SU+ @ Strathmore University Library Electronic Theses and Dissertations This work is availed for free and open access by Strathmore University Library. It has been accepted for digital distribution by an authorized administrator of SU+ @Strathmore University. For more information, please contact library@strathmore.edu 2021 An Examination of the business ethics education curriculum in Kenyan business schools in the light of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. Olwal, Anne Achieng’ School of Humanities and Social Sciences Strathmore University Recommended Citation Olwal, A. A. (2021). An Examination of the business ethics education curriculum in Kenyan business schools in the light of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach [Thesis, Strathmore University]. http://hdl.handle.net/11071/12717 Follow this and additional works at: http://hdl.handle.net/11071/12717 https://su-plus.strathmore.edu/ https://su-plus.strathmore.edu/ http://hdl.handle.net/11071/2474 mailto:library@strathmore.edu http://hdl.handle.net/11071/12717 http://hdl.handle.net/11071/12717 An Examination of the Business Ethics Education Curriculum in Kenyan Business Schools in the Light of Mele’s Personalist Virtue Ethics Approach Anne Achieng’ Olwal Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied Philosophy and Ethics at Strathmore University School of Humanities and Social Sciences Strathmore University Nairobi, Kenya December, 2021 This dissertation is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the dissertation may be published without proper acknowledgement. ii ABSTRACT In the past two decades, business schools have come under sharp criticism for failing to promote ethical business practice. Moreover, scholars argue that the prevalent approaches to business ethics education in the schools fall short in developing students’ moral character. Hence, Domenec Mele has proffered a personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics education which focuses on enhancing students’ moral character. In the Kenyan context, corruption and corporate malfeasance have crippled the country’s economic growth for several decades. Concurrently, a dearth of empirical research exists on business ethics education in Kenyan business schools. Hence, this research examined the business ethics education curriculum in Kenyan business schools from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. The research objectives of the study were to identify the current extent of business ethics education in degree programs in Kenyan business schools; to establish the approaches to business ethics education in degree programs in Kenyan business schools; and lastly, to evaluate the approaches to business ethics education in degree programs in Kenyan business schools from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. The researcher employed a mixed method research design. The target population of the study consisted of business school deans and faculty who teach business ethics in Kenyan Association of African Business Schools (AABS) member schools. Questionnaires were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data which were analyzed using statistical and thematic data analysis techniques. The study found incidence of business ethics education in Kenyan AABS member school degree programs with a majority of business ethics courses occurring in a few undergraduate degree programs. A majority of business ethics faculty in the schools were found to have adopted a normative approach to business ethics education characterized by Kantian, Aristotelian, and consequentialist ethics. Nonetheless, the faculty concurred with the principles and purposes of business ethics according to Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. The study recommends Mele’s approach to business ethics and encourages business ethics education in all undergraduate and graduate business degree programs. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. ii DECLARATION....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... xi DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS .............................................................................................. xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... xiii DEDICATION........................................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Background to the study ................................................................................................ 1 1.3. Problem statement .......................................................................................................... 6 1.4. Overall aim of the research ............................................................................................ 6 1.4.1. Research objectives .................................................................................................... 7 1.5. Research questions ......................................................................................................... 7 1.6. Scope of the study .......................................................................................................... 7 1.7. Significance of the study ................................................................................................ 8 1.8. Limitations of the study ................................................................................................. 8 1.9. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 9 2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Empirical review ............................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1. The extent of business ethics education in business schools ..................................... 9 2.3. Theoretical review ....................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1. The extent of business ethics education in business schools ................................... 12 2.3.2. Approaches to business ethics education in business schools.................................. 16 2.3.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education in business schools ............................. 16 2.3.2.2. Academic paradigms of business ethics professors ............................................. 18 2.3.2.3. Ethical theories in business ethics education in business schools ........................ 19 2.3.2.3.1. Behavioral ethics .................................................................................................. 20 2.3.2.3.2. Kantian deontology and consequentialism ........................................................... 20 2.3.2.3.3. Virtue ethics ......................................................................................................... 21 2.3.2.3.4. Domenec Mele’s personalist virtue ethics ........................................................... 23 iv 2.4. Research gaps ............................................................................................................... 27 2.5. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................. 27 2.6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................... 31 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 31 3.2. Research design ........................................................................................................... 31 3.3. Population and sampling .............................................................................................. 31 3.4. Data collection tools .................................................................................................... 33 3.5. Data analysis ................................................................................................................ 34 3.6. Research quality ........................................................................................................... 34 3.7. Ethical considerations .................................................................................................. 34 3.8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................... 36 4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 36 4.2. Findings from business school deans ........................................................................... 36 4.2.1. General information ................................................................................................. 36 4.2.2. Findings from closed-ended questions ..................................................................... 37 4.2.2.1. The current extent of business ethics education in business schools ................... 37 4.2.2.1.1. Business ethics courses in undergraduate business degree programs .................. 37 4.2.2.1.2. Business ethics courses in graduate business degree programs ........................... 38 4.2.2.1.3. Business ethics education across the curriculum ................................................. 39 4.2.2.2. Approach to business ethics education in business schools ................................. 40 4.2.2.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education in business schools ............................. 40 4.2.3. Findings from open-ended questions ....................................................................... 41 4.2.3.1. The current extent of business ethics education in business schools ................... 41 4.2.3.1.1. Business ethics courses in undergraduate business degree programs .................. 41 4.2.3.1.2. Business ethics courses in graduate business degree programs ........................... 41 4.2.3.2. Approach to business ethics education in business schools ................................. 42 4.2.3.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education in business schools ............................. 42 4.2.4. The number and home-department of business ethics faculty ................................. 43 4.3. Findings from business ethics faculty .......................................................................... 43 4.3.1. General information ................................................................................................. 43 4.3.2. Findings from closed-ended questions ..................................................................... 45 v 4.3.2.1. Approach to business ethics education in business schools ................................. 45 4.3.2.1.1. The purpose of business ethics education in business schools ............................. 46 4.3.2.2. The academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ......... 47 4.3.3. Findings from open-ended questions ....................................................................... 48 4.3.3.1. Approach to business ethics education in business schools ................................. 48 4.3.3.1.1. The purpose of business ethics education in business schools ............................. 48 4.3.3.1.2. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 48 4.3.3.1.2.1. The inviolable dignity of human persons ......................................................... 48 4.3.3.1.2.2. The relational nature of human persons ........................................................... 49 4.3.3.1.2.3. Business ethics as a guide to human excellence in business ............................ 51 4.3.3.1.2.4. Moderate ethical universalism ......................................................................... 53 4.4. Comparison of findings from business school deans and business ethics faculty ....... 55 4.4.1. Closed-ended questions ............................................................................................ 55 4.4.2. Open-ended questions .............................................................................................. 55 4.