Journal of Transportation Management

Volume 25 | Issue 1 Article 5

4-1-2014

An examination of ethical standards and behaviorsin transportation brokerageJohn DreaIllinois College, john.drea@mail.ic.edu

James T. KennyWestern Illinois University, jt-kenny1@wiu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/jotm

Part of the Operations and Supply Chain Management Commons, and the TransportationCommons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal ofTransportation Management by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@WayneState.

Recommended CitationDrea, John, & Kenny, James T. (2014). An examination of ethical standards and behaviors in transportation brokerage. Journal ofTransportation Management, 25(1), 37-54. doi: 10.22237/jotm/1396310640

Spring/Summer 2014 37

AN EXAMINATION OF ETHICAL STANDARDS AND BEHAVIORS INTRANSPORTATION BROKERAGE

John DreaIllinois College

James T. KennyWestern Illinois University

ABSTRACT

The manuscript examines individual ethical decision making for common scenarios faced bytransportation brokers, including unauthorized double brokering, booking and bouncing, and afailure to disclose all terms to a shipper. The results indicate significant discrepancies between whatactions a broker would engage, what brokers perceive that others in the same industry would do, andwhat industry leaders perceive to be ethical.

INTRODUCTION

One of the challenges for companies in the fieldof transportation brokerage is to identify basesfor differentiating brokerage services. Ethicalconduct by transportation brokerage firms canserve as a basis of differentiation for carriers andshippers who place value on building viablerelationships, as opposed to focusing onexecuting individual freight transactions.Schniederjans and Schniederjans (2008) havenoted a negative effect on business performancewhen perceptions of ethical values and trust arelow between supply chain members.Transferring these findings to the transportationbrokerage industry, it is suggested that whenperceptions of ethical values and trust are low,shipper and carrier development/retention wouldalso be low.

A popular framework for understanding ethicaldecision making in marketing is theContingency Framework (Ferrell and Gresham,1985) which posits that the ethics of individualdecision making are a function of three primarycontingencies: individual factors (knowledge,value, attitudes, and intentions), organizationalfactors (peers and members of disparate socialgroups), and opportunity (professional codes,corporate policy, and rewards/ punishment), andis the most cited approach to marketing ethics

during the past fifty years (Schlegelmilch andOberseder, 2010). The Ferrell and Greshamcontingency framework indicates that thecombination of individual factors, organizationalfactors, and opportunity interact to triggerdecision making, with feedback to the decisionsreinforcing/altering future decisions.

The adapted contingency framework suggeststhat it is the interaction of individual,organizational, and opportunity factors thatguide ethical decision making for atransportation broker. This is inconsistent,however, with a commonly cited belief withintransportation brokerage that says, “if you wantethical behavior, hire ethical employees” (Dreaand Drea 2010). Since ethics is a code/pattern ofbehavior determined by an entity (a society, acompany, an individual, etc.) to be ethical, whatis judged as ethical is often context-specific,with considerable variation from individual toindividual and from company to company. Thiscontext-specific view would explain why somebrokers view a behavior as ethical, yet othersview the same behavior as unethical.

Ethical standards across cultures often showconsiderable variation (Pitta, Fung, and Isberg,1999). Rules used to judge whether a behavioris ethical vary considerably, ranging fromutilitarian approaches that apply a hedonic

Journal of Transportation Management38

Figure 1: Contingency Framework of Transportation Broker Ethics

calculus to assess which activity provides thegreatest good, to deontological approaches thatempathize adherence to accepted rulesindependent of consequences, to ethical egoismin which individuals are responsible for theirown happiness and not beholden to others.

The field of transportation brokerage provides anethical environment that is distinct from otheraspects of supply chain management.Discussions of supply chain ethics frequentlyfocus on areas such as the environmental effectsof SCM decisions, health and safety issues, andconsumer rights (Zaman, 2006). These areethical issues that extend outside of a supplychain to produce tangible effects on stakeholdergroups. For example, using child labor toproduce clothing in Indonesia, or having amanufacturing process that produces legal buttoxic environmental effects over the long termare visible actions to stakeholder groups fromoutside the organization and may have

potentially severe financial consequences for theorganization. Stated differently, there is likely tobe little public pressure brought to bear on anorganization which drops one truck load in orderto move a more profitable truck load, but thepublic pressure is likely to be greater when risksto public health and safety are apparent.

