# Leadership and business ethics: A conceptual framework for responsible management

Billel Ferhani

► To cite this version:

Billel Ferhani. Leadership and business ethics: A conceptual framework for responsible management. Corporate Ownership and Control, 2025, 22, pp.111 - 124. 10.22495/cocv22i1art9. hal-05009371

HAL Id: hal-05009371

https://hal.science/hal-05009371v1

Submitted on 28 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# LEADERSHIP AND BUSINESS ETHICS: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT

Billel Ferhani *

## OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

**How to cite this paper:** Ferhani, B. (2025). Leadership and business ethics: A conceptual framework for responsible management. *Corporate Ownership & Control, 22*(1), 111-124.

https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv22ilart9

Copyright © 2025 The Author

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

ISSN Online: 1810-3057

ISSN Print: 1727-9232

Received: 19.11.2024

Accepted: 13.03.2025

JEL Classification: M10, M12, M14

DOI: 10.22495/cocv22ilart9

## Abstract

Ethical leadership has emerged as a fundamental determinant of corporate governance and sustainable organizational practices, necessitating a deeper examination of its strategic dimensions. This paper explores the intersection of leadership and business ethics, proposing a conceptual framework for responsible management. Despite the extensive scholarship on ethical leadership, a critical gap persists in understanding the extent to which strategic leadership incorporates ethical considerations into decision-making processes. By identifying and analyzing various leadership styles within an ethical framework, this study elucidates both the convergences and divergences across these approaches. Through a synthesis of theoretical perspectives, this paper advances a structured approach to embedding ethics within leadership paradigms. The findings contribute to the academic discourse by offering a strategic framework that integrates ethical leadership with corporate governance and long-term organizational performance. Additionally, this study provides practical insights for business leaders seeking to cultivate ethical organizational cultures while maintaining competitive advantage. By bridging theoretical constructs with managerial applications, this research enhances both scholarly inquiry and business practice.

**Keywords:** Ethical Leadership, Business Ethics, Normative Ethics, Leadership Philosophy, Ethical Governance, Moral Leadership, Leadership Styles, Leadership Models, Organizational Ethics, Responsible Management, Ethical Decision-Making, Transformational Leadership, Servant Leadership, Virtue Ethics

**Authors' individual contribution:** The Author is responsible for all the contributions to the paper according to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) standards.

**Declaration of conflicting interests:** The Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Ethics in the organizational context has become a major concern among leading business ethics specialists to question a company's ability to perceive its social existence and to ethically judge the impact of its actions (Bureau & Buttin, 2013). In the last decade, a series of "unethical" events have shaken up the business world across a range of sectors. The Kerviel affair, in the banking sector, is an example (Eisenbeiss, 2012). As is the case of Arlette Ricci, the heiress of the Nina Ricci fashion house, who was sentenced to a three-year suspended

prison sentence for having concealed millions from the French tax authorities ("Nina Ricci heir", 2015). Another example is the Audi scandal that broke out in September 2015 after the U.S. Environmental Agency accused VW of equipping 11 million of its diesel cars, including some 600,000 in the U.S., with software capable of distorting the results of emissions tests (Eisenbeiss, 2012). Finally, leader companies such as Apple or Amazon were at the heart of the "Luxleaks" scandal, revealed in November 2014, accused of having used highly questionable tax practices via Luxembourg (Bowers, 2014).

<footnote>* Sorbonne Abu Dhabi for Innovation and Research Institute (SAFIR) (Sorbonne University of Abu Dhabi (SUAD) Research Institute), Abu Dhabi, UAE</footnote>

<footnote>Contact details: SAFIR (SUAD Research Institute), Al Reem Island, Abu Dhabi, 38044 UAE</footnote>
In order to prevent such deviant practices, organizations should take responsibility and increase their efforts to demonstrate ethical governance and promote ethical practices throughout the organizational hierarchy (Mayer et al., 2009). Knowing when and why individuals engage in unethical behavior is important, given the costly and destructive consequences for individuals, organizations, and society (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007). “Unethical behavior” is defined as behavior that falls outside of generally accepted norms of moral behavior such as cheating, lying, or stealing (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007; Treviño et al., 2003). A definition that is similar to Jones’ (1991) definition of unethical behavior as “a practice that is illegal or morally unacceptable to a community” (p. 367).

The multitude of studies that exist on issues related to unethical behavior in organizations provides an overview of the topic. Vardi and Weitz (2003) focus on misbehavior in the organization; Tyler and Blader (2005) on rule-breaking; Neill et al. (2005) on noncompliance with norms of good conduct; Hollinger and Clark (1982) on workplace deviance; Analoui (1995) on sabotage; Mangione and Quinn (1975) on counterproductivity; and Ashforth and Anand (2003) on corruption. A salient feature of unethical behavior is that it is malicious behavior whereby fundamental interests are at stake (Velasquez, 2003).

Consistent with current organizational issues, much of the research on ethics has focused on ethical leadership as an essential component of organizational success. From this perspective, researchers have been particularly interested in the effects of ethical leadership on employees' organizational citizenship behavior. Drawing on social learning theory, they have attempted to explain how ethical leaders serve as role models to disseminate ethical and just behaviors to their employees, subsequently enabling their subordinates to replicate these exemplary behaviors in their day-to-day actions (Yaffe & Kark, 2011). As the term suggests, the ethical leader pays more attention to ethical issues in leadership. According to Ciulla (1995), a good leader is not only characterized by effectiveness but also by ethics. In addition, Yukl and Gardner (2019) suggested that the uncertainty and immorality in the business environment contribute to a huge increase in the number of scientific studies that address ethical leadership and its consequences in the workplace.

Despite extensive research on ethical leadership, a significant gap remains in understanding how different leadership styles interact within an ethical framework to shape responsible management practices. While transformational and participative leadership approaches also incorporate ethical considerations, they differ in their mechanisms and outcomes (Huang et al., 2021). By identifying and analyzing various leadership styles within an ethical framework, this study highlights both the convergences and divergences across these styles, offering a strategic perspective on responsible management.

This paper starts by presenting the perception of leadership in the workplace, which can indeed sometimes be very difficult to perceive. Secondly, a normative interpretation of this concept is presented, followed by a summary of the definitions of ethical leadership in order to measure

the evolution of the concept and understand its theoretical basis. Finally, ethical leadership is compared to the different leadership styles that belong to the same leadership approach. This provides an overview of the foundations of ethical leadership, and the convergences and divergences with other leadership styles.

This research makes a significant contribution to the literature on ethical leadership through a systemic model that integrates theoretical and practice dimensions for responsible management. Earlier studies have examined ethical leadership through normative and virtue approaches, but in contrast, this article expands the discussion through integration with corporate governance and strategic decision processes. Drawing on significant works (Brown et al., 2005; Eisenbeiss, 2012; Kaptein, 2019), it extends them through an examination of how ethical leadership forms both employee behavior and long-term organizational survival. In addition, it addresses a critical gap in existing literature through a comparison between ethical leadership and similar approaches such as authentic, servant, and responsible leadership, and explains both their convergences and divergences. For practice, the work puts forward actionable information about infusing ethics into practice, such that ethical concerns become not mere moral requirements but assets for long-term success in business.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 present the theoretical framework of ethics and leadership, Section 3 outlines the differences of the ethical leadership versus leadership styles following an ethical approach, Section 4 presents the theories essential to understanding the impact of ethical leadership, and Section 5 concludes the paper.

