Ethics and Power in Human Resource Decisions: A Sociological and Institutional Inquiry

Author: Rana El-Masri — Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

Human resource management (HRM) plays a decisive role in shaping careers, well-being, opportunity, and inequality within organisations. Yet HR decision-making is never a neutral or purely technical process. Instead, it is deeply embedded in organisational power structures, economic pressures, cultural assumptions, and globalised labour dynamics. This article examines ethics and power in HR decisions, integrating three major theoretical frameworks: Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of capital and the field of power, world-systems analysis, and institutional isomorphism. Through an integrative conceptual review with emphasis on research published since 2020, the paper argues that ethical HRM cannot be understood without examining the unequal distribution of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital; the global core–periphery structures that shape labour markets; and the institutional pressures that encourage symbolic compliance rather than substantive ethical transformation.

The article explores ethical and power dynamics across five HR domains: recruitment and selection, performance management and reward, employee voice and discipline, digital surveillance and HR analytics, and cross-border/global employment arrangements. The analysis reveals that while organisations increasingly adopt formal ethical frameworks, many HR decisions remain influenced by hidden biases, informal power networks, professional hierarchies, and global inequalities. Ethical risks are disproportionately borne by workers in precarious, peripheral, or globalised employment positions, while symbolic capital advantages certain groups irrespective of merit.

The findings suggest that ethical HRM requires more than compliance mechanisms or codes of conduct. It demands that organisations identify and disrupt embedded power asymmetries, strengthen employee voice, audit outcomes rather than policies, and extend ethical standards across global value chains. The article concludes with implications for practitioners, scholars, and policy-makers, advocating for ethical HRM as a transformative field focused on justice, dignity, and shared prosperity.

1. Introduction

Human resource decisions shape the lives of employees in profound ways: they influence whether an individual is hired, how they are evaluated, how much they are paid, which opportunities they receive, whether they feel psychologically safe, and even whether they remain employed. Therefore, HR decisions carry moral weight. They are central to questions about fairness, dignity, work ethics, and the very idea of justice within organisations.

In the past decade, interest in ethical HRM has grown significantly. Organisations today face intense scrutiny from employees, consumers, investors, and regulators. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in recruitment and performance evaluation; the expansion of remote work and digital surveillance; growing demands for diversity, equity, and inclusion; and pressure for ESG-oriented HR reporting all bring ethical considerations to the forefront of organisational life. Meanwhile, HR professionals often occupy a delicate position, expected to champion employee well-being while also enforcing organisational priorities and managing risk.

However, much of the existing discussion still treats HR ethics narrowly—focusing on compliance, codes of conduct, or individual ethical dilemmas. What is often missing is a deeper understanding of power, which shapes both the possibilities and limits of ethical HR practice. HR decisions occur within structural, institutional, and global contexts that privilege some forms of capital over others, reproduce social inequalities, and influence whose rights are protected. This article addresses this gap.

The central argument is that ethics and power are inseparable in HRM. To understand how ethical or unethical decisions arise, one must examine the distribution of capital, the institutional environment, and the global labour system within which HR choices are embedded. Using Bourdieu, world-systems analysis, and institutional isomorphism, this article provides an integrated sociological and institutional framework to understand these dynamics.

2. Background and Theoretical Framework

2.1 The Ethical Foundations of HR Decision-Making

Ethical HRM concerns how organisations and HR practitioners act toward employees with respect to fairness, transparency, respect, care, and harm avoidance. Ethical HRM literature identifies repeated problems:

• Discrimination in hiring or promotion

• Opacity in reward and performance evaluation

• Misuse of confidential data

• Bias and favoritism

• Inconsistent disciplinary action

• Neglect of employee well-being

• Weak whistleblower protections

While HR codes emphasise confidentiality, fairness, and respect, research shows that ethical outcomes depend on both the formal systems and the informal power dynamics that shape how HR rules are interpreted and enforced.