For many transportation brokerage firms,decisions involving the movement of freighthave historically focused on compliance with amyriad of federal, state, and international lawsand regulations, rather than on accepted industrystandards. Ethical standards often differbetween freight brokerage companies, and theindustry is replete with stories of carriers whoagree to move loads but cancel when a higherpaying load becomes available, or 3PLs whocancel an agreement with a carrier when theyfind a cheaper truck (“booking and bouncing”),unauthorized re-brokering of loads, or brokerswho do not inform shippers of the ramifications

Spring/Summer 2014 39

of an underinsured load. In response to suchethical issues, increased scrutiny of ethicaldecision making has occurred within the freightbrokerage industry. Industry groups such as theInstitute for Supply Management (ISM 2012)and Transportation Intermediaries Association(TIA 2012) maintain ethics codes to which theirmembers must adhere, and both organizationsprovide online training to support ethicseducation within the industry.

The practical challenge is: what should abrokerage manager do to improve ethicalbehavior among employees? The contingencyframework suggests that efforts to improvebrokerage ethics need to include hiring ethicalemployees, running effective ethics trainingprograms, and establishing/enforcing a code ofethics; and that success is likely if all threeactions are undertaken in a coordinated manner,while efforts that focus only on one area areunlikely to produce optimal results.

METHODOLOGY

Data collection involved a two-step process: aprimary survey of transportation brokeragepersonnel, followed by a “jury of executiveopinion” survey of senior transportationbrokerage executives.

SurveyAn e-mail was sent to 3,892 broker and salespersonnel in the transportation brokerageindustry. The list was provided by TransportationIntermediaries Association, a trade associationserving the 3PL industry. The e-mail containedan invitation to participate and a link to anonline survey. Only individuals in operations(dispatch) and sales positions were contacted,and only one submission was accepted fromeach IP address. A total of 386 responses wereobtained for a response rate of 9.92%.Participants were presented with scenarioscovering six ethical issues confronting brokers:

• unauthorized re-brokering,

• unauthorized double brokering,• loads held hostage,• booking and bouncing by a broker,• booking and bouncing by a carrier, and• failure to disclose all terms in a

transaction.

These scenarios were developed by the authorsbased on several years of experience within thetransportation brokerage field and reviewed by athird party logistics trade associationrepresentative. Data was also collectedregarding the size of the company (based onsales), years of experience in the current positionand in the transportation brokerage industry, andgender.

Jury of Executive OpinionThe jury of executive opinion is a marketingresearch technique used to identify if an idea orconcept is germane to a research study. Thebasic model seeks the opinions of a small groupof high level experienced managers within aspecific field. It is a qualitative (opinion-based)tool that incorporates judgmental and subjectivefactors into an assessment (Green and Tull,1978). Nineteen TIA member Presidents/CEOswere contacted to participate on the jury, andseventeen executives chose to participate(response rate of 89%.) The jury of 3PLexecutives was selected from members of theTransportation Intermediaries Association. Juryparticipants were highly experienced executives(average industry experience = 27.4 years) withthe job titles of Presidents, CEOs, COOs, EVPs,and VPs covering brokerage operations (seeTable 1). Jury respondents evaluated theresponse categories for each of the six ethicalscenarios that had been presented to the mainstudy sample. The task of the jury was todetermine whether each response category was(in their judgment) ethical or unethical.

Journal of Transportation Management40

RESULTS

In the main survey, each broker respondent was asked to read six ethical scenarios (listed below).Brokers were asked to choose an action for each scenario, and to indicate which action he/shebelieved others in the brokerage industry would choose. In the jury of executive opinion, brokerageexecutives were asked to evaluate whether each of the alternative actions were ethical.