## 2. ETHICS AND LEADERSHIP: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

### 2.1. Leadership perception: A real challenge for organizations

When perceived as leaders, managers are more likely to have positive evaluations, constructive relationships with subordinates, and access to more resources (Lord & Maher, 1991). According to Epitropaki and Martin (2004) when subordinates perceive their managers as leaders, they exhibit high organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and higher levels of job well-being as well as a greater willingness to engage in behaviors beneficial to the organization. All of this leads to higher overall organizational performance (De Luque et al., 2008).

How are leaders perceived within companies? Is leadership perceived within the company? Previous research has conceptualized that leadership perception is based on subordinates' sensory processes and that the activation of leadership perception is determined by subordinates' interpretations of their managers' behaviors and outcomes (Lord & Maher, 1991). Lord et al. (1984) assert that subordinates have pre-existing conceptions through which they form their perceptions of leadership. When a manager interacts with subordinates, perceptions of leadership are activated through the encoding and retrieval of relevant leader-related information which subordinates use as a basis for categorizing individuals as leader or non-leader
(Shondrick et al., 2010). If the traits of a prototypical
leader strongly match a subordinate's expectations,
the manager is likely to be classified as a leader by
that collaborator. For example, intelligent and
extroverted managers tend to be perceived as
leaders because these personal attributes represent
prototypical leadership (Antonakis, 2009; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004).

However, because collaborators' subjective
evaluations construct perceptions of leadership,
these could change across collaborators and
contexts (Foti et al., 2012; Hanges et al., 2000). Such
a relevant social context is one that provides strong
social ties between leaders and their collaborators.
For subordinates, informal social relationships with
their leader can serve as a reference to perceive
leadership within the organization (Balkundi et al.,
2011). For Lord and Maher (1991) leadership
generally involves face-to-face contact with
subordinates, either individually or in small groups.
At this level, perceptions of leadership are highly
dependent on these processes.

DeRue and Ashford (2010) build on this idea by
proposing that frequent leader-subordinate
interactions provide more opportunities to observe
leadership attributes, but also foster and solidify
the leader's identity. This means that through social
interactions, an individual can claim his/her
leadership role by displaying behaviors such as
being present as a trusted person and an advice
giver, after which subordinates confer a leader
identity by accepting his/her recommendations and
words. Over time, the leader's identity is
internalized and recognized by subordinates, which
promotes subordinates' perceptions of leadership
(Chui & Man, 2018).

## 2.2. Ethical leadership and its theoretical basis

### 2.2.1. Ethics and leadership style

The ethical dimension of leadership is gaining
momentum and importance, both among the general
public and researchers. This interest originates, in
part, from financial (Lawton & Páez, 2015) and
ethical scandals in the banking and oil industries
(Eisenbeiss, 2012) that have involved "unethical"
behavior by senior executives in high-profile
organizations, generating reactions in both
the academic and professional communities.

In light of these developments, organizations
should take responsibility and increase their efforts
to demonstrate ethical governance and promote
ethical practices throughout the organizational
hierarchy (Mayer et al., 2009). Researchers are,
therefore, increasingly interested in the very
important role of ethical leadership in
the organizational setting (Brown et al., 2005; Brown
& Treviño, 2006; Schaubroeck et al., 2012; Brown &
Mitchell 2010; Treviño et al., 2003).

The most widely recognized leadership
approaches identified in the social sciences are
complementary (Brown et al., 2005; Resick et al.,
2006; Ciulla, 1995; Gini, 1997; Kanungo & Mendonca,
1996; Northouse, (2018). The precursor of this
concept was Barnard (2005) who explored the leader
in more complex situations of moral dilemmas,
where leaders had to make choices between what is
good or bad and justify their choice to their staff.
Leaders were consequently represented as those
who had to make decisions and then justify them

and make them approvable and acceptable to others
(Bass, 2008). Subsequently, Kanungo and Mendonca
(1996) considered ethical leaders as individuals who
engage in beneficial virtuous behaviors and avoid
actions that could harm others. Similarly, Ciulla
(1995) saw that respect for the rights and dignity of
others is an essential characteristic of ethical
leadership.

Building on the power aspect of leadership,
Gini (1997) emphasized that ethical leaders use their
power in socially responsible ways. Adhering to
the work of Aristotle, Northouse (2018) suggested
five principles of ethical leadership, as follows:
ethical leaders must respect others, serve others, be
concerned with justice, honesty, and build
a responsible community.

It is also essential to highlight
multidimensional approaches that are generally
a continuation of the work of Brown et al. (2005)
refining the concept of ethical leadership by
specifying its sub-dimensions. For example,
Kalshoven et al. (2011) identified elements that they
termed "sub-dimensions", namely: fairness,
integrity, orientation of individuals, clarification of
roles within the organization, ethical support as well
as power sharing. In addition, the work of Resick
et al. (2006) used similar sub-dimensions to assess
ethical leadership, such as character, integrity,
altruism, motivation, encouragement and
empowerment.

Researchers have however paid little attention
to the moral components of ethical leadership
(Brown & Treviño, 2006; Mayer et al., 2012).
The existing literature has not yet provided
a thorough discussion of the moral components of
ethical leadership. Thus, further research on this
topic seems necessary in order to focus on
the morality of the ethical leader and explain
the differences observed in the moral behavior of
subordinates (van Gils et al., 2015).

### 2.2.2. Character, personality and attitudes associated with the ethical leader

There are different ways of portraying
the personality or character of ethical leaders. Petit
and Saint-Michel (2018) identified some essential
characteristics of being an ethical leader, such as
the development of cognitive morality which refers
to a leader's ability to distinguish right from wrong
(Kohlberg, 1984). According to Petit and Saint-Michel
(2018), leaders who have been able to develop
a cognitive morality are more likely to exhibit ethical
behavior, that is, to be honest, virtuous, and have
integrity.

### 2.2.3. Honesty leveraging ethical leadership

According to Brown et al. (2005), much research
often links perceived leadership effectiveness with
leader honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. These
characteristics are considered important elements
that make up the idealized influence of
a transformational leader (Avolio, 1999). Based on
character traits, Howell and Avolio (1992) found that
honesty was only one of many characteristics that
differentiate ethical leaders from non-ethical
leaders. Furthermore, ethical leaders are known for
their integrity and treat their employees fairly and
impartially, which helps promote employees'
perception of leaders' honesty (Bedi et al., 2016).
Indeed, researchers have shown that honesty and
fairness are critical to a role model's credibility and
attractiveness and are significant predictors of
ethical leadership (Avolio, 1999; Brown et al., 2005)
In addition, Treviño et al. (2000) reported that
characteristics such as honesty and trustworthiness
represent the leverage of the moral aspect of
the individual. They also found that ethical
leadership required a "moral manager", an aspect
that involved a number of visible behaviors that did
not only stem from the leader's personal traits.

