Biz Ethics & Neuroscience

University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
Legal Studies and Business Ethics Papers Wharton Faculty Research
9-2016
Business Ethics: The Promise of Neuroscience

Diana Robertson
University of Pennsylvania
Christian Voegtlin
Thomas Maak
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers

Part of the Business Commons, and the Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Robertson, D., Voegtlin, C., & Maak, T. (2016). Business Ethics: The Promise of Neuroscience. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3312-6
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers/4

For more information, please contact [email protected].
Business Ethics: The Promise of Neuroscience
Abstract
Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience research portend well for furthering understanding of many of the
fundamental questions in the field of business ethics, both normative and empirical. This article provides an
overview of neuroscience methodology and brain structures, and explores the areas in which neuroscience
research has contributed findings of value to business ethics, as well as suggesting areas for future research.
Neuroscience research is especially capable of providing insight into individual reactions to ethical issues,
while also raising challenging normative questions about the nature of moral responsibility, autonomy, intent,
and free will. This article also provides a brief summary of the papers included in this special issue, attesting to
the richness of scholarly inquiry linking neuroscience and business ethics. We conclude that neuroscience
offers considerable promise to the field of business ethics, but we caution against overpromise.
Disciplines
Business | Law
This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers/4

BUSINESS ETHICS: THE PROMISE OF NEUROSCIENCE
Diana C. Robertson
Legal Studies and Business Ethics Department
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
3730 Walnut Street, Suite 671
Philadelphia PA 19104 USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Christian Voegtlin
Department of Business Administration (IBW)
University of Zurich
Universitätsstrasse 84
CH-8006 Zurich
Thomas Maak
School of Management
University of South Australia
GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001
Unedited version of a paper published in
Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3312-6. For private use only.
For correct citations and quotations please see the original publication in the Journal of
Business Ethics.
Acknowledgements:
The authors thank Laura Noval and William T. Ross, Jr., for their helpful comments on
earlier drafts of this paper. C. Voegtlin acknowledges the financial support by the Swiss
National Science Foundation for the research projects on Responsible Leadership and Social
Innovation (grant numbers 100018_149937 and 100010_165699).
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2836522

ABSTRACT
Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience research portend well for furthering
understanding of many of the fundamental questions in the field of business ethics, both
normative and empirical. This article provides an overview of neuroscience methodology and
brain structures, and explores the areas in which neuroscience research has contributed
findings of value to business ethics, as well as suggesting areas for future research.
Neuroscience research is especially capable of providing insight into individual reactions to
ethical issues, while also raising challenging normative questions about the nature of moral
responsibility, autonomy, intent, and free will. This article also provides a brief summary of
the papers included in this special issue, attesting to the richness of scholarly inquiry linking
neuroscience and business ethics. We conclude that neuroscience offers considerable promise
to the field of business ethics, but we caution against overpromise.
Keywords: Neuroscience methods, brain structures, normative business ethics, empirical
business ethics, ethical decision making
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2836522

The field of business ethics has afforded an intriguing research journey since its
inception as a focus of serious scholarly study in the latter part of the twentieth century. Now
is an especially fascinating time to be a business ethicist especially because increasingly
sophisticated empirical methodologies are being tested. Cognitive neuroscience, the study of
the mind through the brain, has attained increasing importance in the field of business ethics
and moral judgment, largely through advances in the tools of functional neuroimaging
(Greene and Cohen, 2004, Salvador and Folger, 2009, Shehnav and Green 2014, Young and
Koenigs 2007). This technology affords the opportunity to study what is happening in the
brain as individuals encounter an ethical issue, process such an issue, and engage in unethical
behavior, for example, lying (Abe et al., 2007; Farah et al., 2014) or cheating (Zeki and
Goodenough, 2004).
This special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics aims to synthesize neuroscience
knowledge and insights to inform theories in business ethics. The issue brings together
scholarly work from a variety of disciplines, such as marketing and organizational behavior.
It highlights various aspects of business ethics including normative theories and theories of
moral decision making, as well as the more specific topics of sex differences, leadership,
empathy, and justice. Topics are varied, as befits a relatively new stream of research and is in
keeping with the originality of inquiry that this technology affords. An interdisciplinary
approach that combines knowledge of the social sciences and neuroscience enables us to
generate novel insights into ethical decision making and behavior and to look at different
levels of analysis from an integrative point of view. It links questions related to the social
(motivational and social factors), cognitive (information-processing mechanisms), and neural
levels (brain mechanisms), using traditional neuroscience methods, neuroimaging and
neuropsychology (Lieberman, 2007; Ochsner and Lieberman, 2001).
3
As such, business ethics joins a wide range of scholarly fields employing
neuroscience methodology to study human decision making, including economics (Camerer
et al., 2005; Frydman et al., 2014), social psychology (Amodio, 2010), marketing (Karmarkar
et al., 2015), and organizational behavior (Becker et al., 2011). Salvador and Folger (2009)
provide an excellent review of neuroscience research in business ethics; although still in a
formative stage, interest in the topic is increasing, as this special issue attests. Neuroscience
methodology is especially auspicious for the study of ethics because it is less subject to social
desirability bias than survey research methods using participants’ self-reports about their
emotional and cognitive processes. In brain imaging research, it is possible to investigate
processes of which subjects themselves are not aware.
This interdisciplinary approach that integrates cognitive neuroscience and business
ethics provides both opportunities and challenges. The challenge is to forge meaningful links
between brain biology and human behavior; research that succeeds in forging these links can
provide significant contributions to business ethics theories. Although neuroscience
methodology is by definition empirical, neuroimaging findings also raise significant
normative questions about the nature of moral responsibility, autonomy, intent, and free will.
Therefore, the question that this article raises is: What value will cognitive
neuroscience have to the field of business ethics? Will it enhance our understanding of
unethical behavior? Or will nothing fundamental change? We have seen this debate play out
in the question of the impact of neuroscience on law, in which one side of the argument
believes neuroscience to be transformative, whereas the other side believes that little in the
law is changed by neuroscience. Greene and Cohen (2004) imagine that “neuroscience will
challenge and ultimately reshape our intuitive sense(s) of justice” (p. 1775). Morse (2004), on
the other hand, contends that our present conceptualization and system of legal principles will
not be altered fundamentally by findings from cognitive neuroscience. He believes that our
4
theories of responsibility and personhood remain unthreatened by neuroscience. Both
positions hold considerable validity and provide scope for discussion and debate among
business ethics scholars.
In addition to these larger questions about the contribution of neuroscience to business
ethics, we should point out that there are fundamental objections to the very use of
neuroscience in the study of human behavior. One set of objections centers on the ethics of
the use of neuroscience, a topic of great interest to business ethicists and one to which we will
return later in this article. Other objections mounted by neuroskeptics include problems with
the neuroimaging methodology itself and doubts about the interpretation or over-
interpretation of results. For a discussion of neuroskepticism as well as a set of
counterarguments, see, for example, Farah et al. (2014), and Rachul and Zarzeczny (2012).
We appreciate the importance of exploring the validity of these objections, but at the same
time we welcome the potential contribution of neuroscience to business ethics scholarship.
We see the promise of neuroscience, but we are not blind to the possibility of overpromise.
Our approach is meant to be descriptive of what neuroscience is able and not able to
do. To that end we provide an outline of neuroscience methodology, a synopsis of the brain
areas most likely to relate to questions of business ethics, and a sense of the current state of
neuroscience research on business ethics. At the same time, we support the exploration of
possible future studies and imagine a world in which neuroscience offers one approach to the
most provocative and important questions in business ethics.
The remainder of the article is structured as follows. In the following section two, we
present a brief overview of neuroscience methods, as well as information about brain
structure and connectivity. Section three delineates the territory of neuroscience research in
business ethics. In this section we raise questions about the position of neuroscience in
addressing normative issues. We also consider empirical research beginning with studies of
5
individual characteristics, moving to individual decision making about ethical issues, to
studies of interaction with others, and finally to organizational topics related to ethics. As we
consider this research, we identify the topics that have been most researched as well as
proposing future research directions. Section four introduces the articles that comprise the
contributions of this special issue. Section five discusses the implications of neuroscience for
the teaching of business ethics and touches upon ethical questions of conducting neuroscience
research. The article ends with a conclusion that summarizes the contributions of
neuroscience to business ethics research.
MAPPING THE BRAIN: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS

