---
title: "Asian Values and Business Ethics: Three Readings East–West"
description: "Does the slide “East: relationships, West: rules” hold up? Read Sen (1997), Koehn (2013) and Ardichvili (2010), then use six questions to read country tables."
url: "https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/gia-tri-chau-a-ba-bai-doc"
lang: en-GB
author: "Lê Quốc Khôi"
date: 2026-11-03
updated: 2026-11-03
topics: ["Ethics & corporate governance"]
tags: ["Business ethics", "Asian values", "Cross-cultural ethics", "Virtue ethics", "National culture"]
---

# Do not generalise “Asian values”: three readings on East–West ethics

## Key takeaways

- Sen's 1997 abstract says he disputes two presumptions of standard economics (that business principles are essentially profit maximisation, and that moral sentiments are often irrelevant to business) and warns against grand generalisations such as the superiority of “Asian values” over traditional Western morals (Sen, 1997).
- Koehn (2013) argues that differing cultures do not necessarily operate by incommensurable moral principles, because East and West share a natural basis and structure of virtue. His own end note 1 calls the labels “Asian” and “Western” ethics problematic (Koehn, 2013).
- Ardichvili, Jondle and Kowske (2010) analysed more than 23,000 managers and employees in 13 countries. The US, UK, Australia and Canada clustered, mostly joined by India; Japan and Italy formed a subset different from all other countries; China sat in mid-range groupings (Ardichvili et al., 2010). The three Asian countries the abstract names land in three different places.
- I read only the abstracts of all three papers (plus Koehn's end notes). The joint venture and the six questions in this post are my own inventions.

Two days before a meeting to draft a code of conduct for a joint venture, the HR head sends you a two-column slide. Left: “West: individual, rules, contracts”. Right: “East: relationships, harmony, trust”. Should that slide decide which clauses you propose? I made the slide up for illustration; it comes from no source. It carries three silent claims: the world divides into two blocks, each block is uniform inside, and the gap between them explains behaviour in the meeting room. In my reading, each paper below presses on at least one of those claims.

## Why does Sen warn against generalising about “Asian values”?

According to the abstract, the essay discusses the place of business principles and moral sentiments in economic success and examines the role of cultures in influencing norms of business behaviour. Standard economic analysis, it says, treats [business principles](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#business-principles-and-moral-sentiments) as essentially profit maximisation, directly or indirectly, and often treats moral sentiments as irrelevant to business and economics. Sen disputes both, using theoretical argument, a close analysis of Adam Smith's work and an interpretation of Japan's economic success (Sen, 1997).

According to the abstract, he refers to corruption in Italy and the “grabbing culture” in Russia to show how deeply the presence or absence of particular features of business ethics can affect how an economy runs. It also says that, “Being an Indian himself”, he warns against grand generalisations such as the superiority of “Asian values” over traditional Western morals. The abstract ends by saying that diversity over space, over time and between groups is what makes the subject a rich source of understanding (Sen, 1997).

The abstract does not say what Sen made of a neutral comparison table like the slide above. My reading: the slide and the claim that “Asian values beat Western morals” both treat a continent as a single unit, and Sen's three axes (space, time, group) are three ways to question that unit. That application is mine.

## If East and West “never meet”, where does Koehn say they do?

At the foundation of virtue. The abstract opens with Kipling's line, “East is East, West is West, and never the twain shall meet”. Koehn argues that differing cultures do not necessarily operate by incommensurable moral principles. Through a virtue ethics lens, he says, East and West “are always meeting because their virtues share a natural basis and structure”, and the paper sketches the rudiments of a [universal virtue ethic](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#universal-virtue-ethic) (Koehn, 2013).

His main material, judging by the notes, is textual. In end note 2 he says he stays close to the Analects to compare Confucius with Aristotle (Koehn, 2013). That is a comparison of two philosophers, not data about firms; note 3 does tell the story of one unnamed firm, which he himself calls anecdotal evidence (Koehn, 2013).

