Business ethics competencies: controversies, contexts, and implications for business ethics training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter aims to discuss the divergent views of 102 practitioners and academics about business ethics competencies and potential implications for business ethics training. It presents, first, an introduction to the nature of the misalignment between academia and industry and, second, business ethics training issues and controversies. Next, the two phases of the research, including document analysis and a survey in Canada and the US, are noted. When considering practitioner needs, potentially over- or under-emphasized competencies are identified by means of a survey to shed light on the extent of this misalignment, so that future instructional efforts can focus on increasing content considered by practitioners to be under-emphasized, while reducing the content considered to be over- emphasized. Finally,a proposed business ethics competency model is provided, as well as a comprehensive content selection model for business ethics development, designed and recommended for business ethics practitioners and academics.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".