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 56 5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 56 5.2. The current extent of business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .............. 56 5.3. The approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .................. 59 5.3.1. The purpose of business ethics education ................................................................ 60 5.3.2. Academic paradigms and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ................. 64 5.3.2.1. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 67 5.3.2.1.1. The inviolable dignity of human persons ............................................................. 67 5.3.2.1.2. The relational nature of human persons ............................................................... 67 5.3.2.1.3. Business ethics as a guide to human excellence in business ................................ 69 5.3.2.1.4. Moderate ethical universalism ............................................................................. 70 5.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 71 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 72 6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 72 6.2. Summary of key findings ............................................................................................. 72 6.2.1. The current extent of business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .......... 72 6.2.2. The approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .............. 73 6.2.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education ............................................................ 73 vi 6.2.2.2. The academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ......... 73 6.2.2.3. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 73 6.2.3. Evaluation of approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools74 6.2.3.1. The purpose of business ethics education ............................................................ 74 6.2.3.2. The academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ......... 74 6.2.3.3. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 75 6.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 75 6.3.1. The current extent of business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .......... 75 6.3.2. The approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .............. 75 6.3.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education ............................................................ 75 6.3.2.2. The academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ......... 76 6.3.2.3. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 76 6.3.3. Evaluation of approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools76 6.3.3.1. The purpose of business ethics education ............................................................ 76 6.3.3.2. The academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ......... 76 6.3.3.3. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 77 6.4. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 77 6.4.1. The current extent of business ethics education in Kenyan business schools .......... 77 6.4.2. The approach to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools ................. 77 6.4.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education ............................................................ 77 6.4.2.2. The academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics ......... 77 6.4.2.3. Philosophical presuppositions of business ethics faculty ..................................... 78 6.4.3. Evaluation of approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools78 6.5. Suggestions for further research .................................................................................. 78 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 89 Appendix I: Timeline of Activities and Budget ....................................................................... 89 Appendix II: Letter of Introduction ......................................................................................... 90 Appendix III: Participant’s Information and Consent Form .................................................... 91 Appendix IV: Business School Deans’ Questionnaire............................................................. 94 Appendix V: Business Ethics Faculty’s Questionnaire ........................................................... 99 Appendix VI: List of Kenyan Association of African Business Schools member schools ... 104 Appendix VII: Ethical Approval by SU IERC ....................................................................... 105 vii Appendix VIII: NACOSTI license ........................................................................................ 106 Appendix IX: Letters of Authorization from the Kenyan AABS member schools ............... 107 Appendix X: Similarity Report .............................................................................................. 114 viii DECLARATION I declare that this work has not been previously submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the dissertation contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the dissertation itself. Anne Achieng’ Olwal Date: 15th of November, 2021 Approval The dissertation of Olwal, Anne Achieng’ was reviewed and approved by the following: Dr. Catherine Dean, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Strathmore University Dr. Magdalene Dimba, Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences Strathmore University Dr. Bernard Shibwabo, Director, Office of Graduate Studies Strathmore University ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1: Academic qualification of BE faculty……………………………………….45 Figure 4.2: Distribution of ethical theories among BE faculty …………………………..47 x LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Model for evaluating the approach to business ethics education in business schools ……………………………………………………………………………….....29 Table 3.1: Deans and business ethics faculty in Kenyan AABS member schools as at July 2021 .................................................................................................................................32 Table 3.2: Linking data collection tools to research questions …………………………..33 Table 4.1: Participant group one’s demographic profile ………………………………...36 Table 4.2: Business ethics courses in undergraduate business degree programs ………..37 Table 4.3: Year of business ethics course offerings in undergraduate degree programs…38 Table 4.4: Business ethics courses in graduate business degree programs………………39 Table 4.5: Business ethics education across the curriculum …………………………….39 Table 4.6: Purpose of business ethics education in business schools- participant group one………………………………………………………………………………………40 Table 4.7: Number and home-department of business ethics faculty ……………………43 Table 4.8: Participant group two’s demographic profile ………………………………...44 Table 4.9: Purpose of business ethics education in business schools- participant group two ..........................................................................................................................................46 Table 4.10: Responses to Question 15…………………………………………………...49 Table 4.11: Responses to Question 16a …………………………………………………50 Table 4.12: Responses to Question 16b …………………………………………………50 Table 4.13: Responses to Question 17 …………………………………………………..51 Table 4.14: Responses to Question 18 …………………………………………………..52 Table 4.15: Responses to Question 19 …………………………………………………..52 Table 4.16: Responses to Question 20 …………………………………………………..53 Table 4.17: Responses to Question 21 …………………………………………………..54 xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AABS Association of African Business Schools AACSB American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business AACSB International Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business BE Business Ethics BEC Business Ethics Course B-School Business School ISBEE International Society of Business Economics and Ethics KEPSA Kenya Private Sector Alliance MBA Master of Business Administration NACOSTI National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation SU IERC Strathmore University Internal Ethics Review Committee RQ Research Question xii DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS Approach to business ethics education: the purpose of teaching business ethics as well as the academic paradigm and ethical theories adopted by the business ethics lecturer. Business ethics: an academic discipline that is concerned with the ethics of business activity at the societal, organizational, managerial, and individual levels. Business school: an institution of higher learning that is affiliated to a university which offers undergraduate and graduate business degree programs. Moral cognitive competence: the capacity to correctly identify, analyze, and evaluate the ethical dimension of a given situation. Moral behavioral competence: the capacity to act ethically in a given situation. Moral managerial competence: the capacity to deal with morality in any system of interpersonal interactions such as a business organization. It comprises of systematic morality, moral efficiency, instrumental morality, and moral leadership. xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special gratitude goes to my supervisor, Dr. Catherine Dean for her clarity, professionalism, patience, and encouragement. Go gcoinní Dia i mbos A láimhe thú. To Strathmore University and the entire SHSS family, especially the Dean, Dr. Magdalene Dimba, and the Manager, Caroline Mbugua, thank you for making my studies and this work possible. I would also like to thank all the universities that authorized me to collect data from their staff, and all the study participants for taking time off their busy schedules to respond to my questionnaires. Kitonyi, Gabriel, Tobias, Pam, and Lily, thank you for opening doors for me. My sincere gratitude also goes to Dr. Maria R. Catacutan for her critical role at the inception of this research. To all my lecturers and classmates, especially, Louise, and Christine, thank you for making my MAPE experience memorable. I would also like to thank Dr. Branya, the Course Director, Brian, the Course Administrator and Raymond, the Exams Coordinator for their assistance. My deepest gratitude goes to Mama, Adhis, Akinyi, Omondi Musa and Evans for your unconditional love and unwavering faith in me. To Jane, Serah, Anastasia, Sheila, and Esther, I am most grateful that you walked this journey with me. Thank you, Carol, Yna, Karembo, Kandi, Liz, Alice, Spera, Pauline, Evelyn, Gloria, Teddy and all my good people in Solandra for your prayers, patience, and concern. Ann, and Elsie, many thanks for the gift of rest. To You in whom we live and move and have our being, great is your faithfulness to me! xiv DEDICATION To my mum and dad, I thank God for giving you to me. Baba, I miss you. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introduction The focus of this study was to examine the business ethics education curriculum in Kenyan business schools. Concretely, it described the current extent and approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate business degree programs in Kenyan AABS member schools. It also evaluated the approaches to business ethics education in the schools from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. This chapter discusses the background to the study. The factors that influenced the emergence and take- up of business ethics education in business schools are outlined. Current issues in business ethics education research are also highlighted. It is in this context that the problem statement is delineated with the resulting research objectives and research questions. The chapter closes with the scope, significance, and limitations of the study. 