PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG BUSINESS STUDIES … · PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG...

Social Responsibility, Professional Ethics, and ManagementProceedings of the 11th International ConferenceAnkara, Turkey, 24–27 November 20102010

PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG BUSINESS STUDIES STUDENTS

Suzana Sedmak

University of Primorska, Slovenia [email protected]

Bojan Nastav

University of Primorska, Slovenia [email protected]

ABSTRACT Business practices are in terms of global economic crisis under greater scrutiny than probably ever before. Unethical business practices have been identified as key catalysts of the economic crisis. Today's business students will enter the workplace in the next years and will need to define their ethical stance as business persons and key decision makers in the future. The present study focuses on the management students' perceptions and attitudes toward some ethically questionable practices with a special attention to the cheating in the academic setting. The results of our study show there are no statistically significant differences between male and female students with respect to their evaluation of various activities from ethical point of view. On the other hand, employed students are stricter than full-time students with respect to judging activity as ethically unacceptable – leaving the chance that future managers will react more in line with ethical guidelines. Keywords: ethics, management, students, business-studies, cheating

INTRODUCTION

Business practices in the past few years have been under great scrutiny by the public, the government and other stakeholders. The global, world economic crisis came about with vast impacts on the population, workforce and business. Unethical business practices have been put on display and identified as the key factors in the economic crisis. The management is (supposedly) driven by profit-making motive and this leaves very little room for other aspects, such as ethics. While with the global

1175


economic crisis the public consensus on the unethical behaviour of management and business people reached the peak, the unethical behaviour in business has been highly debated and covered topic in Slovenian media (at least) since the Slovenian independence in 1991. Following the proclamation of independence from Yugoslavia and the constitution of the Republic of Slovenia extensive political, social and economic changes took place. The transition from the socialist country to the capitalist market system was marked by privatization processes which were very often characterized as "wild" privatization of the formerly socially owned companies by which the new economic elite taking the advantage of the lax supervision and inadequate legislation was constituted. One type of the "side effects" was often massive dismissals of the employees. Many unethical practices by the managers (who very often later transformed to the owners) were identified, however (mostly due to the inadequate legislation) rarely these were characterized as illegal and/or properly addressed, i.e. prosecuted. We could claim that (also) this specific Slovenian context gave rise to a general perception of the business and management as highly unethical. As if (from the point of view of business) business does not need to consider the ethical character of the choices made. De George refers to "the myth of the amoral business" (De George, 2006) where business is perceived as incongruous with ethics. It is not seen as immoral but amoral – it has simply nothing to do with ethics and the primary concern of business is profit. When referring to business ethics many would claim that it is an oxymoron – business and ethics being seen as contradictory terms that do not interfere with each other. After the global expansion of the economic crises many claims were posed for the rethinking of the ethical standards in the corporate contexts and for the status of the professional ethics to be redefined. Tomorrow's business leaders and today's business students are subjects of our research. Growing, learning, studying and developing themselves in the above-sketched context they will need to define their ethical stance as business persons in the future. The present study focuses on the management students' perceptions and attitudes toward some ethically questionable practices with a special attention to the cheating in the academic setting.1 Namely, some studies indicate that cheating in the academic setting indicates the inclination towards cheating in the business context after graduation. Furthermore, we aim at identifying possible differences among different groups with respect to gender, age, level of study, and employment (full-time students or part-time, employed students), and whether employed are on the management positions. 1 The presented study forms a part of a larger study which examined the management students' perceptions of the ethics in business and management.

1176


In order to achieve this aim we have conducted a survey at Faculty of management Koper (University of Primorska, Slovenia). A convenience sampling procedure in groups was applied, where classes at different levels and in different years of study have been used as groups. With the use of a self-administered questionnaire their attitudes toward some aspects of the ethics in management and business as well as perceptions/evaluations of some ethically questionable situations were assessed. (In the questionnaire, their perception of different activities with respect to being (un)ethical was checked.) Grounded on some previous research (listed later in the paper) we assume that students that are employed have a higher standard of ethics than full-time students. Furthermore, we hypothesise that being employed in the management has no clear effect on the assessment of whether the listed activities are ethical or not. On the other hand, we propose that age- and gender-wise differences are present: older and women are more harsh on listed activities as being unethical. The rest of the paper is structured as following: next section provides an insight into previous research and related studies involving business students and aspects of ethical behaviour/attitudes. Section three focuses on our research, presenting data and methodology used, and lists main findings of the work. Section four concludes.

ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES OF BUSINESS STUDENTS

Students' attitudes toward different ethic aspects of the business world and their ethics beliefs have been researched in different studies. Special attention has been given to the students of the business schools – to future employees and leaders in the business sphere. Researches range from assessing students' attitudes and perceptions of the business world to (some concrete) ethical aspects of their behaviour; in the latter context cheating in the academic setting has been widely studied. As Lawson argues, students' beliefs of ethical behaviour in the business world are important, since their "perceptions of what constitutes ethical behaviour, whether accurate or not, will influence the actions they take once they enter the business world" (Lawson, 2004).

Although cheating in academic setting is widespread and could not be limited to business schools, several studies report business students being more prone to cheating and using different dishonest practices while studying. McCabe and others concluded from an extensive multicampus research, where the data where collected from 5,000 United States and Canada business and non-business graduate students, that "business students cheat more than their non-business peers" (McCabe et al, 2006). As far as the 1964 Bowers reported higher level of cheating among business students in comparison to the non-business students; in his survey comprising 99

1177


campuses 66% of the business students reported cheating while the overall student average was 50% (Bowers, 1964, in: McCabe and others, 2006). Another study in 1997 by McCabe revealed that 84% ob business students reported one or more serious incidents of cheating (66% was the average for all students that participated in the research) (McCabe, 1997). In a recent study Chapman and colleagues reported higher level of cheating practices among marketing majors in comparison to other business students (Chapman et al., 2004). Also Smyth and others concluded from their survey results of almost 800 students that "non-business majors, on average, are more ethical than business majors" (Smyth et al., 2009). While in another recent study comprising 286 students Klein and others could not confirm that cheating behaviour was more evident with business students, they did however find out that business students' "attitudes on what constitutes cheating are more lax than those of other professional school students" (Klein et al., 2007). Luthy and colleagues report on a study done with the college freshmen that business major students when compared to their peers with non-business major show "lower familiarity with a number of moral perspectives and ethical principles" (Luthy et al., 2009).

While not denying the alarming figures about the academic dishonesty, even more concerns arise when considering some evidence suggesting that cheating in college is related to cheating in the real life, workplace context (cf. Lawson, 2004, Chapman, 2004, Harding et al., 2004). Sims discovered a correlation between students' cheating in academic setting and in the workplace setting. In an exploratory study Harding and colleagues found out that "there is a relationship between self-reported rates of cheating in high school and decisions to cheat in college and to violate workplace policies" (Harding et al., 2004) and further concluding that encouraging ethical behaviour in the academic setting might have positive effects on the "future ethical decision-making in workplace settings" (ibid.). Lawson's results of the study indicated a very strong relationship "between students’ propensity to engage in unethical behaviour in an academic setting and their attitude toward such behaviour in the business world" (ibid.). He found out that students who

cheat on exams or who plagiarize papers were more likely to be accepting of the need for unethical behaviour in the workplace than those who did not engage in academic dishonesty. /…/ Specifically, the "cheaters" are more likely to believe it is acceptable to lie to a potential employer on an employment application and to believe it is acceptable to use insider information when buying and selling stocks. In addition, they were more likely to believe that they would have to compromise their ethical standards in order to advance their careers, and were less likely to believe that people in the business world generally act in an ethical manner or that good ethics is good business. From these results it is clear that students’ propensity to cheat in school and their beliefs regarding ethical behaviour in the business world are very much related. (Lawson, 2004, 195-196)