AND BRAIN STRUCTURES
Neuroscience Methods
The aim of neuroscience research is to relate brain activity to human cognition,
emotions, and behavior. In the following we briefly discuss the most often used techniques
(for further and more in-depth discussion of the methods, see, e.g., Dimoka, 2012; Glimcher
et al., 2009; Huettel et al., 2014; Kable, 2011). Table 1 presents a summary of the advantages
and disadvantages of the different neuroscience techniques.
------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------------
Electroencephalography (EEG), one of the first neuroscience techniques used in
management research, is a method that places electrodes on the scalp to measure
electromagnetic activity of the brain. It thereby tracks and records brain wave patterns. In
studies relating to business ethics and corporate responsibility, Waldman et al. (2011), for
example, used EEG to investigate the neurological basis of inspirational leadership behavior;
their research focused specifically on leadership that emphasizes the social responsibility of
6
business and the empowerment of followers. Similarly, Lee et al. (2014) used EEG to
distinguish green consumers, those who choose environmentally products, from non-green
consumers.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has become the most commonly used
method in the social neuroscience literature (Dimoka, 2012), particularly in the study of
moral cognition. Participants are placed in an fMRI scanner and react to stimuli or perform
tasks while their brain activity is measured. The most prominent measure is the blood-
oxygen-level-dependency effect (BOLD). BOLD fMRI captures changes in the oxygen
concentration of the blood flow in the brain. Neural activity increases blood oxygenation. The
resulting changes in the magnetic field measured by fMRI are used as a proxy for brain areas
that are active during a task or as a response to a stimulus (Dimoka, 2012; Huettel et al.,
2014). In a relatively early use of fMRI in the study of moral cognition, Greene et al. (2001)
scanned the brains of subjects faced with the “trolley dilemma” in its multiple variations;
subjects have to decide if they are willing to sacrifice the life of one person to save five
persons from being overrun by a trolley. The results of this study indicate that deontological
decisions (“do not kill”) are more likely driven by affective, emotional reactions, whereas
utilitarian decisions (“kill one to save five”) seem to be based on higher-order reasoning and
cognition (Greene et al., 2001).
In addition to the previously mentioned methods, transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) afford the ability to directly
manipulate brain activity. TMS uses electromagnetic induction to inhibit or activate certain
brain areas (Rossi et al., 2009). A magnet coil is placed near the head of the participant. The
magnet produces small electric currents that inhibit or trigger activity in the region of the
brain. The method is non-invasive and the activation of the brain area is only temporary
(Dimoka, 2013; Rossi et al., 2009). Knoch et al. (2006) used TMS to show that disruption of
7
the right, but not the left, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the brain made participants more
willing to accept unfair offers. Young et al. (2010) found that interfering with activity in the
right temporoparietal junction, an area involved in reasoning about others’ mental states,
disrupts the capacity to use such mental states in moral judgment. In addition to studies of
brain lesions, TMS and tDCS provide the possibility for experimental manipulation to draw
better causal inferences about brain activity and human behavior and decision making.
However, due to the controversial nature of such studies, researchers need to proceed
cautiously in study design and implementation (Rossi et al., 2009).
Apart from brain imaging techniques, the study of hormones has become increasingly
prevalent in investigating biological predictors of human behavior. Hormones are
biochemical messenger molecules produced in an endocrine gland or the brain and released
into the bloodstream. The release of different hormones in the human body has been related
to social outcomes such as trust (oxytocin), aggressive behavior and power (testosterone), or
altruism (dopamine) (Fehr, 2008; Kosfeld et al., 2005; Schultheiss and Stanton, 2009;
Schultheiss et al., 2004). Research more directly related to business ethics investigated the
role of testosterone in leader corruption (Bendahan et al., 2015) and utilitarian moral decision
making (Carney and Mason, 2010).
Finally, scholars often count as neuroscience methods measures of physiological
responses of the body, including the measurement of heart rate, skin conductance, pupil
dilation, or eye tracking (Becker and Menges, 2013). An example of the application of such
methods related to business ethics is the study of Decety et al. (2012), which combined
neurophysiological measures, including eye-tracking, pupillary response, and fMRI to
investigate reactions to morally salient situations. Participants viewed scenarios depicting
intentional versus accidental actions that caused harm to people and objects. Eye-tracking and
measures of pupil dilation showed that participants looked at the victims rather than the
8
perpetrators and reacted more strongly to intentional harm; these physiological reactions were
correlated with activation in the posterior superior temporal sulcus and amygdala. Overall,
the findings indicate that morally questionable situations (e.g., harming others) induce a
negative emotional reaction. The authors suggest that these negative emotional reactions
sensitize individuals, making them aware of the moral nature of the situation and thus may
play an important role as an antecedent to moral judgment (Rest 1979; Reynolds 2006).
Ethical Decision Making in the Brain: How Our Brain Helps Us Understand Ourselves
and Others
Using the above mentioned neuroscience methods, scholars have started to classify
different regions of the human brain associated with social cognitive processes. Studies draw
inferences from brain activity related to behavioral tasks or stimuli and thereby try to “locate”
basic emotions such as fear, anger, or happiness, but also more complex cognitive constructs
including ethical decision making in the human brain. Research shows that most often
multiple brain regions are involved in the same mental process related to social interaction,
while at the same time, a certain brain region is responsible for several mental processes
(Greene, 2015; Greene and Haidt, 2002; Lieberman, 2007). This latter point makes a reverse
inference challenging, i.e., trying to draw social or psychological conclusions from the
activation of certain brain areas may lead to over-interpretation of the results (Dimoka, 2012,;
Lieberman, 2007). In the following, we provide an overview of brain areas associated with
important facets of ethical decision making (see also Voegtlin and Kaufmann, 2012 for a
similar overview with regard to ethical leadership). We call attention to specific brain
regions, as these are important for understanding the most relevant findings of neuroscience
research. At the same time, we attempt to make our discussion as accessible as possible to
non-neuroscientists. The overview relates to the general mental capacity of an individual to
9
understand oneself, and others, and to interact with others as the fundamental preconditions
for ethical behavior (see Table 2).
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Understanding oneself: Self-reflection and self-regulation
Understanding oneself includes the mental capacities to understand and reflect about
oneself as a moral person (Johnson et al., 2002; Lieberman, 2007). Self-reflection means
actively engaging in the process of deliberation about one’s own experiences (past or
current), and one’s positive or negative feelings about those experiences, in order to seek or
avoid similar situations in the future (Lieberman, 2007). Evaluation of current experiences,
autobiographical reflections of the past, and memory retrieval are strongly associated with
activity in several parts of the pre-frontal cortex (Johnson et al., 2002; Lieberman, 2007).
Research has shown that the pre-frontal cortex, but also the region of the brain involved in
memorizing and in emotional reactions (amygdala) are important for a person’s moral
development (Greene, 2015). Self-regulation, another important competency of the self,
enables an individual to reappraise emotional events and to control affective and emotional
impulses (Lieberman, 2007). Studies have shown that specific parts of the brain (dorsal
anterior cingulate cortex, lateral pre-frontal cortex) aid in intentionally overriding an impulse
(Lieberman, 2007).
Models of moral reasoning dating back to Kohlberg (1969) have assumed a conscious,
deliberate reasoning process. More recently the social intuitionist model considers moral
judgment to be a function of immediate, intuitive processes, often (but not always) followed
by more rational reasoning (Haidt 2001). The dual-process theory of moral judgment is a
continuation of these findings and offers a significant contribution of cognitive neuroscience
research to understanding how individuals make decisions about ethical issues. The theory is
10
based on neuroscience findings and suggests that individuals make ethical decisions based on
intuition and emotion as well as reason (Greene et al. 2001; Haidt 2001; Reynolds, 2006).
Seminal studies of patients with brain damage highlight the importance of emotions in
being able to act ethically in the first place (Damasio, 1994). The famous case of Phineas
Gage, whose ventromedial pre-frontal cortex was damaged after he was hit by a steel rod,
shows that Gage was still able to engage in abstract moral reasoning, while emotional
reactions and real-life ethical decision making were clearly impaired (Damasio, 1994).
Additional brain lesion studies confirmed that individuals with similar brain damage make
poor decisions because they are unable to generate feelings; these individuals have weak
affective responses to harm (Greene, 2015; see also, Greene and Haidt, 2002; Damasio,
1994). Damage to regions relevant for generating and regulating responses to salient stimuli
(ventromedial pre-frontal cortex, amygdala) seem to be major catalysts for psychopathy
(Greene, 2015). These and other neuroscience studies investigating patients with brain
damage indicate that it is both having emotions that make individuals care for others, and
being able to regulate these emotions, that are necessary for making ethical decisions.
Understanding others: Theory of Mind and empathy
Apart from understanding oneself, understanding others, i.e., the way in which an
individual experiences the mental state or mind of another person, is important for ethical
behavior. The theoretical concepts in neuroscience considered to be of key importance for
explaining human interaction in a social context are theory of mind (ToM) and empathy, both
of which are relevant for understanding the ethical beliefs and intentions of others (Frith and
Singer, 2008) and for understanding why individuals behave ethically or unethically. ToM
can be considered largely cognitive and involves the ability to represent the mental states of
others (ability to mentalize); empathy, on the other hand, is considered largely affective and
describes the capacity to understand what others feel (Frith and Singer, 2008; Singer et al.,
11
2004). (Note that some conceptions of empathy also include a cognitive dimension, but for
our purposes we focus on the affective dimension.)
ToM is relevant for understanding the psychological traits of another person in order
to make more accurate judgments about dispositions for certain behavior. Based on the
cognitive capacity to perceive oneself as a subject expressed by personal pronouns (“I”,
“me”), perceptions, and experiences, ToM is the ability to assign such capacities of the self to
others, which is crucial for any kind of social interaction and communication (Frith and
Singer, 2008). As such, individuals draw upon their personal theory of how minds operate in
order to infer the mental states of others (Lieberman, 2007). Several studies indicate that
ToM usually involves neural activation in specific brain regions (primarily the anterior
paracingulate cortex, posterior superior temporal sulcus, and temporo-parietal junction) (see,
Rilling et al., 2004b; Vogely et al., 2001).
The second important theory for understanding others refers to empathy—namely, the
capacity to understand what it feels like when someone else experiences something like
happiness, pain, a touch, or sadness. Neuroscientific studies suggest that an empathic reaction
in the brain associated with feeling an emotion is caused by seeing another person’s facial
expression of this same emotion (Gallese, 2001; Lieberman, 2007). Singer and colleagues
(2004) found that empathy with the pain of others does not include activation of the whole
pain matrix in the brain, but rather those areas representing the affective dimension of pain.
The authors concluded that these regions (basically the rostral part of the anterior cingulate
cortex and anterior insula) have a dual function in that they are important both for the
formation of subjective feelings with respect to the self and for understanding others’
emotional states (Singer et al., 2004).
In a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies, Bzdok et al. (2012) found that brain areas
related to ToM and empathy (temporo-parietal junction, medial pre-frontal cortex, middle
12
temporal gyrus) are engaged in moral decision making, emphasizing again the relevance of
both abstract-cognitive and intuitive-emotional skills for ethical behavior. Furthermore, the
results of the study suggest that these brain regions, “emerged as potential nodes of a network
common to moral cognition, ToM, and empathy” (Bzdok et al. 2012, p. 789). In a study
connecting neuroscience methods and the business ethics context, Bagozzi et al. (2013)
investigated the relation between ToM, empathy, and Machiavellianism, i.e., social conduct
that aims to manipulate others for personal gain. As expected, brain regions associated with
ToM were negatively correlated with Machiavellianism. However, interestingly and perhaps
counterintuitively, activation of brain regions connected to empathy indicated that
Machiavellians were better able to detect the emotions of others, particularly negative affect,
and might use this to facilitate manipulative acts (Bagozzi et al., 2013).
Social interaction
Successful social interactions are based on phenomena such as trust, fairness,
cooperation, and ultimately, ethical decision making. Using social cognitive neuroscience and
neuroeconomic lenses, the view of trust, cooperation, and fairness has been enriched by a
brain-based perspective and explanations (Fehr, 2008; Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-
Kranenburg, 2012; Yoder and Decety, 2014). Many of these studies are framed as a monetary
exchange situation in which individuals participate in an economic game (Glimcher et al.,
2009; Sanfey, 2007). For trust and related behavior, such as cooperation or fairness, neural
activation occurs in regions of the brain important for memory and emotional reactions
(amygdala), regions involved in memory and learning, and error and conflict detection
(cortical regions), those involved in body movement, learning, and memory (caudate
nucleus), and regions important for feelings of reward (nucleus accumbens, ventral striatum)
(Adolphs, 2003; King-Casas et al., 2005; Rilling et al., 2004b).
13
From understanding oneself and others to moral judgment
On a more aggregate level, scholars have started to map moral judgment in the brain.
Over time, moral cognition has been relatively consistently associated with a number of brain
regions (anterior pre-frontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, posterior superior temporal sulcus,
anterior temporal lobes, insula, precuneus, anterior cingulate cortex, and the limbic system)
(Moll et al., 2005). However, activation of brain regions differs according to the situational
cues of the study design and is dependent on the nature of the moral problem, the decision
difficulty, and contextual stimuli, including the time participants have to make decisions. For
this reason, as well as the connectivity of brain regions, it is difficult to isolate any particular
brain region as housing moral cognition.
Greene et al. (2001, 2004) demonstrated that utilitarian judgments involve cognitive
areas (lateral pre-frontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex), whereas emotional areas (medial
pre-frontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, superior temporal sulcus) are correlated with
deontological moral judgments. Pincus et al. (2014) found that individuals with a stronger
neurobiological representation (left ventrolateral pre-frontal cortex) of deontological rules
demonstrate “deontological resolve,” meaning that individuals will resist bending the rules,
when others do so. The study of Prehn et al. (2015) indicates that subjects at Kohlberg’s
(1969) post-conventional level of moral reasoning are characterized by increased gray matter
volume (ventromedial pre-frontal cortex, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex), compared with
subjects at a lower level of moral reasoning. Furthermore, studies have found overlap
between moral sensitivity brain regions (anterior pre-frontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex,
superior temporal sulcus, and limbic regions) and regions associated with basic emotions