1.2. Background to the study The teaching of business ethics in business schools emerged at the turn of the twentieth century against the backdrop of the founding of business schools. According to Abend (2013) the intention to teach business ethics played a key role in justifying the establishment of business schools in the United State of America (USA). Given the controversy surrounding the creation of the schools at the time, proponents of the novel institution strengthened their case by linking it to ethics education and service to society. For example, USA’s very first business school-the Wharton School of Finance and Economy-was founded on the premise that it would foster its students’ moral development and promote social responsibility (James, 1892). A 1903 issue of the Wall Street Journal identified the training of consciences in habits of spontaneous morality as one of two purposes of business schools (Wall Street Journal, 1903). However, once established, the moral claims that legitimized the founding of business schools were shoved to the backseat of the business education curriculum. For instance, a 1920s survey of the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools found 2 that business ethics courses were unlikely to be mandatory in the schools. Moreover, the courses were accorded the least number of class hours in comparison to other subject areas in the curriculum (Bossard & Dewhurst, 1931). De George (1987) argues that the growth of modern industries in the USA of the 1960s and 1970s saw a rise in social issues related to business. These issues, coupled with cases of business malpractice, fueled university students’ concern and unrest about business ethics related questions. As a result, business schools refocused their attention on business ethics education, a move that attracted the academic interest of a significant number of professors of management, the social sciences, and philosophy alike. According to Trevino and Weaver (1994), philosophy scholars responded to the demand for scholarly business ethics with varied conceptions of business ethics based on Kantian deontology or Mill’s utilitarianism. This philosophy-based approach to business ethics education is referred to as the normative paradigm in business ethics enquiry. Conversely, professors of management and the social sciences responded to the demand for business ethics education with what is termed the descriptive paradigm. Descriptive business ethics is grounded on an empirical-positivist academic approach and draws inspiration from social science theory (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). In the main, the widespread take-up of business ethics education in the USA started with compulsory courses for undergraduate business majors and as an elective for other subject majors (Shaw, 1996). However, only a few universities such as Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard developed business ethics courses for their Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs. In effect, despite some scholarly claims that business ethics could not be taught, it flourished into an independent academic discipline by the 1990s (Enderle, 1996). The new discipline extended across the globe with varying degrees of intensity in teaching, training, and research (Enderle, 1997). New cases of corporate malfeasance in the noughties such as the Enron, WorldCom, and Xerox business scandals refocused social discourse on the crisis in business ethics in the USA (Swanson & Frederick, 2003). Furthermore, the 2008 financial crisis, occasioned by a nexus of factors in developed economies sparked a global disrepute of the financial markets, the modern corporation (French et al., 2009) and business schools (Giacalone, & 3 Wargo, 2009). Scholars observed that the unprecedented cases of corporate scandals were perpetrated by top MBA holders (Giacalone, & Wargo, 2009). The call for business schools to take responsibility for the crisis in business ethics has inspired significant research on business ethics education in the west. Some scholars have reopened the unrelenting debate on whether ethics can or should be taught in business schools (Ritter, 2006). Many others take the question for granted to focus on how best to effect business ethics education in the business education curriculum (Waples et al., 2009). The academic literature on business ethics education suggests that business ethicists are hard pressed for a suitable approach to business ethics education. Many a scholar argue that the prevalent use of modern moral philosophy-based ethical theories on the one hand, and social science-based theories on the other, to teach business ethics is inherently limited (Furman, 1990; Grant et al., 2017; Oddo, 1997; Rossouw, 2002). Professors who use the aforementioned theories of the normative and descriptive paradigms respectively, have been criticized for neglecting students’ moral character development. Moreover, they are accused of academic provincialism and of oversimplifying ethical questions in business (Furman, 1990; Grant et al., 2017; Mele, 2005; Rossouw, 2004). Consequently, some business ethics professors have proposed the adoption of Aristotle’s virtue ethics (Arjoon, 2000; Moore, 2005; Solomon, 1992) or enhanced forms of the same theory to improve business ethics education in business schools (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017; Grant et al., 2017; Mele, 2009). While business ethics developed into a “buzz” word in the west, its growth in developing economies was hampered mainly by a lack of moral awareness in business (Rossouw, 1994). Milanzi (1997) noted that the spread of business ethics activities to the eastern and southern African region was greatly influenced by post-colonial socio-economic and political factors. These factors include systemic corruption in state corporations, business malpractice in the private sector, and the need for a common ethical framework for regional trade. Milanzi’s study reported the presence of public policies on ethics, business codes of conduct, and absence of exclusive business ethics course offerings in the region. However, Rossouw (1997) counterposed that three of South Africa’s business schools 4 taught an exclusive business ethics course. A later survey of business ethics teaching in the African continent found evidence of the same in Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda. In total, 77 courses were on offer within 40 university departments or business schools; 55 courses targeted undergraduate students while 22 were offered at the graduate level (Barkhuysen, 1999). The study reported a single business ethics course in one of Kenya’s public universities. The last global survey of business ethics education in Africa reported presence of 145 business ethics courses in the entire continent, seven of which were found in Kenya (Rossouw, 2011b). These findings provide a sharp contrast with those from developed economies whereby the USA alone reported presence of 2, 324 business ethics courses in its business schools (Petrick et al., 2011). The seemingly low take-up of business ethics education in Africa occurs against the backdrop of economies ravaged by fraud, corruption, and corporate malpractice (Lawal, 2007). For example, in Kenya, mainstream media is rife with reports of widespread ‘tenderpreneurship’ in public procurement systems at the national and county levels of government. It is alleged that 1.9 billion Kenya shillings were lost to ‘tenderpreneurs’ in the 2016 National Youth Service scandal alone (“Auditor on NYS scam”, 2016). According to Ouma and Morrice (2020) bid rigging in Kenya’s public procurement system has produced classic cases studies: examples include, the Standard Gauge Railway, the Biometric Voter Registration, the Ministry of Education laptop project, and the National Hospital Insurance Fund, just to mention a few. In addition, a report by the Kenya Private Sector Alliance (KEPSA, 2019) states that the sector loses up to 12.85% in revenues annually to business fraud and employee related malpractices. In the last two decades, Kenya has heightened its war against corruption by developing legal frameworks, institutions, and initiatives to curb corruption. These include: the inclusion of anti-corruption projects in Kenya’s Vision 2030 (Kenya, 2007), the articulation of Kenya’s national values and principles of good governance in the 2010 constitution and the establishment of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (Kenya, 2013), among other initiatives. While Kenya was the first country in the world to sign and ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the fabric of Kenya’s society is 5 still infested by a corrupt culture (Hope, 2013). For instance, Kenya was ranked 124 out of 180 countries in the most recently published Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (Transparency International, 2020). Whereas corruption has crippled Kenya’s economic growth for several decades, Kenyan universities have recorded a sustained increase in graduate placement in the public and private sectors of the economy (Ponge, 2013). Moreover, business schools in Kenya currently report the highest enrollment levels in a plethora of undergraduate and graduate business degree programs (Commission for University Education, 2019). Yet the most recent survey of business ethics education in Kenya reported that only seven universities offered a course in business ethics (Mawa & Adams, 2011). Moreover, the study did not indicate the degree programs, level of study-undergraduate or graduate-nor status-elective or compulsory-of the business ethics course offerings. Likewise, no data was provided on the approach to business ethics education in Kenya. Two global surveys of business ethics teaching, training, and research have been commissioned by the International Society of Business, Economics and Ethics (ISBEE) (Enderle, 1997; Rossouw, 2011a). In addition, numerous studies have been conducted on the extent (Christensen et al., 2007; Jonson et al., 2015; Jorge et al., 2017; Navarro, 2008; Matten & Moon, 2004; Moon, & Orlitzky, 2011) and approaches (Ritter, 2006; Waples et al., 2009) to business ethics education in business schools worldwide with most studies concentrated in the west. In the African context, a few empirical studies on the extent and approaches to business ethics education in South African business schools were found (Kretzschmar & Bentley, 2013; Painter-Morland et al., 2003). However, a dearth of empirical research exists on business ethics education in Kenyan business schools. Besides the surveys already mentioned (Barkhuysen, 1999; Mawa & Adams, 2011; Milanzi, 1997), Catacutan (2019) investigated the influence of ethics instruction on undergraduate students’ attitudes towards cheating in a Kenyan business school. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge no other empirical studies have been conducted on business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan 6 business schools. In addition, no empirical data was found on the approach to business ethics education in business degree programs in Kenyan business schools. Domenec Mele has proffered an enhanced form of Aristotle’s ethical theory for business ethics education which he calls the personalist virtue ethics approach (Mele, 2020). Mele’s approach overcomes the limitations of the earlier mentioned normative and descriptive approaches to business ethics education in that: firstly, it seeks to enhance students’ moral character development (Mele, 2003; Mele, 2020). Secondly, the approach is founded on an Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy (Mele, 2009; Mele, 2020), hence, it has the potential to integrate the normative and descriptive elements of business ethics (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017; Mele, 2020; Woiceshyn, 1992). Finally, Mele’s personalist virtue ethics, like all virtue ethics, abates the danger of oversimplifying moral complexities (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017). This research employed Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to evaluate the approach to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, no empirical studies exist on business ethics education in the light of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach either globally, regionally, or locally. 1.3. Problem statement The teaching of business ethics in business schools has been identified by several scholars as one way of promoting ethical business practice. However, the data on business ethics education in Kenyan business schools is less than comprehensive. Moreover, there exists a gap in research both globally, regionally, and locally on the teaching of business ethics from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics. This research addressed these gaps by examining the current extent and the approach to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools in the light of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. 1.4. Overall aim of the research The overall aim of this research was to describe and evaluate the business ethics education curriculum in Kenyan business schools from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. 7 1.4.1. Research objectives 1. To identify the current extent of business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools 2. To establish the approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools 3. To evaluate the approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach 1.5. Research questions 1. What is the current extent of business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools? 2. What are the approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools? 3. How may the approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools be evaluated from the perspective of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach? 1.6. Scope of the study This study investigated the business ethics education curriculum in Kenyan business schools that were members of the Association of African Business Schools (AABS), at the time of the study. One of the objectives of the AABS is to promote cooperation among business schools in curricula development (AABS, 2021). To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, the AABS is the only association for business schools in Africa. A list of the seven AABS member schools in Kenya is provided in Appendix VI. The research respondents consisted of two distinct groups namely, business school deans and full-time business ethics faculty. Deans were included in the study because their managerial role makes them privy to information about the extent of business ethics education in the curricula of business degree programs. Participation of the full-time business ethics 8 faculty on the other hand was deemed essential in providing data on the approach to business ethics education in the business schools. 1.7. Significance of the study The findings of this study contribute to studies on business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in business schools in Kenya. The research also contributes to knowledge on business ethics education in Kenya in the light of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. The business school deans and business ethics faculty involved in the collection of data had an opportunity to reflect on the current status and the approach to business ethics education in their business school. The research data could also aid business schools in the curriculum design of business ethics education and in the professional development of faculty. The research data should be of interest to the Kenyan government and employers in policy making and as they hire or retain graduates from business schools in Kenya. 1.8. Limitations of the study The limitations of the study include factors that are specific to descriptive surveys such as their inability to relate effects and causes and the danger of response and non-response bias (Saunders et al., 2009). The main challenge in this study was obtaining responses from business ethics faculty. This limitation was not overcome despite having allowed enough time for data collection. 1.9. Conclusion In this chapter, the researcher has given the background to the research problem. The research problem has been stated and the ensuing research objectives and questions have been outlined. The chapter ends with the significance and limitations of the study. 9 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction This chapter begins by discussing the empirical and theoretical review of the literature on business ethics education in business schools. The research gaps are discussed after which the theoretical framework is developed. 2.2. Empirical review In this section, a review of the empirical studies relating to the extent of business ethics education in business schools is made in line with research question one of this study. 2.2.1. The extent of business ethics education in business schools Business schools differ in the incidence, level of study-undergraduate or graduate-, and the status-elective or compulsory-of business ethics course offerings. Likewise, business schools across the globe vary in terms of the model they employ to teach business ethics. Some business schools teach business ethics content in stand-alone courses; this is referred to as the stand-alone model. Other schools cover business ethics content within other subject areas in the business education curriculum; this model is referred to as the integrated model or ethics across the curriculum (Christensen et al., 2007; Ritter, 2006). A 1988 survey of the 663 AACSB member schools by Schoenfeldt et al., (1991) reported that 73% of the schools offered a business ethics course. 65% of the courses targeted undergraduate students; 44% of which were compulsory. Of the courses offered at the graduate level, only 35% were compulsory. The study reported that 59% of the courses were taught by lecturers based at the business school; the majority of the remaining courses were taught by professors from philosophy or humanities departments. Less than two decades later, Swanson and Fisher (2008) found that fewer than one-third of Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB International) member schools offered a stand-alone business ethics course at the undergraduate or graduate levels. The decline in the number of stand-alone courses was owed to the fact that AACSB 10 International no longer required stand-alone business ethics courses for the accreditation of business schools. While still requiring the coverage of business ethics content, the association revised its standards in 1991 to allow business schools to choose their preferred teaching model (Swanson & Fisher, 2008; Rutherford et al., 2012). In the wake of corporate scandals in the early 2000s, a group of more than 200 business school deans, professors, and managers appealed to AACSB International to reverse its position. The group argued that the integrated model of business ethics education was often scanty and haphazard: however, AACSB International maintained its position (AACSB International, 2004; Swanson & Fisher, 2008). AACSB International’s position reflects the divergence in opinions among scholars as to which model of teaching business ethics is more effective. For instance, McDonald (2004) cites a 1988 study of the Wharton School which found that business ethics education is more effective when integrated into the entire business education curriculum. Equally, Jonson et al (2005) reported that the stand-alone model is more likely to equip students to judge ethical dilemmas in the real world. A study conducted by Woo (2003) on 239 deans of AACSB International accredited MBAs found that in practice, a majority of MBAs teach ethics across the curriculum. A smaller number combine the two models while the smallest number-less than 10%-employ the stand-alone model alone. Nonetheless, studies have shown that top business schools frequently offer stand-alone business ethics courses in their MBA programs (Christensen et al., 2007; Jorge et al., 2017; Moon & Orlitzky, 2011). Christensen et al. (2007) studied the perception of deans of the 2006 top 50 Financial Times MBAs, on their institution’s coverage of business ethics. They reported that 25% of the schools had a compulsory stand-alone business ethics course. They also found that MBA students were interested in the courses with the top 10 MBAs recording the highest levels of interest. A follow up study by Jorge et al. (2017) found that the number of mandatory stand-alone business ethics courses had not increased in the 10 years leading up to the study. Likewise, they reported a trend among top MBAs towards the inclusion of stand-alone courses on business ethics as electives. In addition, the researchers noted that the presence of a stand- alone course was explained by whether a school was public or private, accredited or not, 11 and by its cultural environment. Moon and Orlitzky (2011) discovered that a business school’s prestige showed a statistically significant relationship with its commitment to ethics education. In fact, reputable observers such as Bloomberg Business, the Aspen Institute and the business schools’ news service Poets & Quants now rank business schools based on their level of ethics instruction (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017). The ISBEE has commissioned two worldwide surveys of business ethics training, teaching and research since its inception: the first survey was conducted in 1995 and the second in 2010. The 1995 survey, while reporting presence of business ethics education in a few countries, provided little data regarding the extent to which business ethics was being taught in business schools globally (Enderle, 1997). For purposes of the survey, Rossouw (1997) reported three business ethics course offerings in three business schools in South Africa. Between the first and second ISBEE surveys, Barkhuysen (1999) conducted a study which examined the prevalence of business ethics teaching in the African continent. She found evidence of the same in Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda. In total, 77 courses were on offer within 40 university departments that included business schools; 55 courses targeted undergraduate students while 22 were offered at the graduate level. The survey reported presence of a business ethics course in one of Kenya’s public universities with no indication of the students targeted by the course. The second ISBEE survey sought to collect data on business ethics courses in undergraduate and graduate degree programs, in and outside business schools, across the globe (Rossouw, 2011a). The most detailed report of the survey was made by Petrick et al. (2011) on the extent of business ethics education in North American business schools. The authors found 2, 324 business ethics courses in the USA: 1,246 of the courses were offered by AACSB International institutions of which 40% were mandatory at the undergraduate level and 30% at the graduate level. The study also reported presence of 222 business ethics course in Canada: 102 of the courses were offered by AACSB International institutions of which 50% were mandatory at the undergraduate level and 30% at the graduate level. Finally in Mexico there were found 39 business ethics courses: 14 courses were offered by AACSB International institutions of which 30% were 12 mandatory at the undergraduate level and 20% at the graduate level. A summary of the European survey found that a majority of business schools offered a stand-alone business ethics course either as an elective or mandatory course. For example, the survey reported that all but one of Belgium’s business degree programs required a business ethics course (Van Liedekerke & Demuijnck, 2011). In the Sub-Saharan Africa region, 145 modules of business ethics were reported: 74 modules were offered to undergraduate students while 71 were offered at the graduate level (Rossouw, 2011b). The Eastern African study by Mawa and Adams (2011) found presence of business ethics teaching in seven of Kenya’s universities. However, the study did not differentiate its findings in terms of degree programs, the level of study nor status of the business ethics course. 