1178


Different studies tried to find out whether differences existed in ethical perceptions/behaviours/attitudes among different student categories; does gender, age, employment etc. affect "ethical characteristics" of these subcategories? There were many reports on correlation between gender and perceptions of ethical behaviour or attitudes toward acting ethically. Lawson (2004) reports "gender as a significant variable with regard to perceptions regarding ethical behaviour." In his research "women held, on average, more ethical beliefs than men" (ibid.). Alleyne and others (2010) found in their study that men "possessed more unethical intentions" than women in decision making (ibid.). Chapman and Lupton (2004) in their study compared some aspects of academic integrity of business students in United States and Hong Kong and came to an interesting finding; in the US sample gender differences were evident whereas in the Hong Kong sample they did not find any statistically significant gender-related difference. For the US sample they assessed that "American male business students were more likely to be academically dishonest than female business students" (Chapman and Lupton, 2004). Smyth and others (2009) also reported female students to be more ethical than male students as well as Gupta and colleagues whose study indicated that "female students were more likely to behave ethically than male students" (Gupta et al., 2009). Female business students as survey participants in a study conducted by Albaum and Peterson were "slightly but significantly more ethically inclined than male survey participants" (Albaum and Peterson, 2006). In a cross-national study comprising students from Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong Phau and Kea found significant gender-wise differences; however, contrary to some of the above mentioned studies, males proved indicated a higher level of ethical attitudes when compared to females (Phau and Kea, 2006).

Regarding age-wise differences among (business) students, Lawson reports from his research that "an ethical maturation process occurs as students progress through school" (Lawson, 2004). On the other hand Gupta and others do not report in their study age to have any impact on the ethical behaviour of the students (Gupta et al., 2009). Alleyne and others concluded that age "is shown to be important variable when assessing the ethical status of individuals" from the results indicating that older students (over 35 years) were less likely to view the ethically questionable situations as entailing an ethical problem when compared to younger students (16–20 years group) (Alleyne et al., 2010). Smyth and colleagues report older students have higher ethical perceptions when compared to younger students (Smythe et al., 2009). In a study on cheating among business students Klein and others report that the younger the students were, the higher the level of the cheating was (Klein et al, 2006).

1179


ETHICS PERCEPTION AMONG STUDENTS In line with the literature review we have designed our study as to measure business students’ perception of various activities, both in everyday life and in academic environment, and to identify possible differences among students with respect to various features, such as gender, level of study, and employment status. Data and methodology In the paper we focus on students at all levels and years of study at Faculty of management Koper at University of Primorska, Slovenia (UP FM). The faculty has approximately 1,800 students and we have applied the convenience sampling at the level of groups: levels (under and postgraduate), years (first, second and third, and first and second, at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, respectively), classes (undergraduate students in each year are divided into three groups). Once the group was selected, all the students in the group were surveyed. In such a manner our final sample comprised 389 students, which is more than one fifth of all the students, indicating that our results have good representativeness grounds. Our sample consisted of 133 male and 259 female students with age ranging from 18 to 53 year, averaging just over 27 years. The distribution of sample according to age is represented in Figure 1. The age is (expectedly) positively skewed (asymmetric) with the majority of students in the lower-age groups.

Figure 1: Distribution of sample with respect to age of students

Source: Survey among UP FM students, own calculations

1180


Our sample also consisted of 230 undergraduate and 159 postgraduate students (3 of the latter did not state their year of study), with years of their study as depicted in the following table. Table 1: Students in year of study at undergraduate and postgraduate levels

Year Level

1st 2nd 3rd Total

Undergraduate 119 93 18 230 Postgraduate 60 84 12 156 Total 179 177 30 386 Source: Survey among UP FM students, own calculations In the sample 204 students said they did not have the job (were not employed) and 183 stated they were employed (2 did not report their status in this manner). If we take and study the differences in (average) age between employed and regular students, we can see that full-time students are on average just over 22 years, whereas employed have an average age of almost 34 years, and the latter have a much higher variability (see Table 2). Independent samples t-test has a value of -22.106 and with over 200 degrees of freedom this means that the difference in the average age between employed and full-time students is statistically significant with P-value = 0.000: we can conclude that full-time students are on average younger than employed students. Table 2: Number of students, their average age and age standard deviation

Number Mean Standard deviation Full-time students 204 21.22 1.953 Employed students 180 33.82 7.424 Source: Survey among UP FM students, own calculations Furthermore, studying only those that work we see that out of 183 employed, 63 worked in the management, 118 not in the management, and 2 did not report their level of employment. This distribution over gender is revealed in the following table, clearly indicating (and supported by Pearson’s Chi Square test) that there is no significant difference between males and females (among UP FM students) with respect to them being employed in management or not.