2.2.4. *The virtues of an ethical leader*

The concept of virtue in the sense of Aristotle has
been prominent in the discussion of leadership
ethics (Sarros & Cooper, 2006). Oakley and Cocking
(2001) define virtue as a character trait that we need
to lead a humanly flourishing life. According to
these authors, virtue represents the means by which
we become fully human because it enables us to
achieve our natural end, the good eudemonic life.
The term "Eudaimonia" has been variously
translated as "happiness" or "well-being" (Bedi et al.,
2016). It is necessary to emphasize that according to
Sarros and Cooper (2006), virtues are essential in
the character of a leader and can be developed over
time. With this in mind, a key question arises in
order to understand whether ethical leaders possess
special virtues (Petit & Saint-Michel, 2018). Several
works have been able to identify six traditional
virtues (Peterson & Seligman 2004; Neubert et al.,
2009), including courage, temperance, justice,
prudence, humanity and transcendence. Petit and
Saint-Michel (2018) clarified that these six virtues
are essential in defining who ethical leaders actually
are. Generally speaking, having ethical practices
requires wisdom and knowledge to convey new
visions in the workplace, courage to implement
them, justice to maintain fairness among
collaborators, temperance to act reflectively, and
finally transcendence to offer a positive and
enthusiastic vision of the future (Petit & Saint-
Michel, 2018).

To understand this construct in more detail, we
will present a different interpretation of ethical
leadership that draws primarily on philosophical
approaches in order to establish a robust theoretical
framework and to identify the conceptual
differences between the definitions that exist to
date.

## 2.3. Ethical leadership and philosophical foundations: A normative interpretation

Early work on ethical leadership is characterized by
a purely normative orientation<fnref n="1" /> (Oiry et al., 2015).
Indeed, the majority of researchers have mobilized
the work of Russell (1945) to evoke philosophical
traditions and distinguish between different
philosophical readings of ethics in business. It is,
therefore, essential to draw on the work of Ünal
et al. (2012) to distinguish the three main
philosophical approaches that have informed
thinking about ethical leadership.

It begins with the *deontological approach*,
which focuses on the consequences of the actions of
ethical leaders. An ethical behavior is considered to

be an act whose consequences can be considered as
good or bad. The philosophical foundations of this
approach can be found in Kantian philosophy, which
aims to characterize an act by the consequences it
produces.

Secondly, the *teleological approach* focuses on
the ends pursued by the leader who engages in
ethical behavior and seeks to identify whether that
ethical behavior has increased the happiness of
individuals. Unlike the deontological approach,
which focuses on the nature of a decision,
the teleological approach focuses on maximizing
the good produced by a decision and primarily on
the consequences of decisions (Audi, 2007).
Utilitarianism primarily favors decisions that
generate the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of individuals in a society (Audi, 2007).
Jeremy Bentham, often considered the founder of
utilitarianism, was particularly concerned with
the equality of interests and individual capacity to
achieve happiness (Dinwiddy 1989). Because this
approach focuses primarily on cost-benefit analyses,
it is a theory that deals with ethical dilemmas and is
often mobilized to study economic phenomena such
as profit maximization (Audi, 2007). There are
several types of utilitarianism, including act
utilitarianism<fnref n="2" /> (Oiry et al., 2015) and rule
utilitarianism<fnref n="3" /> (Audi, 2007), but these types of
utilitarianism refer to Bentham's seminal
philosophical work. According to Oiry et al. (2015)
for this approach it is no longer the consequences of
acts that allow them to be considered ethical but
the purposes with which they were initiated.

Thirdly, the *virtue ethics approach*, not only
focuses on the consequences of ethical behaviors
and the ends pursued by those who perform them,
but strives to highlight that ethical leadership is
related to individuals who cultivate specific "virtues"
such as excellence, judgment, integrity (Oiry et al.,
2015). According to Solomon (1993), virtues
represent a shorthand way of summarizing
the ideals that define good character in individuals.
Thus, individuals who demonstrate virtues are
oriented toward developing good communities that
reinforce the pursuit of a virtuous life, strive for
excellence, understand and respect the obligations
of organizational roles, find consistency between
the pursuit of excellence in all areas of personal and
professional life, demonstrate integrity through
trustworthy and honest behavior, and demonstrate
deep reflection when faced with an ethical dilemma
(Solomon, 1993).

The normative approach offers a prescriptive
interpretation of ethical leadership, however, it does
not allow researchers to analyze what the behaviors
of individuals are "in situation". It does not aim to
describe the behaviors of ethical leaders in
organizations, which is the objective of
the descriptive approach to ethical leadership. This
approach is considered to be emerging and aims
to describe ethical leadership practices in
organizations (Mayer et al., 2009). The descriptive
approach builds on the seminal work of Gerth and
Mills (1948). The work analyses the views of Max
Weber who distinguished what he called
the "ethics of conviction"<fnref n="4" /> from the "ethics of

<footnote n="1">¹ Normative philosophy includes all questions that concern normative concepts such as values, norms, virtues, rights, goods, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Do ethical acts produce individual or collective happiness?</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Is it the rules that produce this?</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ It says what must be. To do this, it considers that principles of relevance of the conviction pre-exist the action. This ethic is not directly concerned with the acts performed in the name of these principles. Individuals who adopt this type of ethic are generally self-confident, act doctrinally and may demonstrate</footnote>
responsibility”<fnref n="5" /> (Oiry et al., 2015). The literature on the descriptive approach to ethical leadership sometimes struggles to articulate this seminal work with its renewed approach to ethical leadership (Treviño et al., 2003). For Oiry et al. (2015) the objective here is no longer to say what ethical behaviors should be but to describe what they are and how they diffuse within the company.

## 2.3. What actually is ethical leadership?

In order to explore ethical leadership, we have identified twelve commonly mobilized definitions of it as a concept (see Table 1) belonging to the dominant perspective of normative philosophy. These fall into two categories:

1. Morally appropriate and useful leadership behaviors (Wang & Hackett, 2020). The authors who have mobilized this utilitarian approach are interested in the ends pursued by the leader who engages in ethical behaviors and strives to identify whether their actions influence the behaviors of their collaborators.

2. Virtue-based leadership behaviors (Newstead et al., 2021). Proponents of this court emphasize the importance of virtues in the behavioral influence process.

The first of the above two categories is reflected in a utilitarian definition of ethical leadership by Craig and Gustafson (1998) and Yukl et al. (2013), who defined the behaviors of an ethical leader as beneficial and not harmful to actors in the workplace. Additionally, Brown et al. (2005) defined ethical leadership as “normatively appropriate conduct” and thus also in a normative manner. Other researchers have followed a normative approach in their definitions. For example, Kaptein (2019, p. 1141) defined ethical leadership as a process of moral entrepreneurship that seeks to develop new ethical norms in order to deal with moral problems that will arise in the short or long term. Also, Shakeel et al. (2020, p. 10) define ethical leadership as the implicit and explicit pursuit of desired ethical behavior for oneself and one's collaborators through rules and principles.