such as disgust or fear (Moll et al., 2005).
Finally, the nervous system plays an important role in ethical decision making.
Hormones act as neurotransmitters that stimulate our bonding with others and reward us for
14
pro-social behavior (Keltner et al., 2014; Schultheiss and Stanton, 2009). Oxytocin and
vasopressin “promote attachment and caregiving” and target “emotional processing areas in
the brain, including the amygdala, septal area, and reward circuity” (Keltner et al., 2014, p.
445). Dopamine is related to reward stimuli we experience when acting in a manner that is
“good” or pro-social. Furthermore, our emotions and cognitive processes are regulated by the
neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonin is responsible for a multiplicity of processes (e.g.,
regulating mood, appetite, sleep). Experimentally lowering serotonin levels was found to
reduce cooperation and increase the likelihood of punishing unfair behavior (Keltner et al.,
2014).
NEUROSCIENCE AND BUSINESS ETHICS
In the following section, we discuss the implications of neuroscience research for
normative and empirical business ethics and point out directions for future research in both
areas. There can be no empirical research without a normative basis to establish what is
meant by unethical behavior. As Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe (2008) rightly point out, the
first and most fundamental question to be asked is, “What is ethical?”, and they appropriately
levy criticism at empirical researchers who ignore this question. Normative ethicists aim to
construct arguments about the ways that individuals should behave and to derive principles
that guide decisions or action; normative theories are “prescriptive” or “action-guiding”
(Donaldson, 1994, p. 158). The focus is on answering the question, “What ought to be?”
Leading researchers in business ethics have contended that normative and empirical research
are of equal significance and each can inform the other, but that they must by definition
remain distinct (Donaldson, 1994; Treviño and Weaver, 1994).
We are not suggesting that neuroscience holds the answer for integrating normative
and empirical perspectives in the business ethics field. After all, neuroscience is by its very
15
nature methodological and thus empirical. However, neuroscience research results can
prompt further questions of interest to philosophers and social scientists alike. Additionally,
leading scholars long have acknowledged the field of business ethics to be interdisciplinary
and have insisted that both normative and empirical insights into ethical issues have value
(DeGeorge, 1987; Donaldson, 1994). Thus, it strikes us as worthwhile to consider the
relevance of neuroscience to both normative and empirical business ethics.
The Contribution of Neuroscience to Normative Business Ethics
In this section of the paper we seek to explore the areas in which findings from
neuroscience can contribute most usefully to the study of normative business ethics. Greene
(2014) suggested that cognitive neuroscience generates knowledge about the nature of moral
decision making so fundamental that it will lead to a reformulation of extant normative
theories of business ethics. Earlier, Greene and Cohen (2004) made an equally bold
statement, contending that findings from neuroscience will change the way we think about
free will, responsibility, and intentionality. Similarly, Roskies (2002) believes that as we
acquire more sophisticated knowledge about the neural structure of the moral brain, we may
well need to revise our concepts of moral and ethical, even to the extent of modifying our
existing philosophical theories.
If cognitive neuroscience is able to demonstrate that morally significant actions are
driven by neural activity, as these authors suggest, does that mean that our notions of moral
responsibility need to be re-examined? An underlying assumption of most normative
approaches to business ethics is that morally significant actions are the result of individuals’
autonomy and free will (Treviño and Weaver, 1994). But perhaps neuroscience is telling us
that we need a deterministic model to explain ethical or unethical actions. Does determinism
exclude moral responsibility? Does moral responsibility require free will? In exploring age-
16
old philosophical questions such as these, cognitive neuroscience may well enhance our
understanding of normative ethics and challenge future research to engage with these
questions.
Neuroscience findings to date suggest that many decision processes in the brain are
governed by implicit processes that never reach the level of consciousness (Burns and
Bechara, 2007). If reactions to ethical issues are immediate and intuitive as Haidt (2001)
argues, can we ascribe intent? For example, stereotypes are believed to operate automatically
and unconsciously (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). If one acts unconsciously on those
stereotypes, should one be held less responsible than if one acts more consciously? (See
Bowie, 2009, for an excellent discussion of the implications of cognition research for ethical
behavior.) We do not wish to enter the longstanding philosophical discussion as to what
constitutes moral responsibility (see, for example, Fischer, 1999), but only to suggest that
what we learn from cognitive neuroscience may add to the discussion.
Legal scholars have pursued this notion as well, arguing that certain abnormalities in
the brain may result in criminal behavior (Raine, 2013). If a part of an individual’s brain is
missing or impaired, some people may think about absolving the individual of moral
responsibility for an action. But this does not mean that unethical behavior necessarily rests
solely on a pattern of neural activity. If caution is advised in interpreting cognitive
neuroscience findings about ethical decision making, even greater caution is needed to draw
conclusions from neuroimaging data about assigning and taking responsibility for unethical
actions. Parens (2014) considers that neuroimaging data can provide evidence that a
particular person in a particular situation may have limited options for action based on that
person’s atypical brain functioning. However, this does not mean necessarily that every
action of every individual is predetermined by brain structure or function. Parens instead
concludes (perhaps not very satisfactorily) that we will likely have to get better at “oscillating
17
between seeing our actions as determined and seeing them as freely chosen” (Parens, 2014, p.
52).
Another intriguing topic concerns how individuals process the actions of corporations
and relates to the longstanding business ethics discussion of corporations as moral agents
(see, for example, French, 1979; Velasquez, 1983; and Sepinwall, 2015). Cognitive
neuroscience has examined brain activity as individuals blame other individuals, but there is
little research looking at the question of brain activity as people blame an entity such as a
corporation. In one study that does examine perceptions of companies, Plitt et al. (2014)
conclude that “our brains understand and analyze the actions of corporations and people very
similarly, with a small emotional bias against corporations” (p.1). This question of brain
processing of corporate ethical infractions provides a fruitful area for additional research.
We recognize that realistically neuroscience can perhaps bring us one step closer to
understanding questions of moral responsibility, autonomy, intent, and free will, but
neuroscience findings cannot in and of themselves answer these questions. Instead the
contribution of neuroscience to these debates warrants considerable further discussion and
research.
The Contribution of Neuroscience to Empirical Business Ethics
Perhaps the most basic aim of empirical business ethics research is to understand why
and under what circumstances individuals make decisions about ethical issues and behave
unethically. (Of course, there is interest too in why individuals behave ethically, but this has
not been the focus of as much research.) Broadly speaking empirical research in business
ethics has sought to answer this question by examining several levels of possible explanation
for unethical behavior: the individual, the situation or context, and a combination of the two
(person-situation interactionist theory) (Treviño, 1986). Individual characteristics include
18
age, gender, personality, and stage of moral development. Situational characteristics include
variables ranging from the task at hand, to organizational compensation systems, to national
culture. Several decades of empirical research have advanced our knowledge of the variables
leading to unethical behavior, but many questions remain and neuroscience methods may
provide tools to address these questions.
Neural imaging studies have been effective at documenting the underlying brain
structure and connectivity of individual characteristics or dispositions, including gender
(Ruigrok et al., 2014) and age (see, for example, Grady, 2012 on the ageing brain and Defoe
et al. 2015, on the adolescent brain). Our task is to understand how these results have an
impact on ethical and unethical behavior. We choose to focus on these particular
characteristics because they have received a great deal of research attention in the business
ethics literature, as well as in studies of cognitive neuroscience. However, fMRI research also
affords the opportunity to investigate other factors that have not been traditional independent
variables in the business ethics literature. These include, for example, the consequences of
sleep deprivation and the impact of stress on brain activity that affects ethical decision
making. In the following sections we present a brief overview of the research on individual
characteristics and then focus on the connection between neuroscience research and two
specific organizational factors relevant for business ethics, i.e., rewards and leadership. A
complete literature review is beyond the scope of this paper.
Gender
Beginning with gender there are well-documented differences between men’s and
women’s brains (Cahill, 2006). However, business ethics research findings of gender
differences in ethical awareness and behavior are mixed (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). While
some empirical studies have found evidence that women are more ethical than men or more
sensitive to the presence of ethical issues (Betz et al., 1989; Dawson, 1997), other research
19
has found no differences (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). However, there are few studies that link
any gender differences in the brain to gender differences in ethical awareness and behavior.
Furthermore, caution should be exercised in interpreting fMRI studies of gender differences;
some scholars have contended that the limitations of present-day methodologies may lead
researchers to findings that reinforce gender stereotypes (Bluhm, 2013; Jordan-Young and
Rumiati, 2012; Fine, 2012).
A further area of interest is the question of the link between gender, emotion,
intuition, and ethical decision-making. Cognitive neuroscience research has established that
emotion is a key component of ethical decision making (see, for example, Greene et al.,
2001; Moll et al., 2002). Women are believed to be more emotional in their decision making
than men (Croson and Gneezy, 2009), and some research contends that women are more
likely than men to make use of intuitive decision making processes (Lieberman, 2000).
Future fMRI research could investigate the anatomical basis for any gender differences in
emotional and intuitive approaches to ethical decision making.
Finally, a major part of biological sex differences stems from differences in brain
chemistry, more specifically, from baseline hormone levels and the number of neural
receptors for those hormones. Women have a higher baseline level of oxytocin and lower
levels of testosterone (Cahill, 2006; Schultheiss and Stanton, 2009). These hormones have
been linked to aspects relevant for ethical behavior (e.g., trust, justice perceptions, aggressive
behavior, and moral judgment) (see, for example, Carney and Mason, 2010; Riedl and Javor,
2012; Schultheiss et al., 2004). Future research could more clearly delineate the effect of
gender differences based on hormonal dispositions for ethical behavior in the business
context, e.g., by investigating the implications of hormonal differences between men and
women in their reaction to organizational injustice or the aggressive behavior of colleagues.
20
Age
Although empirical research on the relationship between age and unethical behavior
again is mixed, there is some evidence that older individuals are more ethical. Certainly
Kohlberg (1969) and Rest (1979) built their model of the stages of moral reasoning on the
assumption that movement through the various stages correlates with age. However, as we
now know, the conscious deliberate processes on which their models are based constitute
only part of moral reasoning. Decety et al. (2011) conducted a study of the role of empathy in
moral reasoning with participants aged between 4 and 37 years; the study concluded that
moral reasoning processes include a complex integration of emotion and cognition that does
indeed gradually change with age. Furthermore, empathic responses and self-regulatory
responses may increase with age, leading to more ethical decision making (Decety et al.,
2011). More specifically, the period of adolescence is one in which changes in moral
behavior may be observable; many brain regions that are germane to moral reasoning
continue to mature until adulthood (Decety, 2016). In a study of adolescents and adults
encountering everyday moral conflict situations, Sommer et al. (2014) found that adolescents
chose significantly more hedonistic alternatives than did adults. Future neuroimaging
research could confirm that there are individual differences in the brains of older and younger
people such that they approach ethical issues differently. Particularly as business
organizations face an aging workforce, future neuroscience studies on age and ethical
decision making may provide arguments for retaining older employees.
Physiological factors
In addition to age and gender, the physiological underpinnings of unethical behavior
remain largely unexplored. For example, we have evidence that sleep deprivation leads
individuals to behave unethically. Barnes et al. (2011) found that sleep quantity and quality
are positively associated with self-control and negatively correlated with unethical behavior.
21
Sleep deprivation has been linked to increased student cheating (Barnes et al., 2011), as well
as employee cyberloafing (Wagner et al., 2012). Additionally, there is considerable
neuroscience evidence of the effect of lack of sleep on cognitive functioning (Lim and
Dinges, 2010). Future research could investigate how areas of the brain affected by lack of
sleep are linked to unethical decisions, especially in (simulated) workplace settings that are
characterized by long working hours, irregular shifts, or highly demanding workloads before
deadlines.
Similarly, stress, although not strictly a physiological factor, has a direct impact on
moral decision making (Starcke et al., 2011, Youssef et al., 2012). Youssef et al. (2012)
found that subjects under stress tended to give fewer utilitarian and thus less rational
responses to personal moral dilemmas. The authors conclude that their results provide
corroboration of a dual process theory of moral reasoning, demonstrating that stress tends to
stimulate more emotional, rather than rational, moral reasoning. However, stress does not
necessarily lead to more egoistic decisions (Starcke et al. 2011). Starcke and Brand (2012)
suggest that stress may be prompted by decisions involving a higher degree of uncertainty, a
condition that applies to certain moral issues and is widely encountered in business
organizations. Cognitive neuroscience affords an appropriate methodology for further
investigation of the effects of stress on ethical decision making.
Other potential areas believed to have an effect on ethical decision making that may
become salient in business settings include chronotype and time of day (differences between
morning and evening people) (Gunia et al. 2014, Kouchaki and Smith 2014), cognitive load
(V’ant Veer et al. 2014), and hunger (de Ridder et al. 2014). Each of these research areas is
conducive to fMRI studies that can document brain activity based on manipulation of
biological states and ethical decision making tasks.
22
Rewards
Traditional business ethics research has identified reward or the anticipation of reward
as a key variable leading to ethical or unethical behavior (See, for example, Treviño 1986).
An individual contemplating behaving unethically would most likely engage in some type of
risk/reward calculation. The risk portion of this calculus involves both the risk of detection
and the risk of anticipated punishment, if detected. The reward portion involves consideration
of the benefits to be accrued as a result of behaving unethically. But some risks are simply
not worth taking. Behavioral economics research tells us, for example, that individuals will
only cheat up to a point that does not interfere with their self-image as an ethical person
(Mazar at al., 2008). Similarly, individuals may be more inclined to behave unethically when
the rewards (and the risks) are small rather than large (Jap et al., 2013).
There is a great deal of neuroscience research on reward activation in the brain.
(Gottfried, 2011, Sanfey et al., 2003). When thinking about unethical behavior and reward,