1181


Table 3: Crosstabs between gender and employment in management

Employed in management No Yes Total

Gender Male 40 28 68 Female 78 35 113 Total 118 63 181

Source: Survey among UP FM students, own calculations On the other hand, age-related differences among employed students remain: employed in management are on average older (37.5 years) than those not employed in management (31.7 years) – independent samples t-test has a value -5.4 and with 176 degrees of freedom P-value has a value of 0.000. Next, we turn to the questions in the questionnaire, namely activities that the respondents evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale: from being completely immoral or morally unacceptable (value 1) to completely morally acceptable (value 5). Table 4 reveals that in general the respondents were more prone to answer as listed activities to be morally unacceptable, with standard deviation in all cases around 1. In Figure 2 it is clearly seen that UP FM students have depicted activities keeping the money and disposing of found wallet, asking other student to take the exam for you, stealing newspaper from neighbour, forging student-status paper, and calling in sick even though not in fact being sick, as being morally unacceptable. On the other hand, the data reveal that some activities are not being judged as morally unacceptable, namely: looking at other students’ exam, cheating on exams (using scrib notes), car-insurance fraud, doing not your job-related work while on job, using business mailing for private use, writing seminar work for others, and conducting plagiarism. After looking at the results in general, we now turn to our analysis of these responses: with respect to gender, age, year of study, and employment issues. We apply different approaches, from using independent-samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test differences in averages between different groups, to calculating correlation coefficient or Pearson Chi Square (with crosstabs) to check whether variables are correlated. This is represented in next (sub)section. Table 4: Mean, standard deviation and number of responses for evaluated activities

Activity Mean Standard deviation

Number

Reporting own-inflicted car damage to the insurance agency as being inflicted by third party

2.66 1.11 376

1182


Taking office accessories (pens, paper, etc.) for own home use

2.31 0.96 380

Finding a wallet, keeping the money and disposing of the wallet

1.60 0.88 382

Taking newspaper from neighbour's post-box 1.84 0.95 381Calling in sick, even though not in fact sick 1.93 0.94 380Forging the student-status papers in order to obtain student-status-related benefits (e.g. cheaper food in restaurants)

1.88 1.00 381

Leaving personal post to be mailed among business post (on company's expenses)

2.60 1.00 380

Conducting non-job-related activity while on job 2.66 0.93 379Stating false reasons for not attending the classes 2.47 1.00 379Looking at other students' exam papers during the exam 2.88 1.12 381Writing seminar work for other student 2.57 1.12 380Asking other student to take the exam for you (in your name)

1.68 0.99 380

Using unallowed techniques (cheating) during the exam 2.73 1.16 381Copying seminar work from sources, not listed in the bibliography

2.56 1.15 379

Source: Survey among UP FM students, own calculations

Figure 2: Mean values of evaluated activities with respect to theri morality

Source: Survey among UP FM students, own calculations The following figure represents the distribution of answers for activities cheating on exams (panel a) and looking at other students’ exam (panel b), to reveal that students tend perceive this activity as morally unacceptable only in a limited number of cases.

1183


QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

(a) (b) Figure 3: Distribution of answers for activities Cheating on exams (a) and Looking at

other students' exam (b) Results First we study above-mentioned results with respect to different issues: gender, level of study, and employment. We separately study all students and then those who are employed. All students First we compare how students differ in their responses with respect to gender. The following table presents results, stating average values of their responses for males and females. Table 5 also provides information on independent-samples t-test value and P-value – to test for the statistical significance in their difference. We can see that in no case do male and female students differ; the highest, almost statistically significant difference between those two groups is with evaluating activity of taking office accessories (pens, paper, etc.) for own home use (here the P-value is just above the threshold of 0.050). Otherwise, we can conclude there are no statistically significant differences between male and female students in this respect. Table 5: Differences in responses among students with respect to gender

Activity Gender Mean T-test (P-value)


Male 2.67 0.120 (0.904)Female 2.66


Male 2.45 1.923(0.056)Female 2.24

Finding a wallet, keeping the money and Male 1.68 1.254

1184


disposing of the wallet Female 1.56 (0.211)

Taking newspaper from neighbour's post-box Male 1.87 0.534

(0.594)Female 1.82

Calling in sick, even though not in fact sick Male 2.02 1.317

(0.189)Female 1.88 Forging the student-status papers in order to obtain student-status-related benefits