2.3. Theoretical review In this section, a review of the literature relating to business ethics education in business schools is made. The section also carries a discussion on the approaches to business ethics education in correspondence to research questions two and three of this study. 2.3.1. The extent of business ethics education in business schools The question of business ethics education in business schools is entrenched in a broader question; can ethics be taught? While contentious academic positions on the matter go all the way back to Plato (McDonald, 2004), we shall here focus on the academic literature on ethics education in business schools. Some authors have argued that business ethics education invades the privacy of students (McDonald & Donleavy, 1995). Others argue that college age students are already set in their ways: their attitudes and behavior having been shaped by their family, cultural and religious backgrounds. They contend that students’ attendance at a few classes on business ethics is insufficient to change their inner moral compass and habits (Ritter, 2006; Waples et al., 2009). Therefore, business ethics in the college classroom would only be effective where ethical behavior was already ingrained in students. 13 Conversely, other scholars maintain that character formation is a lifelong process that can be enhanced through business ethics instruction (Sims, 2002). Indeed, this view is implied by the relevance given to ethics education by the international fellowship of business school deans (AACSB International, 2013; AACSB International, 2020). A broader perspective in support of business ethics education in business schools has been adopted by Abend (2013). The author argues that business ethicists need to reclaim the pivotal role of ethics education in business schools. He claims that the intention to teach business ethics served as a major justification for the founding of business schools in the USA at the turn of the twentieth century. In 1928, Ralph E. Heilman, the first chair of business ethics at the Northwestern University expressed the prophetic concern that the absence of ethics instruction in business schools would prove counterproductive to society. Universities would simply arm students with better tools for business to exploit market players for their personal advantage (Abend, 2013). Some academics also allege that business schools merely use business ethics courses for appearance purposes especially in their MBA programs (McDonald & Donleavy, 1995). In this vein, Ghoshal (2005) posits that business ethics courses stand no chance at changing business practice since mainstream business education is founded on management theories which promote unethical behavior. He argues that business scholars have dehumanized business practice by adopting purely empirical and deterministic conceptions of management in their attempt to model business studies after the natural sciences. As a result, students at business schools are indoctrinated with self-fulfilling amoral theories taught in core subjects which relieve them of any sense of moral responsibility. The author cites agency theory of corporate governance and the homo economicus model of economics as the main pitfalls of mainstream business education. Agency theory and the homo economicus model of economics derive from liberalism as developed and popularized by the University of Chicago with Milton Friedman as its flagship (Ghoshal, 2005: Norman, 2013). Friedman’s liberalism is founded on the following philosophical presuppositions: freedom is the ultimate goal of human existence, the individual is moved by self-interest and is the ultimate entity in society, ethics should 14 be excluded from social theory and lastly, men are imperfect beings, thus, social organization must address the negative problem of preventing unscrupulous behavior as much as that of enabling good people to do good. The exclusive focus on what Friedman refers to as the negative problem of social organization has stimulated a pessimistic rule- based approach to management (Ghoshal, 2005). In addition, liberalism maintains a fact- value dichotomy in business decision-making whereby managers are deemed most rational when they focus on facts alone to maximize profits and utility (Mele, 2010). In other words, business decisions are rational when they follow a cost-benefit analysis that discounts the ethical dimension. Ethical considerations are valid only as external constraints to the maximizing of profits and utility. Moreover, Friedman considers concepts such as social welfare as corruptions of liberalism (Ghoshal, 2005) which emasculate the firm and violates the right of shareholders to profit maximization (Friedman, 1970/2007). Corroborating Ghoshal’s claims against mainstream business education are the findings of an Aspen Institute study conducted on 1,978 year-2001 graduates of thirteen leading business schools in the USA. The study found that the schools’ curriculum underscored the need to maximize shareholder value in a ruthlessly competitive business environment. In turn, their students’ commitment to customers and other business stakeholders was mitigated in a short span of two years. The study concluded that business education weakened business students’ moral character (Schneider & Prasso, 2002). The case against business ethics education in business schools seems substantial when we consider that the stable disposition to act according to right reason cannot be taught (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1996). However, business ethics education can motivate students towards ethical behavior by showcasing it through narratives, role-plays, case analysis and by experiential learning among other teaching strategies (Sims, 2002). In addition, studies have shown that business ethics courses positively influence students’ attitudes and increases their moral awareness (Jonson et al., 2015). While a change in attitudes and an increase in moral awareness do not guarantee ethical behavior, they are a condition sine qua non for upright action. Besides, if we consider business to have an intrinsic moral dimension (Gronbacher,1998), Abend’s (2013) claims regarding the place 15 of ethics in the business education curriculum will ring true. Hence, Ghoshal’s (2005) criticism of the smokescreen approach to ethics education in business schools serves as a call to reflect on the true nature of business and business education. Taken together, the above views reveal the multifaceted nature of the question of business ethics education in business schools. Nonetheless, there is agreement among many academics that business ethics can and should be taught in business schools. These scholars have shelved debate on the matter to focus on how best to effect business ethics instruction in business schools (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017). Traditionally, stand-alone business ethics courses in business schools have been taught by academics from philosophy departments with expertise in ethical theory (Jonson et al., 2015; Shaw, 1996). Hence, philosophy and liberal arts departments have largely served as home-departments to the stand-alone business ethics course in business schools. The stand-alone model of teaching business ethics is advantageous in that it assures the coverage of business ethics content in a systematic fashion (Swanson & Fisher, 2008). However, the model is claimed to be disadvantageous in that: firstly, most business students prove ill equipped at applying moral theory from stand-alone courses to ethical issues in core subjects. Secondly, philosophers teaching business ethics tend to have little knowledge of business practice when they are not downright hostile to the business system. Lastly, where the stand-alone business ethics course is required, it is likely to burden the philosophy department with large classes of students who resent the course (Davis, 2018; Shaw, 1996). In contrast, the integrated model or ethics across the curriculum has mainly been used by business faculty with no expertise in ethical theory (Jonson et al., 2015; Shaw, 1996). A key merit of the model is that it responds to the pervasive nature of ethical issues in the entire business education curriculum. Hence, De Los Reyes Jr et al. (2017) argue that business professors also teach ethics in their core subjects whether they like it or not. However, business professors often have difficulty integrating ethics into their already overloaded courses when they are not altogether skeptical about the bearing of scholarly ethics on business practice (Shaw, 1996, Davis, 2018). Consequently, Sims (2002) argues 16 that a department-wide commitment to convey a set of ethical principles to students is required for successful ethics instruction in business schools. Indeed, most theorists advocate for the use of both the stand-alone and the integrated model to teach business ethics content (Ritter, 2006). However, such an endeavor demands time and resource allocation since all professors in the business school would need to be well versed in business ethics (McDonald, 2004). 2.3.2. Approaches to business ethics education in business schools According to Rossouw (2002) the approach to business ethics education refers to the purpose of teaching business ethics which is mirrored by the academic paradigm and ensuing ethical theory adopted by the business ethics professor. In this study, the approach to business ethics education refers to the purpose of teaching business ethics and to the academic paradigm and ethical theories used to teach business ethics. 