Organizational ethical culture, though widely studied, lacks conceptual clarity and precision with levels of analysis. To diagnose the specific conceptual and levels limitations, we assess the state of the science of ethical culture by analyzing 155 articles. Analysis revealed conceptual disorganization, confusion between the conceptual domain and nomological network, and imprecise treatment of levels of analysis. These limitations have resulted in downstream problems with building and testing theory; existing research is affected by unfalsifiable hypotheses, conceptual invalidity, contamination among measures, and incorrect levels-based inferences. To help overcome these limitations, we present a revised definition that integrates the dynamic model of organizational culture with the concept of ethical affordances. We present a multilevel model and describe potential interactions that determine how and under what conditions ethical culture manifests at relevant levels. We conclude with recommendations that will help future research move past these limitations.

In the business ethics and management literature, it is widely recognized that corporate sustainability is a complex concept that remains strongly contested. While some scholars highlight the current utility of the concept when used contextually, others claim that new conceptual foundations must be sought in order to improve the concept. In this article, I demonstrate that these contextualist and foundationalist strategies for conceptualizing corporate sustainability both must confront the ongoing, dynamic interplay between empirical and normative theorizing. Using the requirements of practical usefulness and theoretical robustness, I consequently argue that adopting the “pure” strategy of either contextualism or foundationalism is problematic. Instead, I defend the position of conceptual pluralism by claiming that it can partially reconcile contextualist and foundationalist commitments and thereby enable a flexible, multilevel corporate sustainability framework. I conclude by highlighting the key implications of this approach to concept formation for business ethics.