(Good) corporate governance and the strategic integration of meso ethics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The primary goal of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of meso ethics from a corporate governance perspective, and the strategic process of integration between corporate and individual ethics for the creation of an ethical culture. A secondary aim is to identify the organizational behavior variables that are affected by the ethical congruence between employee ethics and the prevailing corporate ethical climate. Design/methodology/approach By first situating organizational ethics within the broader phenomenon of business ethics, the authors then more aptly examine corporate ethics at the upper and lower permeable meso boundaries where a shared ethic is negotiated. This conceptual paper tries to capture through a phenomenological approach how strategic governance level (macro) and individual ethics (micro) interact in a complex and dynamic way at the organizational level (meso). Findings Normative literature suggests that organizations require more than ethical safeguards to ensure ethical conduct. For example, ethics training programs are demanded and perceived as effective by employees. Recent empirical studies on “ethical fit” have converged and support the assertion that it is in an organization's best interest to continually look for ethical congruence between their workforce and the ethical climate that they intentionally foster. Furthermore, these studies show that perceived ethical congruence positively affects an individual's affective commitment to an organization, and reduces turnover intent. Research limitations/implications There is a general lack of consensus, cohesion and empiricism in the current literature. Few studies deal with meso ethics, which have wide‐ranging implications for current and future research. Practical implications Demand for business ethics is on the rise as is its corporate response commonly defined as corporate social responsibility (CSR). Standard responsive measures taken by executives are shown to generally be unsubstantiated or insufficient for ethical conduct to truly take root in an organization. Originality/value The scope of the paper, with its phenomenological approach, identifies the complexities of corporate ethics for academics and managers alike, where traditionally fragmented organizational levels are herein understood to be permeable and dynamic. The meso perspective of this study provides a new foundation for the study of corporate ethics. Its phenomenological approach provides a conceptual common ground and facilitates convergence in the field. Moreover, the conceptual framework of this paper can enable practitioners to formulate the appropriate strategic intent and governance strategy for their organization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it