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Non-Religious Ori-
entations’, Journal of Psychology 105, 181–187.
Wu, T. Y.: 1980, Roots of Chinese Culture (Federal
Publications, Singapore).
Yang, C. K.: 1972, The Chinese Family in the Communist
Revolution (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge).
Md. Zabid Rashid
University Tun Abdul Razak,
16-1 Jalan SS 6/12, Kelana Jaya, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor 47301, Malaysia
E-mail: zabidr@yahoo.com
Saidatul Ibrahim
Faculty of Economics & Management,
Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Serdang, Selangor 43400, Malaysia
E-mails: saida@econ.upm.edu.my,
and
s.ibrahim2@lancaster.ac.uk