In contrast, there are four other conceptualizations of ethical leadership, which reflect the virtues or good intentions of a leader (Newstead et al., 2021). Riggio et al. (2010) took the virtues-based approach explicitly and defined ethical leadership as adherence to prudence, courage, temperance, and justice as virtues of leaders. Similarly, Langlois et al. (2014) viewed ethical leadership as a social practice that follows three ethical dimensions, namely: questioning, caring and justice. Another conceptualization supported by the virtues approach is that of Fehr et al. (2015, p. 184) who viewed ethical leadership as the demonstration and promotion of ethical behaviors in business.

It is necessary to refer to the definition of Kalshoven et al. (2011) who situate ethical leadership on the terrain of tension between altruism and selfishness. In other words, the ethical leader must demonstrate consistency and integrity.

He/she must also promote ethical conduct while enabling his/her collaborators to achieve their goals.

Moreover, it is clear that the key difference between the two proposed approaches to ethical leadership lies in the dynamic that exists between the leader and his/her collaborators;

1. On the one hand, the proponents of the utilitarian current have focused mainly on the impact of the position that the leader occupies on his/her employees. Indeed, by acting as a role model, the ethical leader enables employees to learn to behave in a more ethical manner and to convey an ethical vision in the workplace.

2. On the other hand, researchers who mobilize a virtue-based approach tend to emphasize the personal characteristics of ethical leaders. This perspective links leaders' individual beliefs to their behaviors, which makes it easy for them to promote ethics in business.

It can, therefore, be understood that ethical leadership focuses more on compliance and alignment with norms and normative expectations. From this perspective, the majority of empirical studies on ethical leadership mobilize the definition of Brown et al. (2005) without giving any justification or reflexive argumentation. This is certainly due to the simple and very clear formulation in which the two components of ethical leadership moral person and moral manager are distinguished (Brown et al., 2005) as well as the large number of citations that can easily influence the researchers' choice. Nevertheless, there are two articles that clearly explain this choice (Mayer et al., 2009; Rubin et al., 2010) by placing ethical leadership at the heart of positive forms of leadership and by referring to the direct and explicit orientation of the concept towards the ethical aspect of leadership.

Despite its wide use, Brown et al.'s (2005) design is still very limited and attracts much criticism. Indeed, Fehr et al. (2015) note that these researchers have downplayed the role of other less-studied elements of morality, such as honesty and loyalty. The current focus on a narrow part of the moral domain does not provide the necessary elements to build a comprehensive theory of ethical leadership (Fehr et al., 2015). As a result, Fehr et al. (2015) believe that Brown et al.'s (2005) conception lacks openness and primarily neglects issues that are of paramount moral importance to many individuals around the world. Thus, the focus is too much on the interpersonal component of leadership rather than analyzing how ethical leaders set ethical goals in the workplace.

Furthermore, Kaptein (2019) discusses that the leader is under the obligation to create opportunities and situations in which ethical values can be conveyed. Indeed, this component complements the other two components of ethical leadership, i.e., moral person and moral manager and allows the leader to focus on the norms to be established and implemented. The obligation to create ethical norms remains indispensable and at the same time allows for compliance with existing ethical norms and the stimulation of others to follow them.

Finally, this paper defines ethical leadership as the ability to behave ethically with all stakeholders, to convey and promote ethical standards to employees, to ensure the application of these standards, and also the ability to create ethical standards.

<footnote>a certain disregard for the consequences of acts performed in the name of their ethical principles.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ This type of ethics considers that such principles of relevance do not pre-exist action and that ethics is judged in actions. Individuals who adopt this “ethic of responsibility”, therefore, accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1. Summary of definitions and measurement scales for ethical leadership</caption><thead><tr><td>Author(s)</td><td>Definitions</td><td>Scale of measurement</td><td>Ethical approach</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Craig and Gustafson (1998, p. 129)</td><td>"Rule-based utilitarian approach (Burns & Hart, 1970) labels an act [leader] wrong or unethical if it violates explicit or implicit rules which, if followed by all, would maximize outcomes for the majority of individuals".</td><td>Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS)</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr><tr><td>Brown et al. (2005, p. 120)</td><td>"The demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making".</td><td>Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS)</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr><tr><td>Spangenberg and Theron (2005, p. 2)</td><td>"Leadership of ethics comprises the creation and sharing of an ethical vision (based on careful diagnosis of the external and internal environments in which all relevant parties participate); preparing the leader, followers, and the organization — particularly its structures and culture — for implementing the vision; and the actual implementation process itself".</td><td>Ethical Leadership Inventory (ELI)</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr><tr><td>De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008, p. 300)</td><td>"Through role modeling, ethical leaders promote altruistic behavior among organizational members... Moreover, via ethical behavior leaders earn the confidence and loyalty of their followers".</td><td>Ethical Leadership Dimensions Scale (morality and fairness, role clarification, and power sharing)</td><td>"Virtue ethics" approach</td></tr><tr><td>Riggio et al. (2010, p. 235)</td><td>"Ethical leader is one who adheres to the four cardinal virtues of prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice".</td><td>Leadership Virtue Questionnaire (LVQ)</td><td>"Virtue ethics" approach</td></tr><tr><td>Kalshoven et al. (2011, p. 53)</td><td>"Ethical leadership including acting fairly, demonstrating consistency and integrity, promoting ethical conduct, being concerned for people, allowing 'followers' voice, and sharing power".</td><td>Ethical Leadership at Work Questionnaire (ELW)</td><td>"Virtue ethics" approach</td></tr><tr><td>Eisenbeiss (2012, p. 793)</td><td>"Open what norms ethical leaders may refer to when promoting them to followers... Does ethical leadership behavioral ways mean compliance with the prevalent organizational norms? What if these norms demanded behavior that is not in accordance with general moral values and standards?"</td><td>The author promotes the use of the ELS by Brown et al. (2005) and the ELW by Kalshoven et al. (2011)</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr><tr><td>Yukl et al. (2013, p. 38)</td><td>"Ethical leaders engage in acts and behaviors that benefit others, and at the same time, they refrain from behaviors that can cause any harm to others".</td><td>Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr><tr><td>Langlois et al. (2014, p. 312)</td><td>"Ethical leadership is defined as a social practice by which professional judgment is autonomously exercised. It constitutes a resource rooted in three ethical dimensions — critique, care, and justice — as well as a powerful capacity to act in a responsible and acceptable manner".</td><td>Ethical Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ)</td><td>"Virtue ethics" approach</td></tr><tr><td>Fehr et al. (2015, p. 184)</td><td>"We define ethical leadership as the demonstration and promotion of behavior that is positively moralized. Moralization, in turn, refers to the process through which an observer confers a leader's actions with moral relevance".</td><td>The authors proposed a model with six dimensions that builds on other measurement scales such as ELW, ELQ, ELS.</td><td>"Virtue ethics" approach</td></tr><tr><td>Kaptein (2019, p. 1141)</td><td>"Moral entrepreneurship depends on whether there are moral issues that need to be addressed or that will arise in the short or long term. These moral issues, whether they are problems, dilemmas, or challenges, are conditions for or enablers of societal improvement and development. If everything were and remained perfect, there would be no need to develop new ethical norms".</td><td>The author favors the use of the ELW Kalshoven et al. (2011) because of its multidimensional nature.</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr><tr><td>Shakeel et al. (2020, p. 10)</td><td>"Ethical leadership is the implicit and explicit pursuit of desired ethical behavior for self and followers through efforts governed by rules and principles that advocate learning motivation, healthy optimism and clarity of purpose to uphold the values of empowerment, service to others, concern for human rights, change for betterment and fulfilling duty towards society, future generations, environment and its sustainability".</td><td>Broader Conceptualization and Measurement Scale of Ethical Leadership (BELS)</td><td>Utilitarian approach</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3. ETHICAL LEADERSHIP VERSUS LEADERSHIP STYLES FOLLOWING AN ETHICAL APPROACH: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