Since 2020, scholars have revived interest in macro-level ethical HRM, arguing that globalisation, remote work, and AI-based HR systems create new vulnerabilities and new forms of power over employees (Alowais, 2025; Wiley & Zulkifli, 2025). Thus, ethical HRM must be understood holistically, not merely as individual adherence to rules.

2.2 Bourdieu: Field, Capital, Habitus, and Symbolic Power

Pierre Bourdieu’s theory provides unique insight into power within HR decisions. Bourdieu’s concepts include:

• Field: a structured social space (e.g., HRM) with its own rules and power dynamics.

• Capital:

  • Economic capital: financial resources and compensation power

  • Cultural capital: education, skills, credentials, ways of speaking

  • Social capital: networks, connections, insiders who open doors

  • Symbolic capital: prestige, recognition, perceived legitimacy

• Habitus: patterns of thinking and acting shaped by past experience

• Symbolic violence: subtle domination that feels natural or legitimate

HRM itself is a field of power, where actors struggle over definitions of “merit,” “potential,” “professionalism,” and “leadership.” These definitions are not objective—they reflect and reproduce the capital of dominant groups.

For instance:

• Recruiters may privilege elite university degrees (cultural capital).

• Employees with strong internal networks gain opportunities (social capital).

• Workers from “prestigious” firms are valued more (symbolic capital).

These forms of capital profoundly shape HR decisions, sometimes unconsciously. Ethical HRM requires recognising these invisible advantages and questioning whether they create structural unfairness.

2.3 World-Systems Analysis: Core, Semi-Periphery, and Periphery in HRM

Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems analysis divides the global economic system into:

• Core regions (high wages, strong institutions, advanced industries)

• Semi-periphery regions (intermediate development, mixed protections)

• Periphery regions (low wages, weak institutions, high vulnerability)

In contemporary HRM:

• Core-country employees enjoy stronger protections, safer environments, and more avenues for complaints.

• Peripheral workers—such as migrant labour, offshore call-centre workers, or workers in subcontracted manufacturing—face weaker voice mechanisms, greater surveillance, and minimal avenues of redress.

• Global HR decisions made at headquarters often externalise risk onto peripheral employees.

World-systems analysis thus reveals that ethical risk is unequally distributed in global HRM. A company may have impeccable ethical policies in London or Zurich while tolerating harsh conditions in outsourced facilities in Bangladesh, Kenya, or Cambodia.

Ethical HRM must therefore account for the entire global labour chain—not just direct employees in core regions.

2.4 Institutional Isomorphism and the Diffusion of Ethical HR Practices

Institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) explains why organisations adopt similar HR structures and ethical frameworks. It identifies three pressures:

• Coercive: laws, regulators, ESG reporting

• Mimetic: imitation of high-status organisations

• Normative: professional standards, certifications, HR education

This framework is crucial for understanding modern HR ethics because:

• Many organisations adopt ethical HR policies for legitimacy, not transformation.

• Ethical practices become symbolic—codified on paper but not applied in practice.

• HR professionals may be tasked with compliance rather than moral agency.

• Ethical frameworks may be applied unevenly across borders, depending on reputational risk.

Recent literature (Lamers, 2025; Wiley & Zulkifli, 2025) warns that isomorphic ethical structures can conceal persistent inequities if not matched by genuine power redistribution.

3. Method

This article adopts an integrative conceptual review approach. It synthesises:

1. Contemporary HRM ethics literature (2020-2025)

2. Sociological frameworks on power (Bourdieu)

3. Critical global labour studies (world-systems analysis)

4. Institutional theory (isomorphism and ethical culture)

Sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and professional standards frameworks. Recent works (<5 years) were prioritised, including studies on ethical leadership, sustainable HRM, AI in HR, global work, and ethical culture institutionalisation.

The review identifies recurring patterns and constructs a theoretical analysis of HR decision-making across multiple contexts, with emphasis on ethical implications.