2.3.2.1. The purpose of business ethics education in business schools In a groundbreaking 1980 Hastings Center report on the teaching of ethics in higher education, Daniel Callahan identified the following five goals for teaching business ethics courses: to stimulate students’ moral imagination, to enable students to recognize ethical issues, to elicit a sense of moral obligation, to develop analytical skills and finally to increase students’ tolerance and reduce disagreement and ambiguity (Callahan, 1980). Charles Powers and David Vogel added a sixth goal to the five outlined by Callahan (1980) namely, integrating managerial and moral competencies in business (Powers & Vogel, 1980). Similarly, Pamental (1989) argued that business ethics courses are best offered to students familiar with the functional areas of business, preferably in the second half of undergraduate studies. Conversely, Sims (2002) recommends that business ethics instruction at the undergraduate level focus on increasing students’ self-knowledge and interest in the ethical aspects of business. However, he holds that the graduate business ethics curriculum should focus on moral issues that graduate students are likely to face in their chosen functional or professional areas. In addition, the course should enhance 17 graduate students’ understanding of the relationship between their functional work and the broader values and needs of society (Sims, 2002). According to Rossouw (2004) there are three main approaches to the teaching of business ethics in business schools. The author argues that in a nutshell, a business ethics course may be geared towards meeting either of the following three purposes: firstly, to improve students’ moral cognitive competence. Moral cognitive competence in business ethics teaching refers to students’ capacity to identify, analyze, and evaluate ethical questions in business. It comprises of moral awareness, moral understanding, moral reasoning, moral decision-making, and moral tolerance. Secondly, the course may be aimed at improving students’ moral behavioral competence; this refers to students’ capacity to act ethically in the business environment. Proponents of this approach to business ethics education argue that students’ moral cognitive competence does not necessarily translate into ethical business practice. Moral behavioral competence relates to moral sensitivity, moral courage, and moral imagination. Lastly, a business ethics course may aim at enhancing students’ moral managerial competency: this is the capacity for students to deal with morality in organizations as systems of interpersonal interactions. It comprises of systematic morality, moral efficiency, instrumental morality, and moral leadership. According to Rossouw (2004) all three approaches to the teaching of business ethics are necessary for effective business ethics instruction. Nonetheless, the evaluation criteria and findings of studies on the purpose of business ethics education suggest that researchers and professors have varied conceptions of what constitutes effective business ethics instruction. Painter-Morland et al. (2003) carried out a case study on an online cross-cultural business ethics course based in a South African university. They identified the following teaching objectives of the course: to familiarize students with ethical approaches, ethical reasoning skills, human virtues, and ethical management skills. Ritter (2006) examined business ethics instruction based on the level of students’ moral awareness and moral reasoning. Waples et al. (2009) used the following six criteria to measure the effectiveness of business ethics courses: moral reasoning, perceptions of the ethical behavior of others, perceptions of one’s ethical behavior, ethical 18 judgment, ethical behavior, and ethical awareness. Kretzschmar and Bentley (2013) found that the business ethics course in the University of South Africa aimed at increasing students’ awareness of ethical issues and at providing techniques for moral decision- making by addressing common ethical dilemmas. Jonson et al. (2015) also outline empirical studies which examined the effectiveness of business ethics courses on the basis of how much they increased students’ ethical awareness. Nevertheless, much of the literature on the teaching of business ethics suggests that the absence of a clear objective is a major issue in business ethics instruction (Felton & Sims, 2005; McDonald & Donleavy, 1995; Oddo, 1997; Sims, 2002; Waples et al., 2009). 2.3.2.2. Academic paradigms of business ethics professors Academic enquiry into the field of business ethics is typically divided into the descriptive and normative approaches to business ethics (Werhane, 1994). The two approaches differ in that they draw inspiration from the domains of the social sciences and philosophy, respectively. As such, business ethicists from the two domains commonly differ in their methodology, language, and purpose of inquiry. A neat irreconcilable divide between the two approaches has been thought to reflect the metaethical fact-value dichotomy (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). According to Trevino and Weaver (1994) scholars with a descriptive approach to business ethics are characteristically housed in social science departments. Broadly speaking, these scholars utilize a positivist-empirical approach: they purpose to measure, explain, and predict ethical choices in carefully defined conditions of a business enterprise. Hence the language used by business ethics professors and researchers in this paradigm is often claimed to be descriptive and value-free. Theories developed by these scholars are evaluated based on their ability to explain, predict, and solve business problems. Their underlying assumption on human moral agency ranges from complete determinism on one end, and a reciprocal causation between the individual and his environment, on the other (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). On the contrary, academics of the normative approach to business ethics are traditionally housed in philosophy and liberal arts departments. These scholars utilize an abstract approach and evaluate business practice from the perspective 19 of moral philosophies. Normative business ethics purposes to prescribe “what ought to be” and to proscribe “what ought not to be” in business practice. In this paradigm the validity of theories is evaluated through the rational critique of ensuing moral judgments. Typically, these scholars assume that human moral agency is characterized by individual autonomy and moral responsibility (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). Scholars from the descriptive and normative approaches to business ethics have criticized each other for merely paying lip service to business ethics (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). Descriptive business ethicists argue that normative business ethics is a mere amalgam of impractical, unverifiable, subjective ideas: they hold that business ethics is best predicated on an empirical foundation (Trevino & Weaver, 1994). Likewise, normative business ethicists accuse their counterparts of falling into the is/ought fallacy when not simply serving the interests of unscrupulous corporate managers (Rossouw, 2004). These scholars insist that business ethics courses must be taught by philosophers due to their expertise in ethical theory (McDonald, 2004). Some academics, while not making light of their fundamental distinctions, recommend the integration of the descriptive and normative paradigms to mitigate their deficiencies (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017; Trevino & Weaver, 1994; Rossouw, 2004; Werhane, 1994). Indeed, juxta positioning the two approaches is stereotypical and retrogressive as in practice, they overlap and are not mutually exclusive (Rossouw, 2004; Werhane, 1994). Hence, holistic business ethics inquiry ought to consider both normative theories and the particulars of the business context. Accordingly, business ethics is best taught by professors grounded in ethical theory and a scholarly appreciation of the internal and external environment of business enterprises (McDonald, 2004). 2.3.2.3. Ethical theories in business ethics education in business schools Among the ethical approaches to business ethics education in business schools is behavioral ethics in the descriptive paradigm and Kantian deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics in the normative paradigm. 20 2.3.2.3.1. Behavioral ethics Behavioral ethics has been defined by Bazerman and Gino (2012, p. 10) as “the study of systematic and predictable ways in which individuals make ethical decisions and judge the ethical decisions of others that are at odds with intuition and the benefits of the broader society”. Behavioral ethics as applied in the business ethics classroom is rooted in the descriptive paradigm and mainly hinges upon social psychology (De los Reyes Jr et al., 2017). Behavioral ethics provides a psychology of ethics based on behavioral decision theory, often defined as the study of trade-offs individuals make when choosing from any available options. Individuals make these trade-offs in the resolution of ethical dilemmas thanks to the dialectic relationship between their well-being and that of others (Bazerman & Gino, 2012). De los Reyes Jr et al. (2017) note that the main aim of behavioral ethics is to explain why individuals act rightly or wrongly at work. Hence, the approach enhances students’ competence in managing extrinsic motivations of ethical behavior such as reward and punishment systems, and intrinsic motivators such as individuals’ personality and cognition. Thus, professors who use this theory seek to enhance students’ moral managerial competence by extending their managerial competence to the ethical sphere of business activity (Rossouw, 2004). Behavioral ethics is limited in that it is founded on empiricism and thus employs a purely fact-based perspective in its enquiry (Werhane, 1994). A purely fact-based perspective is illusory in the moral sphere since it cannot singlehandedly respond to the question of right and wrong action. According to Mele (2020) only a normative ethical theory can go beyond describing human behavior to prescribe what people in business ought to do. In addition, behavioral ethics does not attend to the moral cognitive and moral behavioral competencies of business ethics students (Rossouw, 2004). 2.3.2.3.2. Kantian deontology and consequentialism Historically, a majority of business ethicists of the normative paradigm have adopted Kantian deontology and consequentialism, especially Mill’s utilitarianism, in the teaching of business ethics (Bowie, 2017; Derry & Green, 1989). Underpinning Kantian 21 deontology and Mill’s utilitarianism are the quest for subjective certitude and autonomy characteristic of the rationalism of the enlightenment (Grant et al., 2017; Mele, 2005). Both Kant and Mill developed universal moral laws for ethical decision-making based on logical reasoning: Kant’s universal moral law is postulated in his categorical imperatives while Mill stipulated the principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Grant et al., 2017; Mele, 2005). Business ethics professors who use Kantian ethics and utilitarianism view ethics as an act-centered, rule-based activity. Hence, they focus on enhancing students’ moral cognitive competence by equipping them with a priori concepts, norms, and rules for logical moral reasoning and to tackle ethical dilemmas (Rossouw, 2004). Jonson et al. (2015) have identified Kohlberg’s theory of moral development as the main support for this approach to business ethics instruction in business schools. The rational validity of Kantian deontology and utilitarianism has been challenged by some scholars including the British analytical philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe. Anscombe’s 1958 essay titled, Modern Moral Philosophy made a substantial case for academia to jettison the two theories for want of foundation. Amidst other claims, Anscombe argues that the utilitarian concept of pleasure is axiomatically shallow, and that the theory fails to attend to the intention of the moral agent. Kantian deontology on the other hand, obliges moral agents without explaining the root cause of moral obligations: the Kantian concept of self-legislation, she argues, is simply an oxymoron (Anscombe, 1958). Werhane (1994) has also argued that the two theories are limited in that they are founded on rationalism. She holds that rationalism is tenuous in the moral sphere due to its individualistic, ahistorical, purely value-based perspective. In addition, business ethicists have criticized the use of Kantian deontology and utilitarianism in business ethics education for failing to enhance students’ moral behavioral and moral managerial competencies (Grant et al., 2007; Ritter, 2006; Rossouw, 2004, Waples et al., 2009). 