One of the known criticisms of ethical leadership is that made by Levine and Boaks (2014) who believe that it may simply be a good leadership style. Therefore, it is important to understand how ethical leadership differs from other leadership styles. Indeed, an important part of any conceptualization is to differentiate the concept from others that might be closely related or even overlap in several

characteristics. Thus, in the case of ethical leadership, we should distinguish it from other types of leadership, in particular those related to the ethical approach, meaning: authentic leadership, servant leadership and responsible leadership. The objective of this part of the paper is to summarize the foundations of the leadership styles that belong to the same theoretical line of thought. This summary will help to identify the convergences and divergences that exist between these different leadership styles.
**3.1. Authentic leadership**

The authentic leader is most often portrayed as someone who is transparent and positive and uses a coherent discourse to interact with their employees. Yukl et al. (2013) highlighted several positive characteristics associated with authentic leaders such as honesty, selflessness, caring, and optimism. George (2004) points out that authentic leaders go out of their way to use their leadership to serve others and are guided as much by heart, compassion, and reason as they are by analytical qualities. Many researchers describe authentic leaders as individuals who have a very high level of self-awareness. Indeed, this characteristic includes knowing one's strengths and weaknesses, the dominant and recessive aspects of one's personality, and the impact of one's emotions on one's behavior (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Henderson & Hoy, 1982).

Henderson and Hoy (1982) saw authentic leaders as responsible, non-manipulative individuals who strive to be themselves regardless of the roles they take on. The concept was then further developed by Gardner et al. (2005) and Luthans and Avolio (2003) following a series of scandals that appeared in the organizational environment. Indeed, these authors emphasize that authentic leaders are perceived by their collaborators as being as aware of their own strengths, skills, and guiding values as they are of those of others. They are aware of the context in which they operate, confident and hopeful, resilient, and highly moral (Françoise, 2016).

Although authentic leadership is considered a precursor concept to all other leadership styles that follow an ethical approach (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), it primarily manifests attributes such as self-awareness, self-regulation, and leader self-concordance (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). In contrast to the ethical leader who places great emphasis on compliance and normative aspects in his/her relationships with others.

**3.2. Servant leadership**

In contrast to ethical and authentic leadership, servant leadership takes a backseat to its representation of the leader and his/her role (Françoise, 2016). Thus, this leadership style shows that there is another, more inclusive version than the one that presents the leader as a heroic figure. Belet (2011) confirmed that the servant leader sees himself/herself as serving the group rather than the other way around. From this perspective, Françoise (2016) cites Van Dierendonck (2011) who illustrates this form of inversion: placing oneself at the service authorizes someone to exercise a form of leadership, whereas leading only implies that others are at one's service (Françoise, 2016, p. 169).

Servant leadership has been defined by Greenleaf (1970, 1977, 1998) as a leader who is, above all, at the service of others and his/her presence is very important to ensure the evolution of employees, to allow them to grow professionally while being wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servant-leaders. "The servant-leader is servant first... to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served... Do those serve to grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer,

more autonomous, and more likely to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?" (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 27). In his article, Spears (2010) identified ten characteristics to categorize a servant leader, namely: listening, empathy, knowing how to ease the pains of others, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the development and growth of others, and the ability to build community. These characteristics enable leaders to ensure organizational goals and at the same time, ensure the growth of their people.

Being perceived by others as a servant has been identified as a key attribute of the servant leader (Graham, 1991). While other leadership approaches, such as ethical and transformational leadership, include the notion of behavioral imitation of the leader's actions by his/her collaborators. Several researchers (Liden et al., 2014; Van Dierendonck, 2011) have referred to the culture of serving others or the culture of servant leadership conveyed by the servant leader in business. Furthermore, we find the notion of the "model leader" in this leadership style (Liden et al., 2008). Indeed, servant leaders can, consciously or unconsciously, influence the behaviors of employees by being a source of inspiration or simply a good reference model (Liden et al., 2014).

**3.3. Responsible leadership: Can it be considered as a style that follows an ethical approach?**

From a normative perspective once again, it is essential to incorporate responsible leadership as a leadership style under an ethical and societal orientation into our comparison. This emerging notion (Maak & Pless, 2006; Doh & Quigley, 2014; Stahl & Sully de Luque, 2014; Waldman & Balven, 2014; Miska & Mendenhall, 2018) finds its place at the heart of an overlap of ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Responsible leadership has been defined by Maak and Pless (2006) as "a relational and ethical phenomenon that takes place in processes of interaction with those who affect or are affected by the leadership and have an interest in the purpose and vision of the leadership relationship" (p. 103). In fact, these authors consider responsible leadership as a phenomenon based on ethical and normative considerations, thus seeking to combine the ethical and CSR vision in the same perspective.

Furthermore, Igalens and Pourquier (2019) see responsible leadership as a relationship based on strong values and ethical principles between leaders and stakeholders that are connected through a shared sense of meaning and purpose through which they rise to higher levels of motivation and commitment for sustainable value creation and social change.

Two very relevant elements mentioned by Miska and Mendenhall (2018) reinforce the idea of placing this leadership style under an ethical approach. On the one hand, this concept is based on a normative assumption inherent in stakeholder theory (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). This has long been aligned with the philosophical underpinnings of traditional leadership research. On the other hand, the broad, inclusive, and relational orientation of the concept has led to focused concerns about
the scope of stakeholders involved and the kinds of responsibilities leaders should assume.

In accordance with their respective conceptual definitions presented immediately above, the main distinction between these leadership styles is the respect of norms. Among the ethical approaches to leadership, ethical leadership is the only style

where the leader uses rewards and punishments to hold employees accountable to organizational norms and values.

