thical diversity abounds in organiza-tions. That is, there are diverse beliefsamong employees, managers, and executivesin organizations as to what are the mostethically appropriate or inappropriatecourses of actions to take in their daily work-place situations. Consider the following fiveexamples of ethical diversity, each of whichcomes from the authors’ direct work experi-ence,consulting,orcurrenteventsreportedinthetradeandgeneralpress.First,fromopera-tionsmanagement,someemployeesbelieveitis ethically right to use the time clock closestto the building entrance when they clock inand out. In contrast, others believe it is ethi-cally right to use the time clock closest totheirassignedworkareas.Whythedivergentethical judgments? Second, from humanresources management, some managersbelieve it is ethically right to give uniformraises to all employees when raise money isextremely limited. Others believe it isethically right to continue to give perfor-mance-based raises in such circumstances.Why the divergence? Third, from organiza-tional downsizing, some managers believe itisethicallyrighttofocusonlyonperformanceevaluations when conducting layoffs, whileothers believe it is ethically right to considercorporate initiatives and employee personalconsiderations. Why? Fourth, from risk man-agement and public relations, some execu-tives believe it is ethically right to performsurveillance on employees’ nonworkplaceconduct, while others believe it is ethicallyright to limit surveillance to workplace con-duct. Why? Fifth, from organizational gov-ernance,someexecutivesbelieveitisethicallyright to outsource as much work as possibleto firms in foreign countries, while othersbelieve it is ethically right to retain as muchwork as possible in house. Why?The answer to all the preceding ‘‘why’’questions is that employee’s ethical judg-ments diverge because of the great diversityin their personal moral codes. Some two dec-ades ago, the first author and marketingprofessor Scott J. Vitell sought to develop aframework that would help marketing stu-dents and practitioners understand the kindof diversity in personal moral codes thatwould lead to divergent ethical judgments.Theydevelopedamodelofmarketingethicaldecision making that was first published inthe Journal of Macromarketing in 1986.Through time, the model and the theoryunderlying the model came to be labeledin the ethics literature as, simply, the Hunt–Vitell (H–V) model of ethics. Also throughtime, the model was used extensively in bothteaching ethics and guiding research. Subse-quently, it was noted by ethics researchersthat the theory and model were equallyapplicable to business ethics in general, andeven more generally, to ethics in nonwork-place situations. That is, the H–V model isnow viewed by many ethics researchers as ageneraltheoryofethicaldecisionmaking(andnot just a theory applicable to marketing andother business situations). Since its originaldevelopment, the H–V model has undergonerigorous empirical testing in numerous dis-ciplines and contexts. The results have uni-formlysupportedthetheoryasbeingusefulinexplaining and predicting ethical decisionmaking.It should be noted that the purpose ofthe H–V model is to describe, explain, and