This concept makes me think of instances when I was a student leader and had to deal with moral dilemmas that seemed “bigger” than others. In fraternity and IFC leadership, for instance, there were times when we had to decide between fairly reporting misconduct and preserving the reputation of our chapters. The moral weight increased and doing the right thing felt unavoidable when the issue felt significant and highly visible, such as when it could compromise campus safety or damage one’s reputation. Shortcuts, such as ignoring late deadlines or casually breaking the rules, were simpler to justify when the stakes were lower. Jones’s point strikes a chord with me because I’ve found that ethical clarity increases significantly when consequences seem real.

This reminds me of the Boeing 737 MAX ethics case, in which engineers identified safety concerns but the company’s leadership did nothing about it. As Jones explains, because financial pressure took precedence over ethical risk, leaders appeared to minimize moral intensity. Jones’s contention that context affects moral behavior is reflected in the contrast between incentives and individual ethical awareness.

Jones’s theory is supported by corporate scandals, such as Wells Fargo’s fraudulent accounts. It is simpler to defend unethical behavior when leaders downplay the moral urgency of their actions. Strong ethical environments, on the other hand, such as those found in businesses that make significant investments in compliance and ethical responsibility, raise moral intensity and enhance the results of moral decision-making. Additionally, according to Jones’s model, companies that are subject to public scrutiny and have significant repercussions are more likely to act morally.

Jones, Thomas M. Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model. Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 2, 1991, pp. 366–395. “The more intense the moral issue, the more likely it is that decision makers will perceive its presence and respond with moral behavior” (p. 372).