the most usual reward that comes to mind is monetary. But there are also more intrinsic
rewards that may guide and motivate those behaving ethically. Abe and Greene (2014) used
fMRI to investigate the role of the nucleus accumbens, one part of the brain’s reward system,
and its response to anticipated rewards as a predictor of dishonest behavior. Their findings
identify the cognitive and neural determinants of honesty and dishonesty. The authors
interpret their findings to mean that some individuals have a general tendency to be less
interested in and motivated by monetary rewards. We know, for example, that in some
instances a region of the brain associated with reward systems may be more active when
making a charitable donation than when accepting a financial reward (Moll et al. 2006). Such
a finding suggests that business ethics research would benefit from thinking beyond
individual monetary rewards when considering motivation for ethical or unethical behavior.
Future neuroscience research could investigate rewards more clearly linked to the business
23
ethics context, for instance brain activity linked to monetary incentives such as bonuses or
pay raises, short-term and long-term rewards, or the risks involved in unethical behavior in
organizations (e.g., job loss, loss of status).
Leadership
Leadership is an influence relationship between leaders and organizational
stakeholders (Maak and Pless, 2006). Thus, it is key to the recognition and reconciliation of
stakeholder needs and interests. Within business organizations, leadership is especially
relevant for the fair treatment of individuals, and neuroscience methods have recently been
used to study the topic. Research to date has focused on individual characteristics of the
leader and has investigated the neuroscience basis for complex leadership, i.e., leadership that
can meet diverse role demands (Hannah et al., 2013), for inspirational leaders who espouse a
high level of regard for others (Waldman et al., 2011) and the relation between empathy,
perspective taking, and a Machiavellian leadership style (Bagozzi et al., 2013).
Future neuroscience research could look more closely at the ethical implications of
the interaction between leader and followers. While this might prove difficult to achieve,
recent research shows that the leader-follower relationship can be simulated in an fMRI study
by using virtual partners as counterparts (Fairhurst et al., 2014). Johnson and colleagues
(2013) in a team-neurodynamics study found evidence for neurophysiological indicators
among leaders and followers in an ethical decision-making scenario. Miska and Mendenhall
(2015) suggest that neuroscience research could investigate the cognitive and emotional
challenges of responsible leaders who try to address a diversity of stakeholder demands and
could foster our understanding of the neural mechanisms related to corporate social
responsibility and sustainability. Maak et al. (2016) argue that cognitive and social
complexity and a social-welfare orientation are conducive for a form of responsible
leadership that is able to integrate diverse stakeholder concerns and competing goals. It
24
would be interesting to research the neural correlates of such cognitive complexity and social
value orientations.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS SPECIAL ISSUE
The research areas we have addressed also surface in the contributions to this special
issue; this section briefly introduces each of these articles. Drawing on decision neuroscience
research, George Christopoulos, Xiao-Xiao Liu and Ying-yi Hong (2016) develop a
framework detailing how model-free learning (learning by trial and error) and model-based
learning (learning based on associations drawn from one’s mental models of the world) have
an impact on individuals’ moral decision making. The authors demonstrate that concepts in
decision neuroscience, such as valuation, risk, and time, are relevant for moral decision
making. Marc Orlitzky (2016) also focuses on moral decision making, reflecting on the
implications of neuroscience findings related to deontological and utilitarian moral decision
making for normative theories of business ethics. The article summarizes neuroscientific
evidence that points toward an evolutionary approach to individuals’ moral thinking and
moral subjectivism, a view that argues that morality is subjectively constructed by an
individual’s mental activity.
Russell Cropanzano, Sebastiano Massaro, and William Becker (2016) use
organization neuroscience to focus on the link between three core processes that relate to
individuals’ fairness perceptions: justice rules, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy.
The authors provide detail on the brain regions and processes related to their model of
deontic justice and emphasize the relevance of intuitive, emotional responses for business
ethics. Kylie Rochford, Anthony Jack, Richard Boyatzis, and Shannon French (2016) explore
the implications of neuroscience for developing ethical leaders in organizations, contending
that it is essential to achieve a balance between cognitive perspectives based on two large
25
scale brain networks: the Task Positive Network (TPN) and the Default Mode Network
(DMN). They suggest that business ethics education can help to develop ethical leaders who
are able to find a balance between socio-emotional and analytical reasoning.
Lori Ryan (2016) highlights current sex difference findings from neuroscience and
neuroeconomics research related to business ethics in six areas: trust, moral decision-making,
organizational justice, moral development, the ethic of care, and female management styles.
The article underscores the importance of hormones in biological sex differences and
examines their role in individuals’ reactions to ethical situations. Patrick Hopkins and Harvey
Fiser (2016) develop a framework to analyze moral and legal issues in the potential use of
neurotechnologies to detect and alter employees’ performance skills and capabilities in the
workplace. The article explores employer permission or prohibition of neurointerventions and
discusses current and potential legal interventions concerning them.
Finally, Steven Stanton, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Scott Huettel (2016) present
both the benefits and ethical concerns of the use of neuroscience techniques to study
marketing practices and consumer behavior. The article identifies steps that can help to
mitigate the ethical risks of neuromarketing, especially of industry research, and proposes
that the use of neuroscientific methods should be subject to the highest standards of scientific
rigor and ethical supervision.
Overall this set of contributions provides a sense of the neuroscience topics receiving
emerging attention from business ethics scholars. The topics and approaches vary, but all
have a common aim to use neuroscience to extend theoretical and practical considerations in
business ethics. The Journal of Business Ethics, as one of the leading journals in the field of
business ethics, provides an ideal platform for this kind of research; further contributions in
this area are both timely and needed.
26
DISCUSSION
In this article we have presented an overview of the current state of cognitive
neuroscience and its impact on the field of business ethics. Looking to the future, the
proliferation of cognitive neuroscience research that has taken place over the last decade is
likely to continue. Business ethicists have the opportunity to shape and contribute to this
research, particularly to the research on moral cognition. The paper has highlighted several
areas of overlap between neuroscience and business ethics and pointed toward future research
directions. A summary of these ideas for future research is presented in Table 3.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Apart from what we have discussed with regard to unethical behavior, there are also
more nuanced issues that could be studied as well. For example, it would be instructive to
learn how the brain processes issues like the following: if a firm does not fully inform its
employees of hazardous working conditions, at what point do individuals consider the
omission of this information to be unethical? We know that individuals have an emotional
reaction to unethical behavior, but we do not know how egregious the behavior has to be
before this emotional reaction is triggered. Jones’ (1991) conceptualization of moral intensity
captures this notion of the egregiousness of the unethical act by identifying six components
which increase moral intensity, including, for example, magnitude of consequences and
concentration of effect. Future research could test how the brain processes ethical issues in
which these components are varied.
Neuroscience research does not only offer future research directions and implications
for ethical behavior, it can also contribute to business ethics education. The most important
point to be made about implications for the teaching of business ethics from neuroscience
research is that of the demonstrated plasticity of the brain (Pascal-Leone et al. 2005). We now
27
know that brains can change according to individuals’ experiences, and that plasticity is the
mechanism for development and learning. In terms of teaching ethics, this means that
business ethics professors have the opportunity to shape literally the thoughts of students
about ethical issues (especially when the students are adolescents or young adults whose
brains are not yet fully formed). At both graduate and executive levels, it seems promising to
look at the effect of international service-learning programs in shaping the participants’
emotional and ethical literacy. Pless, Maak and Stahl (2011) have demonstrated the profound
learning impact of international service-learning programs, and it can be assumed that those
effects can be measured in a neuro-cognitive study.
More specifically, in approaching the teaching of business ethics, neuroscience
findings about the significant role that emotion plays in ethical decision making suggest that
the discussion of ethics should not rest solely on a rational decision making model.
Acknowledgment that decision making about ethical issues is not entirely a rational process
can inform the manner in which classroom lectures and discussions are structured. Learning
about ethics includes both cognitive and emotive learning (McCuen and Shah, 2007), and
business ethics education should acknowledge both. Perhaps one of the most challenging
dimensions of teaching business ethics is guiding students to recognize the ethical component
of an issue and not just frame it as strictly a business issue (see Reynolds and Miller 2015 for
an excellent discussion of the importance of the recognition of moral issues). Neuroscience
research can inform our understanding of brain activity as an individual recognizes the ethical
dimension of an issue (Robertson et al., 2007).
Individuals have developed a myriad of ways to frame issues and deceive themselves
such that the ethical dimension is absent from a business decision, including rationalizations
(Patterson et al., 2012) and unconscious biases (Heinzelmann et al., 2012). Additionally
lessons from neuroscience and social perspective taking, empathy, theory of mind
28
(Lieberman 2007), and intuition (Haidt, 2001) can play a role in designing curriculum that
enhances students’ ability to analyze ethical issues and to refine their own thinking about
these issues. For example, case studies and role play exercises that encourage students to take
the perspective of another are beneficial, given that social perspective taking and empathy are
important ingredients of ethical reasoning. Additionally, the importance of self-reflection and
autobiographical recall (Lieberman 2007) suggests that students engage in exercises to
understand their own values and purpose, as well as how their previous experiences have
shaped those values.
Finally, we should also point to the distinction between the neuroscience of ethics and
the ethics of neuroscience (Roskies 2002, Salvador and Folger 2009). The neuroscience of
ethics has been the focus of this paper, but we also acknowledge the responsibility of
business ethicists to engage in assessing the ethics of neuroscience. The ethics of
neuroscience examines questions about the use and application of neuroscience
methodologies. Business ethicists have a great deal to contribute to the debate over the
strengths and weaknesses of neuroscience, but particularly to the ethical implications of its
use in studying human behavior.
Controversy over the ethics of neuroscience includes, for example, the questions
raised by some critics as to whether marketers are trying to isolate a “buy” button in the
brain, and if prospective employers will use brain images to select employees, introducing
questions of invasion of privacy. Some hold the attitude that it is but a short step from the
descriptive nature of brain imaging to the ability to manipulate the brain of a consumer or an
employee, despite the fact that present-day neuroscience has limited ability to do so. In the
field of ethics, as well as law, the fear seems to be that neuroscience can identify
abnormalities in brain structure that can be used to establish excuses for unethical and illegal
behavior. In other words, can unethical behavior be reduced to brain chemistry, and, if so,
29
what are the implications? This type of anxiety on the part of the lay public has been stirred
by the media and cannot be ignored by those conducting neuroscience research (Weisberg
2008). Finally, there are critical voices regarding the use of neuroscience in leadership
research (Lindebaum, 2013; Lindebaum and Raftopoulou, 2014; Lindebaum and Zundel,
2013). Criticism centers primarily on the ethically problematic suggestions that neuroscience
can be used to select and develop leaders. Neuroscience researchers must be cognizant of the
potentially reductionist assumptions that certain activities in the brain are necessary for good
leadership, i.e., care must be taken not to derive from brain activity what constitutes ‘good’
leadership (Lindebaum and Zundel, 2013). Business ethics scholars have the opportunity to
engage in these controversies, analyzing and weighing arguments on both sides, and
ultimately presenting a measured representation of what neuroscience can and cannot do.
Importantly, we need to consider how to foster meaningful dialogue between business
ethicists and neuroscientists. Methodologies used by those in the two fields are dissimilar,
and the analysis of fMRI data may prove daunting to those not schooled in cognitive
neuroscience. Additionally, researchers in both fields need to exercise caution in interpreting
findings (see, for example, Bowers, 2016, Lindebaum, 2016). Empiricists in the field of
business ethics understand the complexity of factors underlying an individual’s decision to
behave ethically or unethically. Any one study can only contribute a small piece of the
complete puzzle needed to provide an explanation of behavior. Similarly, cognitive
neuroscientists could fall prey to the temptation to conclude that activation in a particular area
of the brain is the cause of a certain decision or behavior. Instead, complex behaviors
materialize from interactions among various parts of the brain, and, moreover, are influenced
by an individual’s environment (Parens and Johnston 2014).
30
CONCLUSION
In this article we have addressed the question of the value neuroscience can add to the
study of business ethics to enhance the contributions of philosophy and other social sciences.
In the normative realm, neuroscience continues to raise questions that have engaged
philosophers for centuries. While neuroscience cannot provide answers to questions of, for
example, freedom and autonomy, it can tell us how freedom is limited if certain brain regions
are damaged or impaired. In the empirical realm, neuroscience adds to our knowledge of how
individuals make ethical decisions below the level of consciousness and thus beyond what
individuals themselves can tell us. Neuroscience thus brings us closer to understanding how
individuals process ethical issues. As we have discussed, neuroscience has provided
considerable evidence of the importance of emotion in ethical decision making. Additionally,
psychology has suggested that unconscious biases govern our behavior; neuroscience can
confirm these biases as well as provide information on effective means to counter them.
Looking to the future, the proliferation of neuroscience research on moral cognition that has
taken place over the last decade is likely to continue. We hope that this article, by introducing
the promise of neuroscience to business ethics, can contribute to meaningful dialogue
between business ethicists and neuroscientists and spark interest in using new methods to
study business ethics phenomena.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The article was not funded by any third-party organization. The article does not contain any
studies with human participants or animals.
31
REFERENCES
Abe, N., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Response to Anticipated Reward in the Nucleus Accumbens
Predicts Behavior in an Independent Test of Honesty. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(2),
10564-10572.
Abe, N., Suzuki, M., Mori, E., Itoh, M., & Fujii, T. (2007). Deceiving Others: Distinct
Neural Responses of the Prefrontal Cortex and Amygdala in Simple Fabrication and
Deception with Social Interactions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 287–
295.
Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Social Behaviour. Nature Review