Through Table 2, we have tried to summarize the convergences and divergences between these leadership styles while providing an illustrative diagram (Figure 1) to help assimilate the content.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Summary of the differences between ethical leadership and other styles</caption><thead><tr><td>Leadership style</td><td>Definitions</td><td>Some key references</td><td>Divergence with other styles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethical leadership</td><td><strong>Utilitarian approach:</strong><br>"The demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making" (Brown et al., 2005, p. 120).<br><strong>Virtue ethics approach:</strong><br>"Ethical leadership includes acting fairly, demonstrating consistency and integrity, promoting ethical conduct, being concerned for people, allowing 'followers' voice, and sharing power" (Kalshoven et al., 2011, p. 53).</td><td>Brown et al. (2005),<br>De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008), Eisenbeiss (2012),<br>Fehr et al. (2015), Kalshoven et al. (2011), Kaptein (2019),<br>Treviño et al. (2006),<br>Yukl et al. (2013)</td><td><ul><li>Treating employees fairly</li><li>Communicating with openness and honesty</li><li>Using rewards and punishments to hold employees accountable for their ethical conduct</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Responsible leadership</td><td>"Social-relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs in social processes of interaction in order to achieve societal and environmental targets and objectives of sustainable value creation and positive change on a global scale" (Maak & Pless, 2006, p. 99).</td><td>Doh and Quigley (2014),<br>Igalens and Pourquier (2019),<br>Maak and Pless (2006),<br>Miska and Mendenhall (2018),<br>Stahl and Sully de Luque (2014),<br>Waldman and Balven (2014)</td><td><ul><li>Consideration of stakeholders</li><li>Creating value for the internal and external community</li><li>Highly developed societal vision</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Authentic leadership</td><td>"A process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development" (Luthans & Avolio, 2003, p. 243).</td><td>Avolio et al. (2004),<br>Gardner et al. (2011),<br>Luthans and Avolio, (2003),<br>May et al. (2003),<br>Shamir and Eilam (2005),<br>Walumbwa et al. (2008)</td><td><ul><li>Self-awareness</li><li>Authenticity</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Servant leadership</td><td>"The servant-leader is servant first... the difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant — first to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served... do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit or, at least, not be further deprived?" (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14).</td><td>Greenleaf (1970),<br>Greenleaf, (1998),<br>Liden et al. (2008),<br>Liden et al. (2014),<br>Russell and Stone (2002),<br>Van Dierendonck (2011)</td><td><ul><li>A close relationship with one's employees</li><li>Encourages employee autonomy</li><li>Promote the objectives of its employees</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Convergences and divergences between the leadership styles of the ethical approach</figcaption></figure>

## 4. THEORIES ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

To explore ethical leadership, Brown and Treviño (2006) mobilized two theoretical frameworks: *social learning theory* (Bandura, 1977) and *social exchange theory* (Blau, 1964). The first theory focuses on the antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership and suggests that individuals learn the norms of appropriate conduct through their own experience, and by observing others (Bandura, 1986). Regarding the second theory, Blau (1964) asserts that employees are more likely to imitate and

internalize the value-based behaviors of their ethical leadership model (Brown & Treviño, 2006).

A very recent interpretation proposed by Banks et al. (2021), which is based on signaling theory (Spence, 1974, 2002), explains that leaders can send “ethical” signals through their behavior. Indeed, ethical signals can be received either by employees, customers, suppliers or investors for example. These signals can take various forms, such as making the right decision in the face of an ethical dilemma or rewarding an employee for ethical and responsible behavior. Table 3 summarizes the three theories that can help us understand the influence of ethical leaders in the workplace.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Theories for understanding the impact of ethical leadership</caption><thead><tr><td>Theories</td><td>Central question</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986)</td><td>Why and how do ethical leaders influence their employees?</td><td>Ethical leaders, because of their hierarchical position and their power of influence, are leading figures among their employees, in particular, because of their attractiveness and their credibility as “role models”, as they draw the attention of their team to their exemplary behavior.</td></tr><tr><td>Social exchange theory (Blau, 1968; Cropanzano et al., 2017)</td><td>How does the ethical leader work with his/her teams to generate positive results?</td><td>According to social exchange theory, a principle of reciprocity is implicitly applied. Indeed, when employees perceive a leader as being “concerned” about their expectations and well-being, they feel reciprocally obliged to support him/her, follow him/her and implement his/her directions.</td></tr><tr><td>Signaling theory (Spence, 1974, 2002)</td><td>How can the signals sent by the leader improve the quality of the leader/collaborator relationship?</td><td>If we explore the leader/collaborator relationship, we find that there is a great deal of information asymmetry, particularly on ethical issues in companies, which weakens the relationship between the two parties. Thus, leaders send signals through behaviors and ethical characteristics that will be perceived positively or negatively by employees.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5. CONCLUSION

This paper has attempted to provide a theoretical state of the art on the foundations of ethical leadership, its links with other leadership styles and the theories that are necessary to explore and understand its impact in the workplace. In the business world, most theories describe leadership as an ethics-infused model that exposes practices and then leads companies to address

unethical behavior. Several authors seek to show, with varying degrees of awareness, that their models of moral leadership are also economically effective. According to Ciulla et al. (2013), most of these theories are normative, at least in the sense that they attach, conditionally if not essentially, a notion of ethics to their definitions of leadership.

Furthermore, this paper makes an important contribution to the literature on ethical leadership by demonstrating that ethical leadership plays
a major role in managing negative employee attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Because it encompasses ethical communication and reinforcement of appropriate behavior, ethical leadership can promote ethical actions by employees and prevent unethical intentions and behaviors. The literature has emphasized the importance of ethical leadership in cultivating positive attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, and its importance in achieving higher levels of job performance (Kalshoven et al., 2011; Neubert et al., 2009).

Consequently, ethical leadership involves setting and pursuing ethical goals and influencing others in an ethical manner. Current approaches to ethical leadership have focused on the interpersonal component of leadership by analyzing how ethical leaders exercise power and influence. In summary, it is clear that individuals in power must synchronize ethics with the pragmatism that management demands in order to be perceived as ethical leaders by employees. Otherwise, they are likely to be seen as hypocrites, if not practicing what they preach, because hypocritical leaders talk about the importance of ethics, but their actions show that they can be dishonest and unscrupulous.

While this study provides a comprehensive conceptual framework for ethical leadership as a strategic asset in responsible management, several limitations should be mentioned. These limitations present opportunities for future research to refine and extend our understanding of ethical leadership in complex organizational environments.

This study primarily employs a conceptual and theoretical approach to ethical leadership, similar to previous works such as Brown et al. (2005) and Kaptein (2019). While this method allows for a rich synthesis of ideas, it lacks empirical validation. Future research should incorporate longitudinal and experimental studies to examine how ethical leadership behaviors evolve over time and influence organizational performance in dynamic settings. Additionally, ethical leadership has been widely studied in Western contexts, but research in emerging economies remains limited (Eisenbeiss, 2012; Shakeel et al., 2020). This paper does not account for how cultural dimensions, such as collectivism versus individualism, shape ethical leadership perceptions and practices. Future studies should conduct cross-cultural analyses to understand how ethical leadership manifests across diverse institutional and socio-political environments.