Spring/Summer 2014 41

There was agreement between transportation brokers and the jury of brokerage executives thatunauthorized re-brokering without informing the shipper is unethical. Nearly all brokers indicatedthat if a trucking company does not have the ability to move an accepted load, the trucking companyshould inform the original broker.

Brokers utilized a higher ethical standard than industry experts in regards to unauthorized doublebrokering. There was a strong consensus among brokers that unauthorized double brokering isunethical; however, nearly 2/3 of industry experts disagreed (65%), indicating they would considerdouble-brokering without permission to be ethical. This finding may be explained by the pressure todeliver bottom line results. Carrier capacity and margin compression likely affected the responses ofmain study respondents.

Journal of Transportation Management42

Industry experts were clear that it is unethical for a broker to pay out of his/her own pocket to get aload held hostage moving. Additionally, nearly every executive noted he/she would be shocked if anemployee ever engaged in this behavior. Most brokers (81.9%) were likely to defer to a supervisoron this issue, and this action was viewed as ethical by industry experts.

Spring/Summer 2014 43

Transportation brokers and industry experts were consistent that “booking and bouncing by brokers”is unethical. 87.1% of brokers indicated they would not re-book a load to make a larger profit, andthis course of action was judged by nearly all industry experts as being ethical.

Journal of Transportation Management44

Both brokers and industry experts were in agreement that “booking and bouncing by carriers” isunethical. All industry experts perceive booking and bouncing by carriers is unethical and only10.8% of brokers indicated they would “book and bounce.” Brokers believe such practice iscommonplace, however, as 72% believe carriers would book and bounce in order to earn a higherreturn on a load.

Spring/Summer 2014 45

Industry experts were unanimous on the need to disclose all contract terms to a shipper. To industryexperts, the only ethical course of action is to make sure that each load has proper insurancecoverage, even if that results in a lower return for the broker. For industry executives, ethicalbehavior is tied directly to risk management and to developing/maintaining strong customerrelationships. This also explains why all industry executives categorized an action that wouldpotentially result in the loss of a customer (telling a customer who has agreed on a price that theyshould pay more for proper coverage) as unethical. The judgments of industry executives suggestthey were simply avoiding risk. Failing to disclose all terms can result in lawsuits and claims.

Journal of Transportation Management46

How Ethical are Brokerage Employees?Table 2 compares the percentages of brokerdecisions that were judged by the jury ofexecutive opinion as ethical. The resultsindicate that the majority of decisions made bybrokers would be considered to be ethical byindustry executives, with over 81% of brokerschoosing an alternative for each scenario thatwas judged to be ethical by industry.

It is worth noting that some scenarios (load heldhostage, booking and bouncing, and failure todisclose all terms) had rates of unethicalbehavior that could be problematic for brokeragecompanies, especially in the scenario regardingthe failure to inform shippers of all terms.Nearly one out of every five brokers (18.7%)selected chose a response for this scenario thatindustry executives defined as unethical. Given

that this response would also create significantpotential liabilities, these results should concernbrokerage companies.

Importance of Each Ethical Issue.Overall, the most significant ethical issue asidentified by transportation brokers is thepotential deception of a shipper and/or brokerregarding who is actually in control of the load.The two most important ethical issues facing thetransportation brokerage industry wereunauthorized re-brokering by a carrier andunauthorized double-brokering (Figure 2). Atleast one of these two variables was cited by78.5% respondents as a “most important ethicalissue” in the field of transportation brokerage.Unauthorized re-brokering by a carrier was thesingle most important ethical issue cited byrespondents, with over two-thirds (68.1%) of

Spring/Summer 2014 47

respondents listing unauthorized re-brokering ofloads by carriers as a top issue. Unauthorizeddouble-brokering was also identified as a criticalethical issue by over half of survey respondents(52.3%). One finding that hurts 3PL’s credibilityis the fact that booking and bouncing by a carrierwas more than twice as likely to be cited as anethical issue than booking and bouncing by abroker. No significant differences were notedfor these variables based on the size of thecompany, number of years as a transportationbroker, or by number of years in the industry (÷2

signif. > .05). Overall, these findings show the

importance of each ethical scenario to the firmsin the industry.