Neuroscience 4(3), 165-178.
Amodio, D. (2010). Can Neuroscience Advance Social Psychological theory? Social

Neuroscience for the Behavioral Social Psychologist. Social Cognition, 28(6), 695-
716.
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Dietvorst, R. C., Belschak, F. D., van den Berg, W. E.,
& Rietdijk, W. J. R. (2013). Theory of mind and empathic explanations of
machiavellianism: A neuroscience perspective. Journal of Management, 39, 1760-
1798.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Thatcher, R. W., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). Differentiating
Transformational and Non-Transformational Leaders on the Basis of Neurological
Imaging. Leadership Quarterly, 23(2), 244-258.
Barnes, C. M., Schaubroeck, J., Huth, M., & Ghumman, S., (2011). Lack of Sleep and
Unethical Conduct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2),
169-180.
Becker, W. J. & Menges, J. I. (2013). Biological Implicit Measures in HRM and OB: A
Question of How Not If. Human Resource Management Review, 23(3), 219-228.
Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). Organizational Neuroscience:

Taking Organizational Theory Inside the Neural Black Box. Journal of Management,
37(4), 933-961.
Bendahan, S., Zehnder, C. Pralong, F. P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Leader Corruption
Depends on Power and Testosterone. Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 101-122.
Bernhardt, B. C., & Singer, T. (2012). The Neural Basis of Empathy. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 35, 1-23.
Betz, M., O’Connell, L., &. Shepard, J. M (1989). Gender Differences in Proclivity for
Unethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 8(5), 321-324.
Bluhm, R. (2013). New Research, Old Problems: Methodological and Ethical Issues in fMRI
Research Examining Sex/Gender Differences in Emotion Processing. Neuroethics,
6(2), 319-330.
32
Boksem, M. A. S. & De Cremer, D. (2010). Fairness Concerns Predict Medial Frontal
Negativity Amplitude in Ultimatum Bargaining. Social Neuroscience, 5(1), 118-128.
Bowers, J. S. (2016). The Practice and Principled Problems with Educational Neuroscience,
Psychological Review, online publication, March 3.
Bowie, N.E. (2009). How Empirical Research in Human Cognition Does and Does Not
Affect Philosophical Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 88, 635-643.
Boyatzis, R. E., Rochford, K. & Jack, A. I. (2014). Antagonistic Neural Networks

Underlying Differentiated Leadership Roles. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8,
114.
Burns, J. D., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decision Making and Free Will: A Neuroscience
Perspective, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(2), 263-280.
Bzdok, D., Schilbach, L., Vogeley, K., Schneider, K., Laird, A. R., Langner, R. et al. (2012).
Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality,
theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Structure & Function, 217, 783-796.
Cahill, L. (2006). Why Sex Matters for Neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(6),
477-484.
Carney, D. R., & Mason, M. F. (2010). Decision Making and Testosterone: When the Ends
Justify the Means. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 668-671.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience
Can Inform Economics, Journal of Economic Literature 43(1), 9-64.
Christopoulos, G. I., X. X. Liu and Y. y. Hong: 2016, 'Toward an Understanding of Dynamic