Although this study differentiates ethical leadership from authentic, servant, and responsible leadership, prior research (Liden et al., 2014; Walumbwa et al., 2008) suggests that these leadership styles often overlap. Empirical studies should further investigate the distinct and complementary effects of ethical leadership in contrast to these related constructs, particularly in influencing employee behavior and ethical decision-making. Furthermore, similar to past studies (Treviño et al., 2003; Mayer et al., 2009), this research largely focuses on the individual and organizational levels of ethical leadership. However, ethical leadership operates within a multi-level framework, influencing not just individual employees but also teams, industries, and societal institutions. Future research should explore how ethical leadership cascades across different levels, including its effects on industry-wide ethical norms and corporate governance standards.

A lot of studies (Neubert et al., 2009; Kalshoven et al., 2011) confirm that ethical leadership impacts job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, the direct relationship between ethical leadership and employee mental health remains underexplored. Future research should investigate how ethical leadership contributes to psychological well-being, burnout prevention, and workplace inclusivity. Over the past eight years, high-impact academic reviews have established key findings in ethical leadership, highlighting its impact on employee engagement, knowledge sharing, organizational silence, and performance outcomes. This study diverges by proposing a conceptual framework that situates ethical leadership not only as a behavioral influence but also as a strategic asset for corporate governance and sustainable management. Unlike prior reviews that focus on leader-follower dynamics, this study integrates ethical leadership within broader organizational structures, emphasizing its role in shaping ethical corporate cultures and industry-wide ethical norms. Future research should build on this perspective by exploring the long-term strategic advantages of ethical leadership in various organizational settings.

Finally, this paper provides a foundational framework for understanding ethical leadership's role in responsible management. However, future research must address the identified gaps by leveraging empirical methodologies, cross-cultural studies, and multi-level analyses. Expanding the scope of ethical leadership research will not only refine theoretical insights but also enhance its practical application in contemporary organizations.

## REFERENCES

* Analoui, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: Its styles, motives and management. *Journal of Management Development, 14*(7), 48-65. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719510097361

* Antonakis, J. (2009). *Predictors of leadership: The usual suspects and the suspect traits*. https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_7F550FBC8111.P001/REF.pdf

* Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. *Research in Organizational Behavior, 25*, 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25001-2

* Audi, R. (2007). *Moral value and human diversity*. Oxford University Press.

* Avolio, B. J. (1999). *Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations*. SAGE Publications.

* Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. *The Leadership Quarterly, 16*(3), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

* Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. *The Leadership Quarterly, 15*(6), 801-823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003
Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., & Harrison, D. A. (2011). Centrality and charisma: Comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 96(6), 1209-1222.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024890

Bandura, A. (1977). *Social learning theory*. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). *Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory*. Prentice-Hall.

Banks, G. C., Fischer, T., Gooty, J., & Stock, G. (2021). Ethical leadership: Mapping the terrain for concept cleanup and a future research agenda. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 32(2), Article 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101471

Barnard, C. I. (2005). *The function of the executive* (30th ed.). Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (2008). *The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications* (4th ed.). Free Press.

Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes and moderators. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 139(3), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1

Belet, D. (2011). Le "servant leadership", modèle radicalement innovant [The "servant leadership", radically innovative model]. *L'Expansion Management Review*, 141(2), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.3917/emr.141.0112

Blau, P. M. (1964). *Exchange and power in social life*. John Wiley & Sons.

Blau, P. M. (1968). Social exchange. In D. L. Sills & R. K. Merton (Eds.), *International encyclopedia of the social sciences* (pp. 452-457).

Bowers, S. (2014, November 5). Luxembourg tax files: How tiny state rubber-stamped tax avoidance on an industrial scale. *The Guardian*. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale

Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. *Business Ethics Quarterly*, 20(4), 583-616. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020439

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 17(6), 595-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 97(2), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

Bureau, S., & Buttin, D. (2013). *Le mécénat d'entreprise comme révélateur et catalyseur de la conscience organisationnelle* [Corporate philanthropy as a revealur and catalyst of organizational consciousness]. (Working paper). https://hal.science/hal-00952609/document

Burns, J. H., & Hart, H. L. A (1970). *The collected works of Jeremy Bentham: An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation*. Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240

Chui, L., & Man, S. (2018). *Construction and impact of leader identity of dynamic work selves at social enterprises: Linkage of the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes with motivational work outcomes* [Doctoral dissertation, Durham University]. https://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12680/

Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. *Business Ethics Quarterly*, 5(1), 5-28.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3857269

Ciulla, J. B., Uhl-Bien, M., & Werhane, P. H. (Eds.). (2013). *Leadership ethics*. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446286357

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 9(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90001-7

Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. *Academy of Management Annals*, 11(1), 479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099

De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 19(3), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002

De Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates' perceptions of leadership and firm performance. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 53(4), 626-654. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.4.626

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. *Academy of Management Review*, 35(4), 627-647.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627

Dinwiddy, J. R. (1989). Adjudication under Bentham's Pannomion. *Utilitas*, 1(2), 283-289.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800000285

Doh, J. P., & Quigley, N. R. (2014). Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: Influence pathways and organizational outcomes. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, 28(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0013

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. *Academy of Management Review*, 20(1), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887

Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 23(5), 791-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.001

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 89(2), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293

Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., & Dang, C. (2015). Moralized leadership: The construction and consequences of ethical leader perceptions. *Academy of Management Review*, 40(2), 182-209. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0358

Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self, know thy leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 23(4), 702-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.007

Françoise, D. (2016). *Pleine-conscience et management: Effet de la mindfulness sur la relation au travail et le style de leadership des managers* [Mindfulness and management: Effect of mindfulness on the relationship at work and the leadership style of managers] [Doctoral dissertation, Université Grenoble Alpes (ComUE)]. https://theses.hal.science/tel-01452592/file/FRANCOISE_Daniel_2016_archivage.pdf
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). "Can you see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 16(3), 343-372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 22(6), 1120-1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007

George, B. (2004). *Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value*. Jossey-Bass

Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1948). *From Max Weber: Essays in sociology*. Routledge

Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership and business ethics. *Journal of Leadership Studies*, 4(4), 64-81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199700400406

Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. *Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal*, 4, 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385031

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). *The servant as leader*. Robert K. Greenleaf Publishing Center.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). *Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness*. Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). *The power of servant-leadership*. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Hanges, P., Lord, R., & Dickson, M. (2000). An information-processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case for connectionist architecture. *Applied Psychology*, 49(1), 133-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.200008

Henderson, J. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1982). *Leader authenticity: The development and test of an operational measure*. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED219408

Hollinger, R., & Clark, J. (1982). Employee deviance: A response to the perceived quality of the work experience. *Work and Occupations*, 9(1), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888482009001006

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? *Academy of Management Perspectives*, 6(2), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1992.4274395

Huang, S. Y. B., Li, M.-W., & Chang, T.-W. (2021). Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and participative leadership in predicting counterproductive work behaviors: Evidence from financial technology firms. *Frontiers in Psychology, 12*, Article 658727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658727

Igalens, J., & Pourquier, C. (2019). Étude exploratoire sur le leadership responsable. Mise en perspective des modèles de Danone et d'Essilor [Exploratory study on responsible leadership. Putting the Danone and Essilor models into perspective]. *Question(s) de Management*, 23, 11-23. https://doi.org/10.3917/qdm.191.0011

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. *Academy of Management Review*, 16(2), 366-395. https://doi.org/10.2307/258867

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 22(1), 51-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.007

Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). *Ethical dimensions of leadership*. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452220536

Kaptein, M. (2019). The moral entrepreneur: A new component of ethical leadership. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 156(4), 1135-1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3641-0

Kohlberg, L. (1984). *Essays on moral development* (Vol. 2: The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages). Harper & Row.