Male 1.97 1.184(0.238)Female 1.83


Male 2.65 594(0.553)Female 2.58

Conducting non-job-related activity while on job Male 2.77 1.707

(0.089)Female 2.60

Stating false reasons for not attending the classes Male 2.61 1.831

(0.068)Female 2.41 Looking at other students' exam papers during the exam

Male 2.97 1.071(0.285)Female 2.84

Writing seminar work for other student Male 2.65 0.922

(0.357)Female 2.53 Asking other student to take the exam for you (in your name)

Male 1.72 0.563(0.574)Female 1.66

Using un-allowed techniques (cheating) during the exam

Male 2.76 0.374(0.709)Female 2.72

Copying seminar work from sources, not listed in the bibliography

Male 2.65 1.091(0.276)Female 2.51

Source: survey among UP FM students, own calculations Undergraduate students are in all the listed activities statistically significant different from postgraduate students. Furthermore, they (undergraduate) are less strict in assessing the level of (im)morality of activities in the questionnaire – their averages are higher. This, ethically more problematic sign of undergraduate students is rather worrying as they will, after finishing their studies, have the potential to become managers. However, somewhat reassuring is the fact, that postgraduate students act (judge) more strictly these activities. Lastly we check how students that are employed differ (if at all) from full-time students. Results reveal that in fact in all aspects (activities) full-time students and employed student differ statistically significant (only in one case is significance near the threshold for P-value of 0.050) from each other. Furthermore, in all cases are employed students stricter than full-time students. This provides basis for conclusion that as students become employed they follow ethical issues to a grater extent.

1185


Employed students Among employed, we further check whether there are any differences in responses with respect to gender, age, level of study, and employment in management. Comparing employed male and female students we can conclude there are no significant differences, expect for the activity: stating false reasons for not attending the classes, where females have statistically significant (t-test is 2.229 and P-value is 0.023) lower average – meaning they (on average) evaluate this activity as more immoral than male employed students. For female employed students this is morally unacceptable activity (average 2.23), whereas for males it is somewhat more towards neutral (2.54). Table 6 shows how the employed students at under- and postgraduate levels differ with respect to their evaluation of morality of listed activities. Here we can find that the several of activities are statistically significant (P value less than 0.05) different among under- and postgraduate students. These activities are: taking office accessories (pens, paper, etc.) for own home use, stating false reasons for not attending the classes, looking at other students' exam papers during the exam, asking other student to take the exam for you (in your name), using un-allowed techniques (cheating) during the exam, and copying seminar work from sources, not listed in the bibliography. In all cases undergraduate-level students are more inclined towards such activities being morally less unacceptable, pointing in direction that undergraduate students use these, mostly study (or testing) related activities in their every-day (study) life. Although this is somewhat worrying for business-study students, the “relaxing” fact is that postgraduate employed students are stricter in this sense – leaving the chance that future managers will react more in line with ethical guidelines. Table 6: Differences in responses among employed students with respect to level of study

Activity Level of study Mean T-test (P-value)


Undergraduate 2.61 1.541(0.125)Postgraduate 2.31



Finding a wallet, keeping the money and disposing of the wallet


Taking newspaper from neighbour's post-box Undergraduate 1.76 0.705

(0.482)Postgraduate 1.66

Calling in sick, even though not in fact sick Undergraduate 1.93 1.007


1186


Forging the student-status papers in order to obtain student-status-related benefits



Undergraduate 2.46 -0.068(0.946)Postgraduate 2.48

Conducting non-job-related activity while on job Undergraduate 2.59 1.051


Stating false reasons for not attending the classes Undergraduate 2.66 2.540

(0.012)Postgraduate 2.26 Looking at other students' exam papers during the exam


Writing seminar work for other student Undergraduate 2.54 1.713

(0.088)Postgraduate 2.24 Asking other student to take the exam for you (in your name)