Moral Decision Making: Model-Free and Model-Based Learning', Journal of
Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3058-1.
Cropanzano, R. S., S. Massaro and W. J. Becker: 2016, 'Deontic Justice and Organizational
Neuroscience', Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3056-3.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic
Literature, 47(2), 448-474.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New
York: G. P. Putnam.
Dawson, L. M. (1997). Ethical Differences Between Men and Women in the Sales
Profession. Journal of Business Ethics. 16(11), 1143-1152.
Decety, J. (2016) How Evolutionary Theory and Neuroscience Contribute to Understanding

the Development of Prosociality: Commentary. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood
Development.
33
Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., & Kinzler, K. D. (2011). The Developmental Neuroscience of
Moral Sensitivity. Emotion Review, 3(3), 305-307.
Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., & Kinzler, K. D. (2012). The Contribution of Emotion and
Cognition to Moral Sensitivity: A Neurodevelopmental Study. Cerebral Cortex,
22(1), 209-220.
Defoe, I.N., Dubas, J.S., Figner, B.& van Aken, M.A.G. (2015). A Meta-Analysis on Age
Differences in Risky Decision Making: Adolescents Versus Children and Adults,
Psychological Bulletin, 14(1), 48-84.
DeGeorge, R. T. (1987). The Status of Business Ethics: Past and Future. Journal of Business
Ethics, 6(3), 201-211.
De Ridder, D. Kroese, F., Adriaanse, M., & Evers, C. (2014). Always Gamble on an Empty
Stomach: Hunger Is Associated with Advantageous Decision Making. PLOS ONE
9(10), 1-8.
Dimoka, A. (2012). How to Conduct a Funtional Mangetic Resonance (FMRI) Study in

Social Science Research. MIS Quarterly 36(3), 811-A11.
Donaldson, T. (1994). When Integration Fails: The Logic of Prescription and Description in
Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 157-169.
Fairhurst, M. T., Janata, P., & Keller, P. E. (2014). Leading the Follower: An FMRI
Investigation of Dynamic Cooperativity and Leader-Follower Strategies in
Synchronization With an Adaptive Virtual Partner. Neuroimage, 84, 688-697.
Farah, M. J., Hutchinson, B., Phelps, E. A., & Wagner, A. D. (2014). Functional MRI-Based
Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
15(2), 123-131.
Fehr, E. (2008), The Effects of Neuropeptides on Human Trust and Altruism: A

Neuroeconomic Perspective, in D. W. Pfaff, C. Kordon, P. Chanson and Y. Christen
(eds.), Hormones and Social Behaviour (Springer, Berlin), pp. 47-56.
Fine, C. (2012). Explaining, or Sustaining, the Status Quo? The Potentially Self-Fulfilling
Effects of ‘Hardwired’ Accounts of Sex Differences. Neuroethics, 5(3), 285-294.
Fischer, J.M. (1999). Recent Work on Moral Responsibility. Ethics, 110 (October): 93–139.
French, P. A. (1979). The Corporation as a Moral Person, American Philosophical Quarterly

16, 207-15.
Frith, C. D. & Singer, T. (2008). The Role of Social Cognition in Decision Making,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological
Sciences 363(1511), 3875-3886.
Frydman, C., Barberis, N., Camerer, C. & Rangel, A. (2014). Using Neural Data to Test a
Theory of Investor Behavior: An Application to Realization Utility. Journal of
34
Finance, 69(2),907-946.
Fumagalli, M. & Priori, A. (2012). Functional and Clinical Neuroanatomy of Morality,

Brain 135(7), 2006-2021.
Gallese, V. (2001). The 'Shared Manifold' Hypothesis. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8,

33-50.
Glimcher, P. W., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Poldrack, R. A. (2009). Neuroeconomics Decision
Making and the Brain. (Elsevier, London).
Gottfried, J. A. (2011). Neurobiology of Sensation and Reward. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Grady, C. (2012). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Ageing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13,
491-505.
Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science

Matters for Ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695-726.
Greene, J. D. (2015). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment and Decision Making,
in J. Decety and T. Wheatley (eds.), The Moral Brain: A Multidisciplinary
Perspective (MIT Press), pp. 197-220.
Greene, J. D., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and
Everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B, 359(1451),
1775-1785.
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The
Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment. Neuron 44(2),
389-400.
Greene, J. D., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and Where) Does Moral Judgment Work? TRENDS
in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517-523.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An
fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science,
293(5537), 2105-2108.
Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem,
and Stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27.
Gunia, B. C., Barnes, C. M., & Sah, S. (2014). The Morality of Larks and Owls: Unethical
Behavior Depends on Chronotype as Well as Time of Day. Psychological Science,
25(12) 2272-2274.
Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to
Moral Judgment. Psychological Review 108(4), 814-834.
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W. (2013).
The Psychological and Neurological Bases of Leader Self-Complexity and Effects on
35
Adaptive Decision-Making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 393-411.
Heinzelmann, Ugazia, G., & Tobler, P. N. (2012). Practical Implications of Empirically

Studying Moral Decision-Making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 94(6), 69-82.
Hopkins, P. D. and H. L. Fiser: 2016, '"This Position Requires Some Alteration of Your
Brain": On the Moral and Legal Issues of Using Neurotechnology to Modify
Employees', Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3182-y.
Huettel, S. A., Song, A. W., & McCarthy, G. (2014). Functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (3rd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Jap, S., Robertson D. C., Rindfleisch A., & Hamilton, R. (2013). Low-Stakes Opportunism,.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 216-227.
Jeurissen, D., Sack, A. T., Roebroeck, A., Russ, B. E., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2014). TMS
Affects Moral Judgment, Showing the Role of DLPFC and TPJ in Cognitive and
Emotional Processing. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 18.
Johnson, S. C., L. C. Baxter, L. S. Wilder, J. G. Pipe, J. E. Heiserman & G. P. Prigatano:

(2002). Neural Correlates of Self-Reflection. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 125,
1808-1814.
Johnson, R.R., Berka, C., Waldman, D.A., Balthazar, P., Pless, N. M., Maak, T. (2013).
“Neurophysiological Predictors of Team Performance”, in: Schmorrow, D.D. &
Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) Foundations of Augmented Cognition, Volume 8027, pp.
153-161, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-

Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
Jordan-Young, R. & Rumiati, R. I. (2012). Hardwired for Sexism? Approaches to

Sex/Gender in Neuroscience. Neuroethics, 5(3), 305-315.
Kable, J.W.(2011). The Cognitive Neuroscience Toolkit for the Neuroeconomist: A

Functional Overview. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 4(2), 63-
84.
Karmarkar, U. R., Shiv B., & Knutson, B. (2015). Cost Conscious? The Neural and
Behavioral Impact of Price Primacy on Decision-Making. Journal of Marketing
Research, 52(4), 467–481.
Keltner, D., Kogan, A., Piff, P. K., & Saturn, S. R. (2014). The Sociocultural Appraisals,
Values, and Emotions (SAVE) Framework of Prosociality: Core Processes From
Gene to Meme, Annual Review of Psychology 65(1), 425-460.
King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C. F., Quartz, S. R., & Montague, P. R.
(2005). Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two Person Economic
Exchange. Science, 308(5718), 78-83.
36
Kish-Gephart, J.J., Harrison, D.A., & Treviño, L. (2010). Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad
Barrels: Meta-Analytic Evidence about Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1-31.
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M. P., Zak, J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin
Increases Trust in Humans. Nature, 435(2), 673-676.
Kouchaki, M. & Smith, I.H. (2014). The Morning Morality Effect: The Influence of Time of
Day on Unethical Behavior. Psychological Science, 1-8.
Kohlberg L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to

Socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research
(pp. 347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V., & Fehr, E. (2006). Diminishing
Reciprocal Fairness by Disrupting the Right Prefrontal Cortex. Science, 314, 829-832.
Lee, E., Kwon, G., Shin, H.J., Yang, S. Lee, S., & Suh, M. (2014). The Spell of Green: Can
Frontal EEG Activations Identify Green Consumers? Journal of Business Ethics,
122(3), 511-521.
Lieberman, M. D. (2000) Intuition: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach.

Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 109-137.
Lieberman, M. D. (2007) Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes.

Annual Review of Psychology. 58(1), 259-289.
Lindebaum, D. (2013). Pathologizing the Healthy but Ineffective: Some Ethical Reflections
on Using Neuroscience in Leadership Research. Journal of Management Inquiry,
22(3), 295-305.
Lindebaum, D. (2016). Critical Essay: Building New Management Theories on Sound Data?
The Case of Neuroscience. Human Relations, 69(3), 537-550.
Lindebaum, D. & Raftopoulou, E. (2014). What Would John Stuart Mill Say? A Utilitarian
Perspective on Contemporary Neuroscience Debates in Leadership. Journal of
Business Ethics, online first.
Lindebaum, D. & Zundel, M.(2013). Not Quite a Revolution: Scrutinizing Organizational

Neuroscience in Leadership Studies. Human Relations, 66(6), 857–877.
Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Short-Term Sleep
Deprivation on Cognitive Variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375-389.
Maak, T. & Pless, N.M. (2006) Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – A

Relational Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115.
Maak, T, Pless, N. M., & Voegtlin, C. (2016). Business Statesman or Shareholder Advocate?
CEO Responsible Leadership Styles and the Micro-Foundations of Political CSR.
37
Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 463-493.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The Dishonesty of Honest People:
A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633–
644.
McCuen, R.H. & Shaw, G. (2007). Implications to Ethics Education of Recent Neuroscience
Research on Emotions. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3), 44-56.
Miska, C. & Mendenhall, M. (2015). Responsible leadership: A mapping of extant research

and future directions. Journal of Business Ethics, published online first.
Moll J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Eslinger P. J., Bramati I. E., Mourao-Miranda J., et al. (2002).
The Neural Correlates of Moral Sensitivity: A functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging Investigation of Basic and Moral Emotions. Journal of Neuroscience, 22(7),
2730-2736.
Moll, J., Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005). The Neural
Basis of Human Moral Cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(10), 799-809.
Moll, J., Krueger, F., Zahn, R., Pardini, M., de Olivieira-Souza, R., & Grafman, J. (2006).
Human Fronto-Mesolimbic Networks Guide Decisions about Charitable Donations.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 103(42), 15623-15628.
Morse, S. J. (2004). New Neuroscience, Old Problems. In B. Garland (Ed.), Neuroscience
and the Law: Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice (pp. 157-198). New York: Dana
Press.
Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The Emergence of Social Cognitive
Neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56(9), 717.
Orlitzky, M.: 2016, 'How Cognitive Neuroscience Informs a Subjectivist-Evolutionary

