Conscientious Objections to Corporate Wrongdoing

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

Business and Society Review 124:1 43–62

© 2019 W. Michael Hoffman Center for Busi ness Ethics at Bentley Univer sity. 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

ABSTR ACT

In recent years, there has been i ncreasing concern about

unethic al conduct w ithin c orporate busi ness, not least

because of the scandalous behavior of former chief exec u-

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

Parmal at, and Volkswagen. These scandals h ave not only

threatened the priv ileged position of senior corporate

employees but also the solvency of the companies they

manage and lead. The hi gh profile cases of corporate

crime and corr uption that occurred i n the early 2000 s

together with the 2008 Wal l Street bailouts and the

growth i n crimin al prosecutions since have raised t he

profile of business ethics to an u nprecedented level.

Greater public sensitivity toward a nd awareness about

the unlawf ul and immoral conduct of fir ms in the United

States and elsewhere, has created demand for organi za-

tions to become more accountable and socially re sponsi-

ble and prompted greater regulatory scr utiny. It has also

served to high light the embryonic a nd delimited state of

research and scholar ship on business ethics, where the

focus has tended to remain on leadership. A neglected,

though importa nt, line of ethical enqui ry concerns

John Solas is a Sen ior Lectur er of Social Work and S ocial Ca re, Faculty of Soc ial 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 abette d. Two

key questions arise. First, wh at prompts followers to sup-

port rather tha n oppose bad leaders? Second, what can

be done to stem or at least curtail thei r allegia nce to bad

leaders?

BA D FOL LOW ERS?

Knights and O’L eary (2005) posit t hat “some, if not all, of the

ethical problems in corporate capita lism revolve around a

failure of leadership” (p. 359). From their exami nation of

corporate s canda ls, they concluded that:

Leaders created a culture t hat emphasized fina ncial perfor-

mance, ta rgets a nd indiv idual and corporate succ ess and

leaders either engaged directly i n unethical practices, ig nored

the unethical pract ices of employees when it was brought to

their attention, or failed to provide adequate support or tra in-

ing, let alone ethical gu idance, for employees. (Knights and

O’Lear y 2005, p. 365)

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

of responsibil ity.

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

more than 80% of the success of a ny project within an orga ni-

zation. Some followers, as Milgra m (1974) amply demonstrated,

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

ity. They are “acolytes” (Kellerman 200 4, p. 26). Other followers

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

their own debased reas ons as those of their leaders. Kellerma n

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

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

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

(Kellerman 20 08, p. 86). Isolates take no interest in others or their

circumstances. T heir disengagement keeps them ignorant, iner t,

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

more” (Kellerman 2008, p. 91).