Brokers were asked to distinguish between whatis an important ethical issue and what is acommon ethical issue. While unauthorized re-brokering and unauthorized double brokeringwere identified as the most important ethicalissues, booking and bouncing by carriers is themost common ethical issue facing the brokerageindustry. Given how tight the truck market wasduring the time of data collection, this is anexpected finding.

Journal of Transportation Management48

Findings Regarding Ethical Behaviorand Experience:

Booking and Bouncing - The results indicatethat increased experience is associated withethical decisions in regards to “booking andbouncing” (Table 4.) Brokers with moreexperience were significantly more likely tochoose ethical behaviors when dealing with ascenario of both “booking and bouncing by abroker,” and “booking and bouncing by acarrier” scenarios. When responding to a“booking and bouncing by a broker” scenario,ethical brokers had an average of 20.5 years inthe industry, compared to 16.2 years in theindustry for brokers who chose unethicalbehaviors (t = 2.067, p = .04). When respondingto a “booking and bouncing by a carrier”scenario, brokers who chose ethical behaviorshad an average of twenty years in the industry,compared to 15.7 years of experience for brokerswho chose unethical behaviors (t = 2.081, p =.038). No significant differences were noted forthe number of years in the current position, onlyfor the number of years in the industry.

These findings highlight the importance of trustin creating and maintaining relationshipsbetween brokers, shippers, and carriers.“Booking and bouncing” is at the core of therelationship, and more senior brokers appear to

understand that “booking and bouncing”undermines the ability to build trust withshippers and carriers Obtaining repeat businessfrom carriers is critical to building a goodoperations foundation for a brokerage firm. Ifeither side continually “bounces” the other side,the chance to build a strong carrier base for alane is reduced. Additionally, developing a goodcarrier base reduces the number of truck ordersnot used, which reduces overhead costs.

Brokers with more experience were significantlyMORE likely to perceive that others in theindustry would behave ethically in both bookingand bouncing scenarios in comparison to lessexperienced brokers, regardless of whether“experience” is measured by years in theindustry or years in the position (Table 5). Inshort, longevity drives ethical behavior.Brokers who perceive that others in the industrywould behave ethically when confronting a“booking and bouncing by a broker” scenariohad an average of 24.2 years of experience in theindustry, compared to 18.2 for brokers whoperceive that others in the industry would behaveunethically (t = 4.176, p = .000). Brokers whoperceive that others in the industry would behaveethically when confronting a “booking andbouncing by a carrier” scenario had an averageof 22.8 years of experience in the industry,compared to 18.3 for brokers who perceive that

Spring/Summer 2014 49

others in the industry would behave unethically(t = 3.108, p = .002).

Load Held Hostage. Brokers with moreexperience in their current position weresignificantly less likely to behave ethically in a“load held hostage” scenario (Table 6). Brokerswho would behave unethically when respondingto a “load held hostage” situation had an averageof 14.6 years of experience in their currentposition, compared to 9.4 years of experience forbrokers who would behave ethically (t = 3.667, p= .000). This suggests that the more industryexperience a broker has, the more likely the

broker has actually been the victim of a loadheld hostage, and that this would cause them toperceive that this practice is ethical.

Failure to Disclose All Terms. No significantdifferences were found between the level ofbroker experience and whether a broker wouldchoose an ethical course of action in a “failure todisclose all terms” scenario. While moreexperienced brokers who have been in theircurrent position longer were slightly more likelyto behave ethically in a “failure to disclose allterms” scenario, the difference was notstatistically significant (Table 7).