Using un-allowed techniques (cheating) during the exam


Copying seminar work from sources, not listed in the bibliography


Source: survey among UP FM students, own calculations Last (but not least), employed students are divided into two groups: working in management and not working in management. Their responses (average values) for listed activities are revealed in the following table. The results show there are no major differences among those employed students, but for one activity: asking other student to take the exam for you. With this activity the employed in management are statistically significant (t-test of 2.913 and P-value of 0.004) different from those employed, but not in management: both are judging this activity as highly immoral, the former are even stricter in this respect.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Based on the research we can conclude there are no statistically significant differences between male and female students with respect to their evaluation of various activities from ethical point of view. Furthermore, comparing employed male and female students we can conclude there are no significant differences. Furthermore, in all cases undergraduate-level students are more inclined towards such activities being morally less unacceptable, pointing in direction that undergraduate students use these, mostly study (or testing) related activities in their every-day (study) life. Although this is somewhat worrying finding for business-study students (i.e. future business people), the “relaxing” fact is that postgraduate employed

1187


students are stricter in this sense – leaving the chance that future managers will react more in line with ethical guidelines. Similar pattern can be found when comparing full-time students and employed student: they differ statistically significant from each other with respect to all listed (and evaluated) activities. Furthermore, in all cases employed students are stricter than full-time students with respect to judging activity as ethically unacceptable. This provides basis for conclusion that as students become employed they follow ethical issues to a grater extent. The results also show there are no major differences among those employed students that work in management and those who work elsewhere (on lower positions). Findings of the research are somewhat worrying: student tend to evaluate cheating, looking at other students’ exams and similar activities as morally acceptable. Taking into consideration that they will in a few-years time become employed and represent future decision makers, what does this mean for the future economy? Will the current economic crisis enable management to shift its consideration of ethics in business and will management students accept or adapt to such changes? These are (among others) the issues to be studied in further work on this research.

REFERENCES

Albaum, G. and R. A. Peterson. 2006. Ethical attitudes of future business leaders – do they vary by gender and religiosity? Business & Society 3: 300-321.

Alleyne, Ph., D. Devonish, J. Allman, W. Charles-Soverall and A. Y. Marshall. 2010. Measuring ethical perceptions and intentions among undergraduate students in Barbados. The journal of American academy of business 2: 319-326.

Chapman, K. J. and R. A. Lupton. 2004. Academic dishonesty in a global educational market. The international journal of educational management 7: 425-435.

Chapman, K. J., R. Davis, D. Toy and L. Wright. 2004. Academic integrity in the business school environment: I'll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of marketing education 3: 236-249.

Critteden, V. L., R. C. Hanna and R. A. Peterson. 2009. Business students' attitudes toward unethical bahavior: a multi-country comparison. Market lett. 20: 1-14.

De George, R. T. 2006. Business ethics. Upper Saddle River (New Jersey): Prentice Hall.

1188


Gupta, S., D. J. Cunningham and A. Arya. 2009. A comparison of the ethics of business students: stated behavior versus actual behavior. Journal of legal, ethical and regulatory issues 2: 103-122.

Harding, T. S., D. D. Carpenter, C. J. Finelli and H. J. Passow. 2004. Does academic dishonesty relate to unethical behaviour in professional practice? An exploratory study. Science and engineering ethics 10: 311-324.

Klein, H. A., N. M. Levenburg, M. Mckendall and W. Mothersell. 2007. Cheating during the college years: how do business school students compare? Journal of business ethics 72: 197-206.

Lawson, R. A. 2004. Is classroom cheating related to business students' propensity to cheat in the "real world"? Journal of business ethics 49: 189-199.

Luthy, M. R., B. L. Padgett and J. F. Toner. 2009. In the beginning: ethical perspectives of business and non-business college freshmen. Journal of legal, ethical and regulatory issues 2: 85-101.

McCabe, D. L. 1997. Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and engineering ethics 3: 433-445.

McCabe, D. L., K. B. Butterfield and L. K. Treviño. 2006. Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of management learning & education 3: 294-305.

Phau, I. and G. Kea. 2006. Attitudes of university students toward business ethics: a cross-national investigation of Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal of business ethics 72: 61-75.

Sims, R. L. 1993. The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of education for business 4: 207-211.

Smyth, L. S., Ch. O. Kroncke and J. R. Davis. 2009. Students' perceptions of business ethics: using cheating as a surrogate for business situations. Jouurnal of education for business March/April: 229-238.

1189

PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG BUSINESS STUDIES … · PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG...

Documents

Transcript of PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG BUSINESS STUDIES … · PERCEPTION OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR AMONG...