Langlois, L., Lapointe, C., Valois, P., & de Leeuw, A. (2014). Development and validity of the ethical leadership questionnaire. *Journal of Educational Administration*, 52(3), 310-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2012-0110

Lawton, A., & Páez, I. (2015). Developing a framework for ethical leadership. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 130, 639-649.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2244-2

Levine, M. P., & Boaks, J. (2014). What does ethics have to do with leadership? *Journal of Business Ethics*, 124, 225-242.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1807-y

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. *Academy of Management Journal*, 57(5), 1434-1452.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 19(2), 161-177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. M. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), *Handbook of industrial organizational psychology* (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1-62). Consulting Psychological Press.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. *Organizational Behavior and Human Performance*, 34(3), 343-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), *Positive organizational scholarship* (pp. 241-261). Barrett-Koehler. https://cerf.radiologie.fr/sites/cerf.radiologie.fr/files/Enseignement/DES/Modules-Base/Luthans%20%26%20Avolio%2C%202003.pdf

Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society — A relational perspective. *Journal of Business Ethics*, 66(1), 99-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9047-z

Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 60(1), 114-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076355

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. *Organizational Dynamics*, 32(3), 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(03)00032-9

Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. *Academy of Management Journal*, 55(1), 151-171. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0276
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108*(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002

Miska, C., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2018). Responsible leadership: A mapping of extant research and future directions. *Journal of Business Ethics, 148*, 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2999-0

Neill, J. D., Scott Stovall, O., & Jinkerson, D. L. (2005). A critical analysis of the accounting industry's voluntary code of conduct. *Journal of Business Ethics, 59*, 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3398-8

Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. *Journal of Business Ethics, 90*, 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0037-9

Newstead, T., Dawkins, S., Macklin, R., & Martin, A. (2021). We don't need more leaders — We need more good leaders. Advancing a virtues-based approach to leader(ship) development. *The Leadership Quarterly, 31*(2), Article 101312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101312

Nina Ricci heir convicted of tax evasion in France with help of HSBC. (2015, April 13). *The Guardian*. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/nina-ricci-heir-convicted-of-tax-evasion-in-france-with-help-of-hsbc

Northouse, P. G. (2018). *Leadership: Theory and practice* (8th ed). SAGE Publications.

Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001). *Virtue ethics and professional roles*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487118

Oiry, E., Duguey, I., & Foucaud, J. (2015). Éthique normative et éthique réflexive: Quel rôle dans le leadership éthique des managers du soin? [Normative ethics and reflexive ethics: What role in the ethical leadership of healthcare managers?]. *Journal de Gestion et D'Économie Médicales, 33*(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.3917/jgem.151.0003

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). *Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification*. Oxford University Press.

Petit, V., & Saint-Michel, S. E. (2018). Leadership and business ethics: Are leaders wolves for business ethics? In E. Heath, B. Kaldis, & A. Marcoux (Eds.), *The Routledge companion to business ethics* (pp. 430-446). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315764818-32

Resick, C. J., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2006). A cross-cultural examination of the endorsement of ethical leadership. *Journal of Business Ethics, 63*, 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3242-1

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceramic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 92*(6), 1610-1624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1610

Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The leadership virtues questionnaire. *Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62*(4), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022286

Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Brown, M. E. (2010). Do ethical leaders get ahead? Exploring ethical leadership and promotability. *Business Ethics Quarterly, 20*(2), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020216

Russell, B. (1945). *A history of Western philosophy*. Simon & Schuster.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a practical model. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23*(3), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210424

Sarros, J. C., & Cooper, B. K. (2006). Building character: A leadership essential. *Journal of Business and Psychology, 21*, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9020-3

Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., Dimotakis, N., & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. *Academy of Management Journal, 55*(5), 1053-1078. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0064

Shakeel, F., Kruyen, P. M., & Thiel, S. V. (2020). Development of a broader conceptualization and measurement scale of ethical leadership (BELS). *The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 13*(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.22543/0733.131.1299

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. *The Leadership Quarterly, 16*(3), 395-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.005

Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. *The Leadership Quarterly, 21*(6), 959-978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004

Solomon, R. C. (1993). *Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business*. Oxford University Press.

Spangenberg, H., & Theron, C. C. (2005). Promoting ethical follower behavior through leadership of ethics: The development of the ethical leadership inventory (ELI). *South African Journal of Business Management, 36*(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v36i2.623

Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. *The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1*(1), 25-30. https://www.regent.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Spears_Final.pdf

Spence, M. (1974). Competitive and optimal responses to signals: An analysis of efficiency and distribution. *Journal of Economic Theory, 7*(3), 296-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(74)90098-2

Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. *American Economic Review, 92*(3), 434-459. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260136200

Stahl, G. K., & Sully de Luque, M. (2014). Antecedents of responsible leader behavior: A research synthesis, conceptual framework, and agenda for future research. *Academy of Management Perspectives, 28*(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0126

Treviño, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. *Human Relations, 56*(1), 5-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001448

Treviño, L. K., Hartman, L. P., & Brown, M. (2000). Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership. *California Management Review, 42*(4), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166057
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. *Academy of Management Review*, *48*(6), 1143-1158.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.19573114

Ünal, A. F., Warren, D. E., & Chen, C. C. (2012). The normative foundations of unethical supervision in organizations. *Journal of Business Ethics*, *107*, 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1300-z

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. *Journal of Management*, *37*(4), 1228-1261.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462

van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Ethical leadership and follower organizational deviance: The moderating role of follower moral attentiveness. *The Leadership Quarterly*, *26*(2), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.08.005

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2003). *Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management*. Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609052

Velasquez, M. (2003). Debunking corporate moral responsibility. *Business Ethics Quarterly*, *13*(4), 531-562.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313436

Waldman, D. A., & Balven, R. M. (2014). Responsible leadership: Theoretical issues and research directions. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, *28*(3), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0016

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. *Journal of Management*, *34*(1), 89-126.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

Wang, G., & Hackett, R. D. (2020). Virtues-centered moral identity: An identity-based explanation of the functioning of virtuous leadership. *The Leadership Quarterly*, *31*(5), Article 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101421

Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, *96*(4), 806-826.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022464

Yukl, G., & Gardner, W. L. (2019). *Leadership in organizations* (9th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical leadership. *Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies*, *20*(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811429352