Two end notes matter to whoever holds the slide. Note 1 says that referring to “Asian” ethics or “Western” ethics is problematic because the regions are huge and contain diverse communities, and cultures are neither static nor isolated. Koehn keeps the labels because they “belong to the discourse of moral relativists” he is arguing against (Koehn, 2013).

Note 6 touches the “West = individual” half. McLeod argues that Aristotle, unlike Confucius, makes morality depend primarily on individual reason. Koehn calls that approach “overly simplistic”, giving two reasons, one being that in his view Aristotle is clear that the development of reason is itself a social and political process (Koehn, 2013). I have read neither McLeod nor Aristotle, so I cannot adjudicate; I can only see that “individual versus relational” is contested between two scholars in this note.

## How do survey data from managers sort countries?

Not into two blocks. The authors surveyed perceptions of ethical business practices in 13 countries of Europe, Asia and the Americas, with more than 23,000 managers and employees, and used multivariate analysis of variance and post-hoc comparisons to find homogeneous sets of countries. According to the abstract, the US, UK, Australia and Canada clustered and were joined by India in most cases; Japan and Italy formed a subset significantly different from all other countries; continental European countries, China, Mexico and Brazil formed various mid-range groupings (Ardichvili et al., 2010). See also the library's entry on [country clusters in ethical business culture](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#ethical-business-culture-clusters).

India beside the Anglo group, Japan beside Italy, China in the mid-range: if the right-hand column of the slide is “Asia”, those three countries do not share it. I have not seen the full list of 13, so I do not claim these are all the Asian countries in the sample.

Nor do the data say countries are alike. Japan and Italy differ from all the rest, so country differences are real; they just do not line up with the slide's two blocks. As the abstract describes it, the study measures perceptions of practice, not behaviour; it compares countries, so it does not show how firms within one country differ; and it does not say how large the gaps are.

## Where do the three agree, and where do they pull apart?

In my reading, all three cut against a sharp East–West split, though only Koehn's paper is built around that split, and none of the abstracts says that cultures do not differ.

> **Figure:** (compare) The first two rows are my reading of the abstracts and notes; the last row lists what I could not see in the parts I read.

```json
{
  "type": "compare",
  "columns": ["Sen (1997)", "Koehn (2013)", "Ardichvili et al. (2010)"],
  "rows": [
    { "label": "Kind of argument (from the abstracts and notes)", "cells": ["Economic theory, a reading of Adam Smith, an interpretation of Japan", "Comparison of philosophical texts (Confucius, Aristotle, per the notes), sketch of a universal virtue ethic", "Survey of more than 23,000 managers and employees, 13 countries"] },
    { "label": "Where it strikes the slide", "cells": ["Treating a whole continent as one block", "The claim that the two blocks cannot understand each other", "Data do not sort into two blocks"] },
    { "label": "What it does not tell you", "cells": ["His view of a neutral comparison table (abstract is silent)", "Behaviour inside firms (the notes lean on texts, plus one anecdote)", "Which firms sit where, and how big the gaps are (abstract is silent)"] }
  ]
}
```

Sen and Ardichvili stress differences inside a block; Koehn stresses a common base beneath differences. In what I read, neither paper addresses the others. My reading is that the two directions do not contradict each other, because they speak about different layers: Koehn about the structure of virtue, Ardichvili about perceptions of practice inside organisations.

## How can you use a national-culture table without stereotyping?

Ask six questions before a country table is allowed to influence a decision. I drew them from the three papers; no author wrote this list.

| Question | Drawn from | The table fails if… |
|:--|:--|:--|
| 1. Which country does it describe, or a whole continent? | Sen; Koehn (note 1) | It says only “Asia” or “the West” |
| 2. What year is the data, and what is the source? | Sen (over time) | No year, no source |
| 3. Which group inside the country: sector, firm, role? | Sen (between groups) | One adjective for a whole country |
| 4. What is measured: stated values, philosophy, or perceptions of a firm? | Ardichvili; Koehn | It does not say |
| 5. Try placing the countries in two columns: does any land in neither? | Ardichvili | A country strays and the table is silent |
| 6. If the table is right, which decision changes? | Mine | None changes: drop the table |

Question 6 tests the whole table: keep a culture table only if it changes something specific you will do in the meeting. See also [national culture](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#national-culture).

