Abstract
In the nascent interdisciplinary subfield of responsible management, researchers have approached the rapidly escalating climate emergency and growing global inequalities afflicting the world primarily from macro-institutional and political economy perspectives, often overlooking micro (and meso) level factors that have the potential to offer more nuanced, person x situational explanations of why some organizational stakeholders are seeking to address these major dysfunctions, whereas other stakeholders are continuing to make choices that are fueling them. To help rectify this scholarly imbalance, the aim of the present study is to illuminate the cognitive bases of decision-makers' judgments and choices regarding (ir)responsible management practices. Using policy capturing techniques, our study is investigating how decision makers with varied values, chronic information processing preferences, and senses of agency, arbitrate between choices that require them to strike delicate balances pertaining to ethicality, sustainability, responsibility, and financial viability — the defining pillars of this new specialty.