IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc18/273488.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Importance of Moral Intensity: An Application to Ethical Food Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Bennett, Richard
  • Pfuderer, Simone

Abstract

In this study we analyse moral decision making in a food related setting. Jones (1991) argues that ethical issues vary in their perceived moral intensity, where moral intensity is “the extent of issuerelated moral imperative in a situation”. According to Jones, moral intensity is an issue-related construct that is made up of six main components: magnitude of consequences, social consensus, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity and concentration of effect. The moral intensity of an issue affects all stages of moral decision making. We measure the relative importance of different dimensions of moral intensity in a food related setting. We carry out a survey to investigate the impact of varying components of moral intensity in two setting where a food producer sells potentially harmful products. The aim is to measure how changes in these dimensions impact on individuals’ assessment of these dimensions as well as two stages in the ethical decision process.. We find a complexity of issues relating to how people consider morality in food production and consumption and the importance of the specific context to moral decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Bennett, Richard & Pfuderer, Simone, 2018. "The Importance of Moral Intensity: An Application to Ethical Food Issues," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273488, Agricultural Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc18:273488
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.273488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/273488/files/Simone_Pfuderer_Bennett_Pfuderer_AES%20Moral%20Intensity%20in%20Ethical%20Food%20Issues.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.273488?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sean Valentine & David Hollingworth, 2012. "Moral Intensity, Issue Importance, and Ethical Reasoning in Operations Situations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 509-523, July.
    2. Bennett, Richard & Blaney, Ralph, 2002. "Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 501-520, August.
    3. Singhapakdi, Anusorn & Vitell, Scott J. & Kraft, Kenneth L., 1996. "Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-Making of Marketing Professionals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 245-255, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, 2019. "Ethical Awareness, Ethical Judgment and Whistleblowing: A Moderated Mediation Analysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 289-304, March.
    2. Valentine, Sean & Godkin, Lynn, 2019. "Moral intensity, ethical decision making, and whistleblowing intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 277-288.
    3. Sean Valentine & Seong-Hyun Nam & David Hollingworth & Callie Hall, 2014. "Ethical Context and Ethical Decision Making: Examination of an Alternative Statistical Approach for Identifying Variable Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 509-526, October.
    4. Paramita, Widya & Indarti, Nurul & Virgosita, Risa & Herani, Rina & Sutikno, Bayu, 2022. "Let ethics lead your way: The role of moral identity and moral intensity in promoting social entrepreneurial intention," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    5. Evelyne Rousselet & Bérangère Brial & Romain Cadario & Amina Béji-Bécheur, 2020. "Moral Intensity, Issue Characteristics, and Ethical Issue Recognition in Sales Situations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 347-363, May.
    6. Sarah Bayer & Henner Gimpel & Serkan Sarikaya, 2019. "Bank customers’ decision-making process in choosing between ethical and conventional banking: a survey-based examination," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(6), pages 655-697, August.
    7. Ahmed Musbah & Christopher J. Cowton & David Tyfa, 2016. "The Role of Individual Variables, Organizational Variables and Moral Intensity Dimensions in Libyan Management Accountants’ Ethical Decision Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 335-358, March.
    8. Jocelyn Husser & Jean-Marc Andre & Véronique Lespinet-Najib, 2019. "The Impact of Locus of Control, Moral Intensity, and the Microsocial Ethical Environment on Purchasing-Related Ethical Reasoning," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 243-261, January.
    9. Wayne Decker & Thomas Calo, 2007. "Observers’ Impressions of Unethical Persons and Whistleblowers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 309-318, December.
    10. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    11. Fuan Li & Mike Chen-ho Chao & Nancy Yi-feng Chen & Sixue Zhang, 2018. "Moral judgment in a business setting: The role of managers’ moral foundation, ideology, and level of moral development," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 121-143, March.
    12. Zou, Lili Wenli & Chan, Ricky Y.K., 2019. "Why and when do consumers perform green behaviors? An examination of regulatory focus and ethical ideology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 113-127.
    13. Connie Bateman & Sean Valentine & Terri Rittenburg, 2013. "Ethical Decision Making in a Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Situation: The Role of Moral Absolutes and Social Consensus," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 229-240, June.
    14. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    15. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    16. Sefa Hayibor & David Wasieleski, 2009. "Effects of the Use of the Availability Heuristic on Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 151-165, January.
    17. Lee, Eun-Ju & Yun, Jin Ho, 2019. "Moral incompetency under time constraint," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 438-445.
    18. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Lu-Ming Tseng, 2019. "How Implicit Ethics Institutionalization Affects Ethical Selling Intention: The Case of Taiwan’s Life Insurance Salespeople," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 727-742, September.
    20. Aysen Bakir & Scott Vitell, 2010. "The Ethics of Food Advertising Targeted Toward Children: Parental Viewpoint," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 299-311, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aesc18:273488. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.