Journal of Transportation Management50

Findings Regarding Ethical Behaviorand Organizational Factors

Booking and Bouncing by a Broker. Brokerswho work for companies that rarely discussethics were significantly more likely to choosean unethical behavior in a “booking andbouncing by a broker” scenario. The mean forthe item “We rarely discuss ethics at mycompany” for individuals who chose anunethical response to the booking and bouncingby a broker scenario was 1.94 (5 point scale,where 5 = agree and 1 = disagree), compared toa mean of 1.47 for brokers who chose an ethicalresponse to the booking and bouncing by abroker scenario (t = 2.69, p = .008).

No differences were found between brokers whochose ethical vs. unethical behaviors regardingthe belief that higher ethical standards intransportation brokerage trigger lower financialperformance. Brokers who chose an unethicalaction had a mean of 2.35 on the five pointmeasure, compared to a mean of 1.99 amongbrokers who chose an ethical action.Brokers who work in companies where unethicalbehavior towards a carrier is not toleratedshowed no relationship to whether they wouldchoose an ethical/unethical course of action.The scale item “unethical behavior towardscarriers is not tolerated at my company” resultedin a mean of 4.59 for brokers who chose anethical action compared to a mean of 4.32 for

Spring/Summer 2014 51

brokers who chose an unethical action (sig. =.087).

The findings indicate that brokers perceiveethical behavior to be unrelated to financialperformance. In a bottom-line oriented industry,this suggests that ethical behavior and financialperformance are compatible, non-mutuallyexclusive goals. It is interesting that norelationship was found between a tolerance forunethical behavior towards carriers and theethical behavior chosen by brokers. This islargely a function of the fact that very fewbrokers believe their company will tolerateunethical behavior towards a carrier (overallmean = 4.55 on a five point scale, std. deviation= 0.845). Interestingly, the 31 brokers whochose an unethical behavior for the “bookingand bouncing by a broker” scenario alsoindicated that unethical behavior will not betolerated at their company.

Booking and Bouncing by a Carrier.Significant differences were noted betweenbrokers who believe others would behaveethically and those who believe others would actunethically in a “booking and bouncing by acarrier” scenario. Specifically, brokers whobelieve that others would behave unethically in a“booking and bouncing by a carrier” scenario:

o Are more likely to believe that highethical standards would lead to lowerfinancial performance (t = 2.134, p =.034).

o Are more likely to believe that brokersand sales personnel would benefit fromadditional ethical training (t = 2.098, p =.038).

o Are less likely to agree with thestatement “unethical behaviors towardscarriers are not tolerated in my company(t = 2.518, p = .013).

There were no significant differences reportedbetween organizational factors and whether abroker chose an ethical solution to a “load heldhostage” or “failure to disclose all terms”scenarios.

Findings Regarding Ethical Behavior andCompany Size:No significant effects were noted betweencompany size and ethical decisions by brokers.This is interesting because some might havethought that smaller firms would be more likelyto engage in unethical behavior, while otherobservers might have perceived that bigger firmswould be more unethical. One potentialexplanation of this lack of significance wouldinvolve alternative ways that large and smallbrokerage companies may address ethical issues.It is possible that the use of mentoring andnormative influences at smaller brokeragecompanies may have the same effect on ethicalbehavior that more formalized ethics codes andtraining programs have at larger brokeragecompanies. There is a need for additionalresearch in this area..

Findings Regarding Ethical Behavior andGender:Women were more likely than men to believethat other individuals within the industry wouldbehave unethically when confronted with“booking and bouncing” scenarios. 87.9% offemale brokers believe that others in thetransportation brokerage industry would behaveunethically in a “booking and bouncing by abroker” scenario, compared to 71.4% of men (÷2

= 6.74, p = .009). 85.0% of female brokersbelieve that others in the transportationbrokerage industry would behave unethically ina “booking and bouncing by a carrier” scenario,compared to 69.3% of men (÷2 = 5.917, p =.015).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

One of the challenges of assessing andimproving ethics within a company is thatethical standards vary from person to person andfrom company to company. Individuals havedifferent approaches to ethical decision making,with some focusing on the effect of an act andwhat creates the greatest good for the greatestnumber, while others adopt a rules-basedinterpretation to assessing the ethics of an action,

Journal of Transportation Management52

while a small number seem to focus on theirown self-interest. One of the roles that a code ofethics can play within a brokerage business is toprovide a consistent context for ethical decisionsby clearly articulating the ethical standards fordecisions within the company. While some mayargue whether codes of ethics are effective atshaping employee behavior, it is reasonable toassume that such codes of ethics are preferableto having no code of ethics. The TransportationIntermediaries Association has encouragedethical behavior among its members by askingall to sign and adhere to a code of ethics andadministering a board designed to handle ethicsdisputes between members.

