Conscientious Objections to Corporate Wrongdoing

• Author: John Solas
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12162
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Date: 01 March 2019

Business and Society Review124:1 43–62

© 2019 W. Michael Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. Published by

Wiley Period icals, Inc., 350 Main S treet, Malden, MA 0 2148, USA, and 9 600 Garsing tonRoad,

Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK . DOI: 10.1111/basr.12162

Conscientious Objections to

Corporate Wrongdoing

JOHN SOLAS

ABSTRACT

In recent years, there has been increasing concern about

unethical conduct within corporate business, not least

because of the scandalous behavior of former chief execu-

tives at top blue chip companies such as Enron, Worldcom,

Parmalat, and Volkswagen. These scandals have not only

threatened the privileged position of senior corporate

employees but also the solvency of the companies they

manage and lead. The high profile cases of corporate

crime and corruption that occurred in the early 2000s

together with the 2008 Wall Street bailouts and the

growth in criminal prosecutions since have raised the

profile of business ethics to an unprecedented level.

Greater public sensitivity toward and awareness about

the unlawful and immoral conduct of firms in the United

States and elsewhere, has created demand for organiza-

tions to become more accountable and socially responsi-

ble and prompted greater regulatory scrutiny. It has also

served to highlight the embryonic and delimited state of

research and scholarship on business ethics, where the

focus has tended to remain on leadership. A neglected,

though important, line of ethical enquiry concerns

John Solas is a Senior Lecturer of Social Work and Social Care, Faculty of Social Sciences,

Bradford Univer sity, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK. E-mai l: j.solas@bradford.ac.uk.

44 BUSINESS AND SOCIETY REVIEW

followership. Corporate wrongdoing would be less formi-

dable and extensive if it was not aided and abetted. Two

key questions arise. First, what prompts followers to sup-

port rather than oppose bad leaders? Second, what can

be done to stem or at least curtail their allegiance to bad

leaders?

BAD FOLLOWERS?

Knights and O’Leary (2005) posit that “some, if not all, of the

ethical problems in corporate capitalism revolve around a

failure of leadership” (p. 359). From their examination of

corporate scandals, they concluded that:

Leaders created a culture that emphasized financial perfor-

mance, targets and individual and corporate success and

leaders either engaged directly in unethical practices, ignored

the unethical practices of employees when it was brought to

their attention, or failed to provide adequate support or train-

ing, let alone ethical guidance, for employees. (Knights and

O’Leary 2005, p. 365)

However, those who follow bad leaders cannot avoid taking a share

of responsibility.

Followership, as Robert Kelly (1992) contends, accounts for

more than 80% of the success of any project within an organi-

zation. Some followers, as Milgram (1974) amply demonstrated,

simply obey orders to appease, profit from, or defer to, author-

ity. They are “acolytes” (Kellerman 2004, p. 26). Other followers

need little inducement to behave badly. They do so as much for

their own debased reasons as those of their leaders. Kellerman

(2004) describes them as “evildoers” (p. 27). Still others follow out

of fear or a lack of resolve. They are “bystanders” (Kellerman 2004,

p. 27). A fourth, and growing, category of followers is the “isolates”

(Kellerman 2008, p. 86). Isolates take no interest in others or their

circumstances. Their disengagement keeps them ignorant, inert,

and apathetic. They merely “do what they must to get by and no

more” (Kellerman 2008, p. 91).