4.3 Article

Business ethics research at the world's leading universities and business schools

Journal

BUSINESS ETHICS THE ENVIRONMENT & RESPONSIBILITY
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 474-494

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/beer.12395

Keywords

bibliometrics; business ethics; business schools; index; innovation; ranking; universities

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the evolution of business ethics and the contributions of different academic institutions. The findings suggest that lower tier universities have significant potential in business ethics research, and research in emerging subfields can be a competitive advantage for universities and business schools.
This paper explores the role of the leading universities and best-ranked business schools in the evolution of the academic field of business ethics. An advanced bibliometric methodology is applied to publications in business ethics from the major universities of the Shanghai ARWU ranking and from the FT-ranked business schools. The comprehensive bibliometric study encompasses multiple indicators and examines the evolution of business ethics publications over time. Business ethics research is built on two complementary interdisciplinary streams of research, philosophy, and management. The study indicates that it were not the top universities that contributed most to research advancements in the field of business ethics but second and third tier universities. This finding suggests that academic research in new subfields constitutes a niche strategy for universities and business schools to differentiate themselves. The study furthermore highlights the prominent role of the product champion or 'idea champion' in management research at universities. The diffusion of business ethics research illustrates the possibilities for lower ranked business schools with lower budget to excel in specialised subfields and interdisciplinary subthemes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available