As shown in Table 3, the majority of brokersresponding to the survey indicated they wouldchoose a course of action that was judged asethical by industry experts. The largest areas forunethical actions (discrepancies between theactions chosen by brokers and the actions chosenby experts as being ethical) were in the areas ofthe need to disclose all terms, loads held hostageand booking and bouncing. Brokeragecompanies should review their codes of ethicsand ethics training programs in regards to thesethree issues to make sure employees clearlyunderstand company expectations in these areas.

One of the consistent trends in the currentresearch is the large discrepancy between whatactions a broker reported he/she would do ineach scenario and what he/she perceived othersin the industry would do. While most brokersindicated they would not personally engage in anaction judged to be unethical by transportationbrokerage executives, these same brokersbelieve that others in the industry would choosean unethical course of action, especially for threespecific scenarios: Booking and bouncing by abroker (respondents believe 74.6% of otherswould act unethically), booking and bouncing bya carrier (72%), and a failure to disclose allterms (60.1%). If the perceptions of brokersregarding unethical behavior across the industryin these three areas are accurate, there is a need

for industry-wide standards on appropriateethical conduct within the field of brokerage.

The adapted contingency framework (Figure 1)suggests that organizational factors are one ofthe three broad categories of influences onethical decision making (along with individualfactors and opportunity.) One of the keycomponents of organizational factors is theperception of how others in the same industrywould judge a specific action. The presentresearch found that the majority of brokersbelieve that others in the industry would actunethically in three of the six scenarios, and thisraises a “red flag” as a potential influence onorganizational ethics. Broker perceptionsregarding industry-wide ethical norms are apotential negative influence on transportationbroker ethics. Trade associations can occupy akey role in changing these perceptions, and boththe Institute for Supply Management (2012) andTransportation Intermediaries Association(2012) have developed codes of ethics formembers and ethics training courses. Changingthe perceptions of transportation brokersregarding industry ethics is likely a long-termundertaking requiring an emphasis on sharedcodes of ethics and ethics training.

The third component of the ContingencyFramework is opportunity. This component isoperationalized through the use of companycodes of ethics, policies, and rewards/sanctionsfor ethical actions of employees. The currentresearch found 31 brokers who chose anunethical behavior in a “booking and bouncingby a broker” scenario. Either these brokers donot perceive their behavior as unethical (apotential problem with how a code of ethics iscommunicated to brokers), or they do notbelieve they will be caught or sanctioned fortheir behavior (a problem of implementation ofthe code of ethics.) Future research is needed tofocus on the presence, content, andimplementation of codes of ethics intransportation brokerage, the presence ofrewards and sanctions for employee actions in

Spring/Summer 2014 53

regards to ethics, and the perception bybrokerage employees of the likelihood ofincurring reward or sanction based on theirindividual ethical decisions.

Managerial Implications andRecommendationsRecommendations for improving ethicaldecision making have been previously suggestedby Ferrell and Gresham (1985). Adapted totransportation brokerage, theserecommendations would include:

• Hiring individuals with a moralphilosophy consistent with the code ofethics of the brokerage company.

• Training employees on what isconsidered to be ethical decision makingwithin the company.

• Increasing interaction between brokersand employees who are consideredethical, especially those in a supervisorycapacity (and decrease interaction withpeers who have lower ethical standards)

• Establishing a code of ethics, enforcingit, and examining the rewards structure toensure that unethical behavior ispunished and not rewarded.

