Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36571063›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2022

Executives' unethical behaviour with directions for future research.

Renhong Zhu, Xiaowei Li, Qin Liu, Qihao Zhou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Renhong ZhuSchool of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaowei LiSchool of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Qin LiuSchool of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Qihao ZhouSchool of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Executives' unethical behaviour is a common phenomenon in business practice and a hot topic for academic research, which has a profound negative impact on the healthy development of our economy and society. In the past two decades, several scholars from different disciplines con-ducted theoretical research and practical explorations on the issue of senior executives' (un)ethical behaviour and achieved certain research results. However, the existing research in this field still has problems, such as a lack of systematic integration of research results, unclear research hotspots and unclear development directions. Thus, the present study through a bibliometric analysis, conducted a content coding of these 428 papers identified from 2000 to 2020, constructed a theoretical framework by inductively identifying the corresponding concepts. By reviewing the progress of existing research topics, this study summarised a research framework of executives' unethical behaviour from the perspectives of the antecedents, the behaviour itself and the consequences of unethical behaviour. The study further proposed future research trends and recommendations for conducting research on executives' unethical behaviour under emerging market scenarios. The research results provide new ideas for developing the theory of executives' unethical behaviour and promote the in-depth development of the research on executives' unethical behaviour in the context of emerging markets.

Indexed as

emerging marketsexecutives’ unethical behaviourimmoral activityliterature researchtheoretical framework

Identifiers

PMID36571063
PMCPMC9768179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.