2.3.2.3.3. Virtue ethics The history of virtue ethics in the western philosophical tradition dates back to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who explicated the theory in his Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, ca. 22 350 B.C.E./1996). Aristotle’s ethical theory was widely accepted in the west until the modern era ushered in a new paradigm for scientific thought that extended into the field of moral philosophy. Notwithstanding, Elizabeth Anscombe’s 1958 critique of modern moral philosophy against the backdrop of Aristotle’s ethical theory heralded a new interest in virtue ethics in the English-speaking world (Ferrero & Sison, 2014; Haldane, 2000). Virtue ethics was further bolstered by Alasdair MacIntyre’s critique of modernity and the modern corporation in a work titled After Virtue (MacIntyre, 1984). Since After Virtue, not a few scholars have published articles elucidating the merits of Aristotle’s ethical theory for business ethics education, research, and practice (Arjoon, 2000; Ferrero & Sison, 2014; Moore, 2005; Solomon, 1992). Hence, virtue ethics is now listed among the normative theories of business ethics in recent editions of some widely used business ethics textbooks (Acevedo, 2012). Aristotle’s virtue ethics is centered on the moral agent’s virtuous character or his good in so far as he is a rational being. The theory is teleological in that it determines the morality of human actions in reference to eudaimonia or human flourishing, as the innate purpose of human beings. In addition to the notions of virtue and eudaimonia, Aristotle’s virtue ethics hinges on the notion of phronesis or practical wisdom and the self-referential nature of human acts (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1996). Hence, according to Rossouw (2004) the objective of Aristotelian virtue ethics as employed in business ethics education is to enhance students’ affective and moral behavioral competence (Rossouw, 2004). However, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, while mainly focusing on students’ moral behavioral competence also attends to their moral cognitive competence. Ferrero and Sison (2014) argue that Aristotle’s virtue ethics integrates the merits of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism while cogently responding to their demerits. The theory evokes universal principles and takes consequences into account, just like Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, respectively. However, unlike utilitarianism, Aristotle’s virtue ethics prohibits intrinsically immoral actions despite their consequences; and unlike Kantian ethics, Aristotle’s virtue ethics considers the particulars of agents and their contexts (Ferrero & Sison, 2014). In this respect, Aristotle’s virtue ethics is akin to traditional African ethical theories as centered 23 on the moral agent’s rootedness in specific circumstances and relationships (Painter- Morland et al., 2003). Moreover, in both the Aristotelian and African ethical systems, ethical action requires, but is not guaranteed by moral reasoning or extrinsic motivations (Gichure, 2006; Painter-Morland et al., 2003). Likewise, virtue theory’s consideration of the particulars of agents and their contexts opens it up to insights from behavioral ethics and its ensuing moral managerial competencies (Mele, 2020). In fact, De los Reyes Jr et al. (2017) hold that the theory has the potential to integrate the normative and descriptive approaches in the business ethics classroom. According to Woiceshyn (1992) this potential is owed to the fact that Aristotle’s virtue theory is founded on a realist philosophy that overcomes the inherent ethical conflicts and deficiencies of rationalism and empiricism. Nonetheless, virtue ethics has been criticized for being obscure in its axiomatic concepts such as eudaimonia (Ferrero & Sison, 2014).). Hence, some scholars have ventured to enhance Aristotle’s ethical theory with new principles in a bid to make it more tenable for business ethics education and practice (Grant et al., 2017; Mele, 2009). 2.3.2.3.4. Domenec Mele’s personalist virtue ethics Domenec Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics integrates personalism into Aristotle’s moral theory (Mele, 2009; Mele, 2020). Personalism in its broadest sense refers to any worldview with a focus on the person. It is in this sense, for example, that one may speak of a personalist psychology or personalistic ecology. However, in strict philosophical parlance, personalism refers to either of two positions (Bengtsson, 2006): firstly, personalism is a philosophy whose starting point is the intuition and analysis of personhood and its unmediated experiences. This philosophy emerged in the eighteenth century in opposition to Hegel’s radical idealism. Secondly, personalism refers to any philosophical school that underscores the value of persons and their relational dimension: in this sense, one may speak of twentieth century personalist philosophers (Schaeffer, 2012). 24 Twentieth century personalism was a phenomenological-existential reaction against two opposing and mutually exclusive streams of thought: collectivism and individualism. Collectivism is a materialistic form of Hegelian idealism that alienates and absorbs the person into the dynamic process of an impersonal state. Conversely, individualism assumes that the ultimate good of human beings is their individual autonomy and private good. Against these two opposing ideologies, personalist philosophers in the twentieth century were concerned to reinstate to the person, his value and inherent dignity while maintaining his relational character. The three norms of personalism, as observed by Schaeffer (2012) are the inalienable and original dignity of the person, the moral dignity and telos of persons as a communion of love with other persons, and the mysterious and incomprehensible nature of persons as persons. Some personalist philosophers like Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, and Karol Wojtyla contemplate a metaphysical basis for personalism in the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition (Acevedo, 2012; Schaeffer, 2012). Hence, these philosophers are called realist personalist since they integrate personalist norms into the Aristotelian- Thomistic philosophical paradigm. An attempt at demonstrating how personalism maps onto Aristotelian-Thomism falls beyond the pretensions of this research. However, it will suffice to note that Thomistic-personalism is a practical philosophy that deeply connects being and normativity (Gronbacher, 1998). Unlike Kantian deontology which founds morality on self-legislation, Thomistic-personalism enhances Aristotle’s moral theory with the notion of natural law. Besides, Thomistic-personalism holds that moral philosophy intersects with social science in the human person (Whetstone, 2002). Hence, the philosophy has been applied to the fields of economics (Gronbacher, 1998) and business ethics (Mele, 2009; Mele, 2020). Domenec Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics integrates two realist personalist principles into an Aristotelian virtue-based business ethics. The first principle, referred to by Mele simply as the personalist principle, derives from the inalienable and original dignity of the person (Mele, 2009). He enunciates it as follows: “no human being should ever be treated as a mere means to an end. On the contrary, 25 persons should be treated with respect and even with rational benevolent love” (Mele 2020, p. 46). Mele’s personalist principle differs from Kant’s first categorical imperative in that it is not a formal a priori judgment based on subjective certitude. Rather it stems from a realist observation of people and their internal experience. In addition, Mele’s principle transcends Kant’s notion of respect to include rational benevolent love (Mele, 2020). According to Mele, this realist personalist principle makes the duty of respect, benevolence, mercy, and care for people [in business] explicit. The second principle, referred to by Mele as the common good principle, derives from the relational nature and social dimension of the human person (Mele, 2009). He formulates the principle as follows: “every social or economic system, institution, community or social activity finds its moral legitimacy from its contribution to the common good-the good of all persons and of the whole person” (Mele 2020, p. 49). Hence, Mele defines a business as a “community of persons based on cooperative activity to provide goods and services in an efficient, competitive and profitable way” (Mele, 2012 p.97). In addition, he holds that the purpose of a business is “to serve people’s needs through its intrinsic multi-ends consistently with the common good of the firm and the society” (Mele, 2020 p. 149). Thus, according to Mele, the relational nature of human persons as expressed in the common good principle firmly grounds cooperation among persons within a [business] community (Mele, 2009). Mele (2009) explains that integrating these two realist personalist norms into Aristotle’s virtue-ethics enhances it by providing it with a more complete foundation. In this way, Mele’s personalist virtue ethics overcomes the earlier mentioned critique of axiomatic obscurity levied against Aristotle’s ethical theory. Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics education also presupposes that “business ethics is a guide for human excellence in business” (Mele, 2020 p. 16). Hence, Mele holds that ethical business managers have personal moral virtues and employ a humanistic approach to business management. Mele defines moral virtues as “permanent attitudes and interior strengths for moral behavior” (Mele 2005, p. 9). According to Mele, business managers need moral virtues to identify the ethical dimension of business decisions and make sound moral judgments. In other words, the practical wisdom of 26 business managers in ethical decision making is measured by their moral character (Mele, 2005; Mele, 2009; Mele, 2020). A humanistic approach to business management on the other hand is centered on building a business organizational culture which fosters the acquisition of moral virtues. Consequently, Mele argues that business managers should “motivate people around them to acquire virtues and try to discover and promote beliefs and values within the organizational culture that foster human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent” (Mele 2003, p. 9). Lastly, Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics education presupposes a moderate ethical universalism (Mele, 2020). Moderate ethical universalism holds that there are universal ethical values and basic principles which are valid for all persons. However, these universal ethical values and principles must be applied with practical wisdom to particular circumstances and with the consideration of consequences. According to Mele (2020) moderate ethical universalism can be contrasted with the absolute ethical universalism of Kant which disregards circumstances and the consequences derived from applying principles and rules. It is also opposed to ethical relativism which rejects any form of ethical universalism to hold that there are as many equally valid moral codes as there are cultures (Mele, 2020). Domenec Mele also identifies the following three purposes of business ethics; firstly, to determine the acceptability of actions. Secondly, to solve ethical dilemmas that arise in particular business contexts and lastly, to inspire ethical improvements in concrete situations (Mele, 2020). According to Mele (2020) an important task of business ethics is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable actions in business. Unacceptable actions such as theft or business fraud flow from a few negative norms derived from universal principles and are often well defined in the law or business codes of conduct. Beyond these is a wide range of acceptable actions that require the use of practical wisdom to apply universal norms to concrete situations. Secondly, business ethics also serves to equip students with the capacity to solve ethical dilemmas emerging from difficulty in identifying what would be ethical in specific contexts. Lastly, Mele (2020) argues that 27 business ethics should inspire ethical improvements by considering how persons in business can attain ethical excellence in concrete circumstances. 