Employers, by applying ‘organisational moral disengagement’ may be making employees complicit in unethical behaviour and practices, a new study reveals.
Research by Aston and East Anglia universities, published in the journal Human Relations, has shown how organisations may – sometimes unwittingly – foster environments where unethical behaviours become justified and normalised. The authors claim the paper has far-reaching implications for corporate culture and ethical accountability.
Drawing on data from thousands of employees, the study introduces the concept of organisational moral disengagement, which explains how moral standards are systematically suspended by businesses and public sector bodies – to enable unethical practices that harm clients, communities and the environment.
Ethics
Exclusive: Gen Z has strong work ethic, study shows
Bribery: When does accepting gifts break the law?
Lloyd’s of London to align HR with bid to improve employee behaviour
The research found that effective internal reporting channels reduced organisational moral disengagement, while organisations that relied only on codes of conduct may unintentionally foster it if these codes were not authentically integrated into practice.
A particularly well known example of moral disengagement was the Volkswagen emissions scandal, said the authors. Here, managers and engineers in the company were involved in making, implementing and concealing a device to cheat on emissions testing. Similarly, as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry found, the companies that made and sold the cladding panels and insulation products used on Grenfell Tower had manipulated testing processes, misrepresented test data and misled the market. They were described by the inquiry as being “systematically dishonest” about their products.
The research found that organisational moral disengagement explained how likely it was that employees would participate in or remain silent about unethical practices.
The concept was not just a sum of individual attitudes, but a shared organisational mindset or culture that according to the analysis, “encourages, condones or justifies morally questionable behaviours under the guise of organisational benefit”.
By understanding how moral disengagement could operate collectively, the researchers argued, leaders could start to instead foster an ethical culture that reinforces moral standards and accountability.
Led by Professor Roberta Fida, Dr Irene Skovgaard-Smith and an international team, the research involved multiple organisations across various sectors.
Prof Fida said the use of euphemistic language was a typical component of moral disengagement.
References to price rigging as “stabilising prices”, which made unethical practices sound benign, was an example. She said unethical actions may also be rationalised as comparatively harmless, for example, ‘it’s not as bad as what our competitors are doing’ or ‘our products are safer than the alternatives’. Such mechanisms, she added, “can transform morally questionable practices into behaviours perceived as acceptable or even beneficial within the organisational context.”
Dr Skovgaard-Smith put the spotlight on another mechanism called the “diffusion of responsibility”.
She said: “Complex organisational structures, systems and procedures often obscure how decisions are made and who is responsible.
“This means that unethical decisions can be attributed to the system rather than personal choice or responsibility. Complex impersonalised organisational systems also conceal or distort any harmful consequences of organisational activities, for example, through global value chains, bureaucratic procedures and technology.
“This detachment makes it easier for harmful practices to proceed unchecked.”
These mechanisms made unethical actions feel routine for employees. Behaviours such as overlooking safety standards could become seen as “just following orders” or “necessary for efficiency,” leading employees to bypass their own moral standards.
Dr Skovgaard-Smith added: “From Facebook’s data privacy controversies to financial misreporting scandals, the study also sheds light on how organisations cultivate environments where people stay silent about unethical practices.
“When such practices are justified as being for the ‘greater good’ of the organisation, employees may feel pressure to remain silent rather than risk speaking up. This silence can reinforce a vicious cycle where unethical practices become normalised.”
Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Browse more human resources jobs