## Try it on an invented joint venture: what does the slide predict, and what does the room show?

**Hypothetical example.** Firm P and every detail and figure below are invented by me and tied to no real business. Firm P is a 120-person packaging joint venture between a Vietnamese company and a foreign investor from Asia, and it needs a clause on gifts and hospitality. By the slide, both sides sit in the “right-hand column”, so there is nothing to discuss. In the meeting I have imagined, four people want four different things:

| Role (invented) | What they want | What needs clarifying |
|:--|:--|:--|
| Finance director, Vietnamese side | A hard cap of VND 500,000 per gift; anything above must be reported | Is the cap per gift or per client per year? |
| Sales director, Vietnamese side | Room for Tết gifts to large clients | Which clients, what value, who knows? |
| General director, foreign side | No cash gifts; everything else approved case by case | Who approves, within how many days? |
| Purchasing head, foreign side | No ban on meals with suppliers, only a limit on value | Which meals count as ordinary? |

I built the scene so that views split by role, not by nationality, to show that a country table cannot predict who says what; real life need not look like this. The chair should drop the slide and write the clause from the concrete answers.

## Going deeper: what did I read, and what not?

I have not read the full text of any of the three. Sen's and Koehn's papers sit behind paywalls; OpenAlex records a free repository copy of Ardichvili et al. at the University of St Thomas, but that portal needs JavaScript and I could not open the file.

Sen (1997), *Business Ethics Quarterly* 7(3), pp. 5–15: the abstract in the Crossref record. Everything about Sen's argument rests on the abstract, so there are no quotations with page numbers.

Koehn (2013), *Journal of Business Ethics* 116(4), pp. 703–715: the abstract, eight end notes and 55-item reference list on the Springer page, which shows only a preview. The notes carry no page numbers, so I cite them by note number. I have not read the body of the paper.

Ardichvili, Jondle and Kowske (2010), *Human Resource Development International* 13(3), pp. 299–315: the abstract, via the OpenAlex record, because the publisher's page blocked access. I have not read the method, the questionnaire, the list of 13 countries or the results tables.

This post reads how three sets of authors frame the question; it does not assess their evidence. For a real code of conduct you need the full texts and your own firm's data.

## Frequently asked questions

### If not an East–West table, what do I prepare a negotiation with?

Treat each cell of the table as a question to test with the actual person, not as a prediction about them. The post on cultural intelligence goes the same way. The three papers here do not offer a method for preparing a negotiation; the six questions in this post are my own suggestion.

### Is Vietnam among Ardichvili's 13 countries?

I do not know. The abstract names only the US, UK, Australia, Canada, India, Japan, Italy, China, Mexico and Brazil, and refers to “countries of continental Europe” as a group (Ardichvili et al., 2010). I have not seen the full list of 13, so I cannot say where a Vietnamese firm would sit. To find out, ask your own staff.

### Does this post assess Hofstede or GLOBE?

No. The three papers I read do not test those frameworks. Koehn's reference list includes works by Hofstede (Koehn, 2013), but I have not read the body of the paper, so I do not know how he uses them. The library has pages on [Hofstede's dimensions](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/hofstede-dimensions) and [GLOBE](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/globe-cultural-dimensions) if you want to read further.

## References

- Ardichvili, A., Jondle, D. and Kowske, B. (2010) ‘Dimensions of ethical business cultures: comparing data from 13 countries of Europe, Asia, and the Americas’, *Human Resource Development International*, 13(3), pp. 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.483818
- Koehn, D. (2013) ‘East meets West: toward a universal ethic of virtue for global business’, *Journal of Business Ethics*, 116(4), pp. 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1816-x
- Sen, A. (1997) ‘Economics, business principles and moral sentiments’, *Business Ethics Quarterly*, 7(3), pp. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857309

---

Canonical HTML version: https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/gia-tri-chau-a-ba-bai-doc