2.4. Research gaps Studies on the extent to which business ethics is being taught in the USA and in AACSB International member schools abound. However, the available data on business ethics courses in Kenyan business schools does not report the level of study-undergraduate or graduate-, status-compulsory or elective-nor the degree programs in which business ethics courses are offered. Similarly, there is a dearth of research on the model of business ethics teaching in Kenyan business schools. In addition, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge; no empirical study has been done on the approaches to business ethics education in Kenyan business schools. The purpose of business ethics education in Kenya, the academic paradigms adapted, and ethical theories used in its instruction, has not been empirically researched. Likewise, no empirical studies have been conducted on business ethics education in business schools in the light of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics either globally, regionally, or locally. 2.5. Theoretical framework In line with research question three, this study employed Domenec Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics education for its theoretical framework. Concretely, the theoretical framework consisted of four philosophical presuppositions of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach and his three purposes of business ethics, as discussed in the above section. The first philosophical presupposition of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach used in this study is the inviolable dignity of the human person. This presupposition is at the basis of his personalist principle for business ethics which makes the duty of rational benevolent love, mercy, and care for people in business explicit. The second philosophical presupposition is the relational nature and social dimension of the human person. Founded on this presupposition, Mele defines a business as a “community of persons based on 28 cooperative activity to provide goods and services in an efficient, competitive and profitable way” (Mele, 2012 p.97). According to Mele, the purpose of a business is “to serve people’s needs through its intrinsic multi-ends consistently with the common good of the firm and the society” (Mele, 2020 p. 149). This understanding of the purpose of the firm is derived from the common good principle which makes explicit and firmly grounds cooperation among persons within a business. The third philosophical presupposition considers business ethics as a guide to human excellence in business in the pursuit of moral virtues. Hence according to Mele, business ethics is about developing personal moral virtues which affect the practical wisdom of managers in making sound business decisions. It also entails a humanistic approach to business management whereby managers have a role to promote human virtues at the individual and organizational levels. The fourth philosophical presupposition employed by the study is moderate ethical universalism as understood in Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach. Mele holds that there are universal ethical values and basic principles that are valid for all persons. However, these must be applied with practical wisdom to particular circumstances and in consideration of consequences. The above four philosophical presuppositions form part of the content of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach to business ethics education. Moreover, they provide a basis for Mele’s three purposes of business ethics, namely, to determine the acceptability of actions in business; to solve ethical dilemmas that arise in particular business contexts and to inspire ethical improvements in concrete business situations. The concepts outlined in the four philosophical presuppositions and three purposes of business ethics guided the data collection, analysis, and discussion of findings as shown in table 2.1. 29 Table 2.1: Model for evaluating the approach to business ethics education in business schools Source: The Author (2021) Philosophical presuppositions of Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach Presupposition Business ethics education-related statements 1. Inviolable dignity of human persons. 1. Rational benevolent love and mercy have a place in business. 2. The relational nature of human persons. 1. A business is a community of persons whose purpose is to serve people’s needs through its intrinsic multi-ends consistently with the common good of the firm and the society. 2. Moral agents in business are not solely motivated by self-interest. 3. Business ethics as a guide to human excellence in business. 1. Managers’ moral character determines the quality of their decisions. 2. Part of a managers’ role is to motivate employees to acquire human virtues. 3. Part of a managers’ role is to discover and promote beliefs and values within the organizational culture that foster human virtue. 4. Moderate ethical universalism. 1. Universal ethical values and basic principles are valid for all persons, but they must be applied with practical wisdom to particular situations. The purpose of business ethics according to Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach Purpose of business ethics Business ethics education-related statements 1. To determine acceptable and unacceptable actions in business. 1. To develop students’ awareness of the ethical dimensions of business. 2. To teach principles and rules regarding prohibited and acceptable actions. 3. To familiarize students with the relevant regulatory frameworks, e.g., local, and international laws and codes of ethics. 2. To solve ethical dilemmas. 1. To instruct students on how to tackle ethical dilemmas. 3. To encourage ethical improvements 3a. At the Individual level 1. To increase students’ moral sensitivity in business decision making. 2. To motivate students to act ethically in the business environment. 3. To encourage students to develop personal moral virtues. 3b. At the organizational level 1. To instruct students on the ethics of business functions. 2. To equip students with the capacity to ensure ethics in business systems. 3. To encourage students’ moral leadership. 30 2.6. Conclusion This chapter has been developed in line with the research objectives outlined in the first chapter. It has discussed the empirical and theoretical review of the literature on the extent and approaches to business ethics education in business schools. The research gaps have been identified and the theoretical framework has been developed. 31 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Introduction This chapter explains the methodology used to carry out the research. This includes the research design, the data collection tools, population, sampling and data analysis techniques that were employed in the study. The research quality and ethical considerations are also expounded. 3.2. Research design According to Saunders et al. (2009), a research design refers to the general plan used by a researcher to answer research questions. It provides an overview of the method chosen to carry out research and the reason for that choice. The researcher employed a mixed method research design since quantitative and qualitative data collection tools and techniques of data analysis were used concurrently (Saunders et al., 2009). Mixed method research designs are advantageous in that they work to provide a comprehensive analysis of a research problem (Creswell, 2009) especially when studying different aspects of a phenomenon (Bryman, 2006). This study was partly descriptive in its purpose; it also entailed a philosophical evaluation of findings. The objective of a study with a descriptive purpose is to describe the characteristics of a phenomenon: it focuses on the ‘what’ rather than the ‘how’ or ‘why’ of a phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2009). In line with the first and second research objectives, this research described the current extent and approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools. In addition, the study evaluated the approaches to business ethics education in undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Kenyan business schools from the perspective of Domenec Mele’s personalist virtue ethics approach as outlined in the third research objective. 3.3. Population and sampling A research population refers to a complete set of persons, objects, or events with common characteristics. However, a target population differs from a research population in that it 32 refers to the entire group of persons, objects, or events to which the researcher will generalize findings and conclusions (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). The target populations for this study consisted of deans and full-time business ethics faculty in Kenyan AABS member schools. A list of the AABS member schools in Kenya at the time of the study is provided in Appendix VI. The researcher carried out a web-based search of the official websites of the seven Kenyan AABS member schools with the aim of establishing the size of the two participant groups. It was established that the first participant group consisted of seven deans, one for each business school. However, information about the second participant group could not be found and was established by this study. The researcher found that two of Kenya’s AABS members schools do not offer a stand-alone business ethics course and therefore do not have full-time business ethics faculty. Table 3.1 shows the target population size of the two participant groups. Kenyan AABS member school No. of Deans No. of business ethics faculty B-School 1 1 5 B-School 2 1 7 B-School 3 1 7 B-School 4 1 5 B-School 5 1 0 B-School 6 1 0 B-School 7 1 4 TOTAL 7 28 Table 3.1: Deans and business ethics faculty in Kenyan AABS member schools as at July 2021 According to Saunders et al. (2009), where a target population is of a manageable size, it is possible to collect and analyze data from every possible case or group member. This technique is called a census (Saunders et al., 2009). Hence, in line with the descriptive nature of this study and the size of the target populations, a survey was conducted of the entire target populations using a census as opposed to a sampling technique. The researcher sought to collect data from all seven deans and all business ethics faculty in 33 Kenya’s AABS member schools. Responses were obtained from all seven deans or their representatives and from 12 business ethics faculty from the five Kenyan AABS member schools with full-time business ethics faculty. 3.4. Data collection tools In line with the mixed method research design of this study, data was collected using questionnaires with closed and open-ended questions. Questionnaires are most commonly used within a