Explanation of Business Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-
3132-8.
Parens, E. (2014). Living with the Ancient Puzzle. Interpreting Neuroimages: An

Introduction to the Technology and Its Limit. Hastings Center Report, 44(S2), 50-52.
Parens, E. & Johnston, J. (2014). Neuroimaging: Beginning to Appreciate Its

Complexities. Interpreting Neuroimages: An Introduction to the Technology and Its
Limit. Hastings Center Report, 44(S2), 2–7.
Pärnamets, P., Johansson, P., Hall, L., Balkenius, C., Spivey, M. J., & Richardson, D. C.
(2015). Biasing Moral Decisions by Exploiting the Dynamics of Eye Gaze.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
112(13), 4170-4175.
Pascal-Leone, A., Amedi, A., Fregni, F., & Merabel, L.B. (2005). The Plastic Human Brain
Cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 377-401.
38
Patterson, R., Rothstein, J., & Barbey, A.K. (2012). Reasoning, Cognitive Control, and Moral
Intuition. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 1-8.
Pincus, M., LaViers, L., Prietula, M. J., & Berns, G. (2014). The conforming brain and
deontological resolve. PLOS ONE, 9(8), e106061.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through
international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 10, 237-260.
Plitt, M., Savjani, R. R., & Eagleman, D.M. (2014). Are Corporations People Too? The
Neural Correlates of Moral Judgments About Companies and Individuals. Social
Neuroscience, 10(2), 1-13.
Prehn, K. Korczykowski, M., Rao, H., Fang, Z., Detre, J.A., & Robertson, D. C. (2015).
Neural Correlates of Post-Conventional Moral Reasoning: A Voxel-Based
Morphometry Study. PLOS ONE, 10(6), 1-12.
Rachul, C., & Zarzeczny, A. (2012). The Rise of Neuroskepticism. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 35(2), 77-81.
Raine, A. (2013). The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. New
York:Pantheon Press.
Rest, J. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. University of Minnesota Press.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006). A Neurocognitive Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process:

Implications for Study and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 737-748.
Reynolds, S. J. & Miller, J.A. (2015). The Recognition of Moral Issues: Moral Awareness,
Moral Sensitivity and Moral Attentiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 114-
117.
Riedl, R. & Javor, A. (2012). The Biology of Trust: Integrating Evidence From Genetics,
Endocrinology, and Functional Brain Imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology,
and Economics, 5, 63-91.
Rilling, J. K., Sanfey, A. G., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. & Cohen, J. D. (2004a).
Opposing BOLD Responses to Reciprocated and Unreciprocated Altruism in Putative
Reward Pathways. NeuroReport, 15(16), 2539-2543.
Rilling, J. K., Sanfey, A. G., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2004b). The
Neural Correlates of Theory of Mind Within Interpersonal Interactions. Neuroimage
22(4), 1694-1703.
Robertson, D., Snarey, J., Ousley, O., Harenski, K., DuBois Bowman, F., Gilkey, R., &
Kilts, C. (2007). The Neural Processing of Moral Sensitivity to Issues of Justice and
Care. Neuropsychologia 45(4), 755-766.
39
Rochford, K. C., A. I. Jack, R. E. Boyatzis and S. E. French: 2016, 'Ethical Leadership As a
Balance Between Opposing Neural Networks', Journal of Business Ethics,
doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3264-x.
Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the New Millenium: Commentary. Neuron, 35(1), 21-23.
Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Safety, Ethical
Considerations, and Application Guidelines for the Use of Transcranial Magnetic
Stimulation in Clinical Practice and Research. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(12),
2008-2039.
Ruigrok, A.N.V., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Lombardo, M. V., Tait,
R. J., & Suckling, J. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Human Brain
Structure. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 39, 34–50.
Ryan, L. V.: 2016, 'Sex Differences Through a Neuroscience Lens: Implications for Business
Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3110-1.
Salvador, R. & Folger, R. G. (2009). Business Ethics and the Brain. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 19(1), 1-31.
Sanfey, A. G.: (2007). Social Decision-Making: Insights From Game Theory and
Neuroscience, Science, 318(5850), 598-602.
Sanfey, A.G., Rilling, J.K., Aronson, J.A., Nystrom, L.E., & Cohen, J.D. (2003). The Neural
Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300(5626),
1755-1758.
Schultheiss, O. C. & Stanton, S. J. (2009). Assessment of salivary hormones, in E. Harmon
Jones and J. S. Beer (eds.), Methods in Social Neuroscience (The Guilford Press, New
York), pp. 17-44.
Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., & Stanton, S. J. (2004). Effects of Affiliation and Power
Motivation Arousal on Salivary Progesterone and Testosterone. Hormones and
Behavior, 46(5), 592-599.
Sepinwall, A. J. (2015). Corporate Moral Responsibility. Philosophy Compass, 11(1), 3-13.
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004).
Empathy For Pain Involves the Affective But Not Sensory Components of Pain.
Science, 303, 1157-1162.
Skulmowski, A., Bunge, A., Kaspar, K. & Pipa, G. (2014). Forced-Choice Decision-Making
in Modified Trolley Dilemma Situations: a Virtual Reality and Eye Tracking Study.
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 426.
Sommer, M., Meinhardt, J., Rothmayr, C. Dohnel, K., Hajak, G. Ruppercht,R., & Sodian, B.
(2014) Me or You? Neural Correlates of Moral Reasoning in Everyday Conflict
situations in Adolescents and Adults. Social Neuroscience, 9(5), 452-470.
Stanton, S. J., W. Sinnott-Armstrong and S. A. Huettel: 2016, 'Neuromarketing: Ethical
Implications of Its Use and Potential Misuse', Journal of Business Ethics,
doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3059-0.
40
Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2012). Decision Making Under Stress: A Selective Review.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2012), 1228-1248.
Starcke, K., Polzer, C., Wolf, Oliver T., & Brand, M. (2011). Does Stress Alter Everyday
Moral Decision-Making? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 26(2011), 210-219.
Tenbrunsel A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve Been
and Where We’re Going. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545-607.
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation
Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. (1994). Business Ethics/Business Ethics: One Field or
Two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 113-128.
Van’t Veer, A.E., Stel, M. & van Beest, I. (2014). Limited Capacity To Lie: Cognitive Load
Interferes with Being Dishonest, Judgment and Decision Making, 9(3), 199-206.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H. & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2012). A Sniff of Trust: Meta-

Analysis of the Effects of Intranasal Oxytocin Administration on Face Recognition,
Trust to in-Group, and Trust to Out-Group. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(3), 438-
443.
Velasquez, M. (1983). Why Corporations Are Not Morally Responsible for Anything They
Do. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 2(3), 1-18.
Voegtlin, C. & Kaufmann, I. M. (2012). Neuroscience and Ethical Leadership Research: Fact
or Fancy? IOU Working Paper, University of Zurich.
Vogeley, K., Bussfeld, P., Newen, A., Herrmann, S., Happé, F., Falkai, P. et al. (2001). Mind
Reading: Neural Mechanisms of Theory of Mind and Self-Perspective. Neuroimage,
14, 170-181.
Wagner, D.T., Barnes, C.M., Lim, V.K.G., & Lim, G. (2012). Lost Sleep and Cyberloafing:
Evidence from the Laboratory and a Daylight Saving Time Quasi-Experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1068-1076.
Waldman, D. A., Balthazard, P. A., & Peterson. S. J. (2011). Leadership and Neuroscience:
Can We Revolutionize the Way That Inspirational Leaders Are Identified and
Developed?, Academy of Management Perspectives 25(1), 60-74.
Weisberg, D. S. (2008). Caveat Lector: The Presentation of Neuroscience Information in the

Popular Media. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practices, 6(1), 51-56.
Yoder, K. & Decety, J. (2014). The Good, the Bad, and the Just: Justice Sensitivity Predicts
Neural Response During Moral Evaluation of Actions Performed by Others.
Journal of Neuroscience, 34(12), 4161-4166.
Young, L., Camprodon, J. A., Hauser, M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R. (2010). Disruption
of the Right Temporoparietal Junction With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
41
Reduces the Role of Beliefs in Moral Judgments. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 107(15), 6753-6758.
Young, L., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Sax. R. (2007). The Neural Basis of the Interaction
Between Theory of Mind and Moral Judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 104(20), 8235-8240.
Young, L., & Koenigs, M. (2007). Investigating Emotion in Moral Cognition: A Review of
Evidence from Functional Neuroimaging and Neuropsychology. British Medical
Bulletin, 84(1), 69-79.
Youssef, F. F., Dookeeram, K., Basdeo, V., Francis, E., Doman, M., Mamed, D., Maloo, S.,
Degannes, J., Dobo, L., Ditshotlo, P., & Legall, G. (2012). Stress Alters Personal
Moral Decision Making. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(2012), 491-498.
Zeki, S., & Goodenough, O.R. (2004). Law and the Brain: Introduction. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 359(1451), 1661-65.
42
TABLE 1: Overview of neuroscience methods
Examples related to business

Neuroscience method Measure Advantages Disadvantages
ethics research
Electroencephalography Technique based Excellent temporal resolution Limited spatial resolution Boksem and De Cremer, 2010;
(EEG) on changes in (milliseconds) Hannah et al., 2013;
electric activity Restricted to surface levels of Lee et al., 2014;
Can measure activity in different brain brain activity Waldman et al., 2011
regions simultaneously
Relatively easy to use, can be applied