REFERENCES

Anonymous (2012), “Three Ideas: Make YourSupply Chain More Ethical,” Smarta – Suppliersand Trade, [On-line] Available: http://www.smarta.com/advice/suppliers-and-trade/business-suppliers/three-ideas-make-your-supply-chain-more-ethical. Accessed 1/15/14.

Drea, John T. and Drea, Thomas L. (2010).Ethics in Transportation Brokerage, Alexandria,VA: Transportation Intermediaries Association.

Ferrell, O.C. and Gresham, Larry G. (1985), “AContingency Framework for UnderstandingEthical Decision Making in Marketing,” Journalof Marketing, 49(2): 87-96.

Green, Paul E. and Tull, Donald S. (1978).Research for Marketing Decisions, 4th ed.Prentice Hall International Series inManagement.

Institute for Supply Management (2008),“Principles and Standards of Ethical SupplyManagement Conduct,” [On-line]. Available:http://www.ism.ws/tools/content.cfm?ItemNumber=4740 Created 1/12,Accessed 1/15/14.

Institute for Supply Management (2012).“Principles and Standards of Ethical SupplyManagement Conduct, with Guidelines,” [On-line] Available: http://www.ism.ws/files/SR/PrinciplesandStandardsGuidelines.pdf Created8/22/2102, Accessed 7/14/13.

Levin, Michael R. and Cellini, Richard J. (2008),“Building an Ethical Supply Chain,” PharmPro(September 30), available at http://www.pharmpro.com/Articles/2008/10/Building-An-Ethical-Supply-Chain/ Created 9/30/08,Accessed 7/15/13.

Lilywhite, Serena (2004), “Responsible SupplyChain Management: Ethical Purchasing inPractice,” Brotherhood of St. Laurence, pp. 1-5,available at http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/Lillywhite_Oslo_Ethical_purchasing_checklist.pdfCreated 10/04, Accessed 8/1/13.

Pitta, Dennis A., Fung, Hung-Gay, and Isberg,Steven (1999), “Ethical Issues Across Cultures:Managing the Differing Perspectives of Chinaand the USA,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,16(3): 240-256.

Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. and Oberseder,Magdalena (2010), “Half a Century ofMarketing Ethics: Shifting Perspectives andEmerging Trends,” Journal of Business Ethics,93(1): 1-19.

Journal of Transportation Management54

Schniederjans, Marc J. and Schniederjans, Dara(2009), “Perceptions of Culturally-Based Ethics,Trust and their Impact on Global SupplyChains,” The Global Studies Journal, Volume1(4): 125-138.

Svensson Göran and Bååth, Hans (2008)“Supply Chain Management Ethics: ConceptualFramework and Illustration,” Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, 13(6):398 – 405.

Transportation Intermediaries Association(2012). “TIA Code of Ethics,” [On-line].Available at: http://www.tianet.org/staticcontent/staticpages/Code%20of%20Ethics.pdfWild, Nigel and Zhou, Li (2011) “EthicalProcurement Strategies for International AidNon-Government Organisations,” Supply ChainManagement: An International Journal, 16(2):110 – 127.

Zamaan, Abedullah (2006), “Ethics in SupplyChain Management,” notes from a presentationseries on Professional Ethics in Science andEngineering at Malarden University.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

John Drea (DBA, Southern Illinois University) is Professor/Chair of Management andOrganizational Leadership at Illinois College. He has published in Transportation Journal, Journalof Personal Selling and Sales Management, and the Journal of Services Marketing, among others.He has administered the Certified Transportation Broker examination for TransportationIntermediaries Association since 2003. E-mail: john.drea@mail.ic.edu

James T. Kenny (Ph.D., Oklahoma State University) is a Professor of Marketing at Western IllinoisUniversity. He has published in Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics, and Policy, Journal ofServices Marketing, and the Journal of Business and Behavioral Science. He is a frequent consultantand presenter in the fields of transportation brokerage, sales and strategy. E-mail: jt-kenny1@wiu.edu