to group settings
Relatively low cost (compared to

fMRI)
Functional magnetic Technique based Excellent spatial resolution of the brain Relatively high costs Bagozzi et al., 2013;
resonance on changes in (up to one millimeter) Greene et al., 2001, 2004;
imaging (fMRI) cerebral blood Extensive preparations Moll et al., 2002;
flow/metabolism Good temporal resolution (seconds) Rilling et al., 2004a;
Participants are confined to a small Singer et al., 2004
Can measure activity in different brain space where movement is very
regions simultaneously limited
Transcranial magnetic Technique based Allows for experimental manipulation Limited temporal resolution Jeurissen et al., 2014 ;
stimulation (TMS) and on temporary and the test of causal relations Knoch et al., 2006;
transcranial direct inhibition or (between brain areas and cognitive Restricted to surface regions of the Young et al., 2010
current stimulation stimulation of functions) brain and to manipulating a single
(tDCS) specific brain brain region at a time
areas or
functions Relatively high human subjects
requirements
43
Hormones (e.g., Measures of Easy to use and to measure Strong circadian variation over the Bendahan et al., 2015;
testosterone, cortisol, hormone course of the day Carney and Mason, 2010;
oxytocin) concentration Relatively low cost Fehr, 2008;
in saliva or blood Gender differences makes Kosfeld et al., 2005;
Possible to measure the current state as comparison between genders Schultheiss et al., 2004
Possibility to well as to manipulate hormonal levels difficult
manipulate for causal inferences
hormone
concentration Possible to collect data in laboratory as
(invasive) well as field settings
Biological implicit Include eye Relatively low cost Difficulties in interpretation Decety et al., 2012;
measures tracking, Pärnamets et al., 2015
measures of Reliable measure of attention (eye Requires careful design to rule out Skulmowski et al., 2014
pupil dilation, tracking) alternative explanation for bodily
skin conductance reactions
by measuring Reliable measure of emotional
perspiration reactions (skin conductance)
44
TABLE 2: Ethical decision making and the brain
Concepts Brain structure Functions associated with brain structure and Relevance for ethical decision making Example references
related to involved brain chemistry
ethical decision
making
Self-reflection Several areas of the PFC is associated with cognitive tasks, personality • Shows the relevance of emotions in ethical Damasio, 1994;
and self- prefrontal cortex expression, and the orchestration of thoughts and decision making Dimoka, 2012;
regulation (PFC) (e.g., medial actions in accordance with internal goals; it fulfills Greene, 2015;
PFC, ventromedial an executive function in differentiating between • Understanding oneself helps reflection on Johnson et al., 2002;
PFC, lateral PFC) conflicting thoughts (such as good or bad) one’s ethical behavior and finding the Lieberman, 2007
balance between emotional and cognitive
Medial PFC is associated with reflecting on one’s reactions when making ethical decisions
experiences and is active in self-judgment tasks; the
ventromedial PFC is involved in autobiographical • Highlights the possibility of self-regulation
and episodic memory retrieval; the lateral PFC is in the form of impulse control and the
associated with focusing on goals and inhibiting reappraisal of emotional events
one’s beliefs when necessary for making rational
decisions; lateral and ventrolateral PFC are • Past and current experiences and positive or
associated with emotional self-control negative emotional stimulation trigger
intuitive ethical behavior
Dorsal anterior ACC is relevant for affective, cognitive and motor
cingulate cortex control phenomena; also involved in controlling,
(ACC) avoiding, or regulating painful emotions
Amygdala Amygdala is involved in perceiving and processing

emotions, and in automatic affective processes
Theory of Mind Anterior ACC is relevant for affective, cognitive and motor • Cognitive-rational understanding of others’ Bagozzi et al., 2013;
(ToM) paracingulate cortex control phenomena; also involved in controlling, motives and reasons helps to engage in Bzdok et al., 2012;
avoiding, or regulating painful emotions deliberative ethical reasoning Dimoka, 2012;
Rilling et al., 2004b;
Posterior superior STS is attributed to multisensory processing • ToM is a necessary precondition for ideal Young et al., 2007
temporal sulcus capabilities (e.g. voices, speech and language role-taking processes
(STS) recognition); involved in social perceptions
45
Temporo-parietal TPJ is involved in information processing and
junction (TPJ) perception; integrates information from the external
environment and from within the body; important
for self-other distinctions
Dorsomedial Dorsomedial PFC is associated with mentalizing

prefrontal cortex and encoding the psychological traits of others
(PFC)
Empathy Anterior cingulate ACC is relevant for affective, cognitive and motor • Emphasizes the importance of recognizing Bagozzi et al., 2013;
cortex (ACC) control phenomena; also involved in controlling, other persons’ feelings and emotional states Bernhardt and Singer,
avoiding, or regulating painful emotions for ethical decision making 2012;
Bzdok et al., 2012;
Anterior insula Insula plays a major role in representing and • Affective emotional reaction to others’ Dimoka, 2012;
integrating emotions; involved in sensation, affect, harm or unethical treatment triggers ethical Singer et al., 2004
cognition sensitivity and awareness
Ventromedial PFC Ventromedial PFC is relevant for encoding the

emotional value of sensory stimuli; also important
for adherence to social norms
Social Several areas of the PFC has been associated with cognitive tasks, • Social lubricants like trust and fairness Adolphs, 2003;
interaction prefrontal cortex PFC personality expression and the orchestration of perceptions influence the propensity to Lieberman, 2007;
(including trust, (e.g., ventromedial thoughts and actions in accordance with internal engage in ethical or unethical behavior Rilling et al., 2004a;
justice, PFC, medial PFC, goals; it fulfills an executive function in Yoder and Decety,
cooperation) dorsomedial PFC) differentiating between conflicting thoughts (like • Shows the importance of trust and justice 2014
good or bad) perceptions for successful social
interactions and highlights stimulus-
Insula Insula is associated with sensitivity to norm response settings that trigger trusting
violations, care and justice cognition responses and facilitate cooperation
Amygdala Amygdala is involved in perceiving and processing

emotions, and in automatic affective processes
Caudate nucleus Caudate nucleus is important for feelings of reward
46
Moral judgment Ventromedial Ventromedial PFC is activated during moral • Combines the above mentioned mental Fumagalli and Priori,
prefrontal cortex judgment; it is associated with encoding the abilities to make ethical decisions and 2012;
(PFC) emotional value of sensory stimuli, emotional behave ethically Greene et al., 2001 ;
processing and adherence to social norms Moll et al., 2002,
2005;
Dorsolateral Dorsolateral PFC is involved in problem-solving, Young et al., 2007
prefrontal cortex cognitive control, cost-benefit analysis; it is
(PFC) associated with utilitarian moral judgments and
deciding on appropriate punishment
Anterior cingulate ACC is relevant for affective, cognitive and motor

cortex (ACC) control phenomena and is associated with mediating
the conflict between emotional and rational
components of moral reasoning
Posterior superior STS is associated with multisensory processing

temporal sulcus capabilities is activated in moral dilemmas, social
(STS) cognition, and ethical decision making
Temporo-parietal TPJ is attributed to moral intuition and involved in

junction (TPJ) belief attribution during moral judgment
Insula Insula is associated with moral processing,

sensitivity to norm violations, care and justice
cognition
Amygdala Amygdala is activated in processing moral emotions

and consequently, during evaluation of moral
judgment
47
Table 3: Suggested future research directions
Areas related to business Research questions

ethics
Individual differences Does brain activity in older individuals indicate that they
process ethical issues differently than do younger
individuals? What implications does this have for an ageing
workforce?
Does brain activity in men indicate that they process ethical

issues differently than do women?
Can brain activity tell us more about how the time of day
(differences between morning and evening people) impacts
ethical decision making?
What can brain activity tell us about how stress or lack of

sleep in highly demanding work environments are linked to
ethical decision making?
Incentives and rewards How does the brain process intrinsic rewards (e.g., altruism,
cooperation, meaningful work) versus extrinsic rewards (e.g.,
money, organizational promotion)?
Does ethical or moral behavior trigger reward activation in

the brain? If so, does this differ by individual?
Are there differences in brain activity for different kinds of

rewards typical for business organizations (e.g., bonuses or
pay raises, short-term and long-term rewards)
How does the brain calculate the risks involved in unethical

behavior in organizations (e.g., job loss, loss of status, etc.)?
Leadership How does the brain process the cognitive and emotional
challenges of ethical leadership?
How do the brains of leaders and followers process issues of

the leader-follower relationship? How does leaders’ ethical
role modelling relate to followers’ brains’ activities?
What can brain activity tell us about responsible leadership?

What are the neural correlates of social value orientations?
Teaching business ethics Does a course in business ethics alter brain activity as
students engage in ethical decision making? If so, how?
48

Biz Ethics & Neuroscience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biz Ethics & Neuroscience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biz Ethics & Neuroscience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Pennsylvania

Business Ethics: The Promise of Neuroscience

Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers/4

This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/lgst_papers/4

Unedited version of a paper published in

Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3312-6. For private use only.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2836522

Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience research portend well for furthering

Neuroscience research is especially capable of providing insight into individual reactions to

to the field of business ethics, but we caution against overpromise.

Keywords: Neuroscience methods, brain structures, normative business ethics, empirical

business ethics, ethical decision making

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2836522

is an especially fascinating time to be a business ethicist especially because increasingly

(motivational and social factors), cognitive (information-processing mechanisms), and neural

levels (brain mechanisms), using traditional neuroscience methods, neuroimaging and

neuropsychology (Lieberman, 2007; Ochsner and Lieberman, 2001).

neuroscience methodology to study human decision making, including economics (Camerer

provide an excellent review of neuroscience research in business ethics; although still in a

emotional and cognitive processes. In brain imaging research, it is possible to investigate

processes of which subjects themselves are not aware.

This interdisciplinary approach that integrates cognitive neuroscience and business

provide significant contributions to business ethics theories. Although neuroscience

methodology is by definition empirical, neuroimaging findings also raise significant

business ethics scholars.

In addition to these larger questions about the contribution of neuroscience to business

interpretation of results. For a discussion of neuroskepticism as well as a set of

time we welcome the potential contribution of neuroscience to business ethics scholarship.

most provocative and important questions in business ethics.

present a brief overview of neuroscience methods, as well as information about brain

neuroscience to business ethics research.

MAPPING THE BRAIN: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS

The aim of neuroscience research is to relate brain activity to human cognition,

and disadvantages of the different neuroscience techniques.

Electroencephalography (EEG), one of the first neuroscience techniques used in

management research, is a method that places electrodes on the scalp to measure

oxygen-level-dependency effect (BOLD). BOLD fMRI captures changes in the oxygen

cognition (Greene et al., 2001).

In addition to the previously mentioned methods, transcranial magnetic stimulation

cautiously in study design and implementation (Rossi et al., 2009).

prevalent in investigating biological predictors of human behavior. Hormones are

making (Carney and Mason, 2010).

Finally, scholars often count as neuroscience methods measures of physiological

neurophysiological measures, including eye-tracking, pupillary response, and fMRI to

investigate reactions to morally salient situations. Participants viewed scenarios depicting

non-neuroscientists. The overview relates to the general mental capacity of an individual to

for ethical behavior (see Table 2).

Understanding oneself: Self-reflection and self-regulation

development (Greene, 2015). Self-regulation, another important competency of the self,

continuation of these findings and offers a significant contribution of cognitive neuroscience

(ventromedial pre-frontal cortex, amygdala) seem to be major catalysts for psychopathy

Understanding others: Theory of Mind and empathy

behavior. The theoretical concepts in neuroscience considered to be of key importance for

our purposes we focus on the affective dimension.)

cognitive capacity to perceive oneself as a subject expressed by personal pronouns (“I”,

Rilling et al., 2004b; Vogely et al., 2001).

emotional states (Singer et al., 2004).

counterintuitively, activation of brain regions connected to empathy indicated that