4. Analysis: Ethics and Power Across HR Decision Areas

This extended section explores how ethics and power operate within five major HR domains.

4.1 Recruitment and Selection: Gatekeeping and the Reproduction of Advantage

Recruitment is often described as the most “objective” HR function, but Bourdieu shows that it is a site where cultural, social, and symbolic capital operate most powerfully.

4.1.1 The Illusion of Meritocracy

Hiring practices frequently favour:

• elite university degrees

• familiarity with dominant communication styles

• specific internship experiences

• shared cultural references

• “polish” and “professional presence”

These preferences reflect the cultural capital of dominant groups rather than actual job-relevant ability. Recruiters may unconsciously prefer candidates whose habitus resembles that of existing employees.

This is symbolic power—bias that does not feel like bias.

4.1.2 AI Recruitment and Algorithmic Bias

AI-based recruitment systems amplify historical patterns. When algorithms are trained on past successful employees, they reproduce past inequalities.

For example:

• undervaluing candidates with career breaks

• penalising non-traditional educational paths

• filtering out candidates from lower socioeconomic backgrounds

• favouring applicants from specific locations or surnames

Ethical risks increase when:

• AI systems are opaque

• candidates cannot challenge outcomes

• HR teams lack skill to audit algorithms

• global hiring pools involve regions with different data protections

4.1.3 Global Recruitment and the Core–Periphery Divide

Multinational companies may recruit:

• strategic, high-skilled roles in core countries

• operational roles in semi-periphery

• labour-intensive or routine roles in periphery

Employees in periphery positions often:

• undergo more intensive screening

• have fewer legal protections

• face higher surveillance

• receive weaker orientation or training

This reveals ethical inconsistencies across borders.

4.2 Performance Management and Reward: Constructing Value and Legitimising Inequality

Performance management is among the most ethically sensitive HR functions.

4.2.1 Performance as a Social Construct

Performance is not merely output; it is framed through organisational values, cultural norms, and subjective interpretation.

Examples:

• Employees fluent in the dominant language may be rated as “better communicators.”

• Extroverts may be seen as “more engaged.”

• Employees who socialise with managers may receive more favourable feedback.

• Employees with family responsibilities may be labelled as “less committed.”

These biases reflect habitus, not merit.

4.2.2 The Politics of Reward Systems

Reward systems allocate economic and symbolic capital. They often reproduce inequality through:

• opaque bonus systems

• unexplained pay gaps

• limited pay transparency

• inconsistent application of criteria

• unequal access to “high-visibility” assignments

Even when pay equity audits are conducted, symbolic capital often shields high-status groups from scrutiny.

4.2.3 Global Pay Inequalities

World-systems analysis reveals stark discrepancies:

• A manager in a core country may earn 10–20 times more than an equally skilled manager in a peripheral region.

• Workers in subcontracted sites may receive wages barely above subsistence.

• Global teams face unequal access to development, leadership visibility, and promotion.

Ethical HRM requires addressing inequity not only within but across borders.

4.3 Employee Voice, Representation, and Discipline: Power, Risk, and Silence

Voice and discipline reveal the most visible tensions between ethical ideals and organisational power.

4.3.1 The Unequal Distribution of Voice

Employees with higher symbolic and social capital are more likely to:

• speak up

• be heard

• be believed

• avoid retaliation

Lower-status employees—especially migrants, gig workers, temporary staff, and outsourced workers—often fear that voicing concerns will lead to punishment.

This creates “cultures of silence.”

4.3.2 Whistleblowing and Retaliation

Although many organisations adopt whistleblowing policies, studies show:

• retaliation is common

• whistleblowing channels are underused

• managers may protect powerful offenders

• ethics offices often lack independence

Institutional isomorphism means organisations adopt whistleblowing systems for legitimacy, yet fail to enforce them meaningfully.

4.3.3 Discipline and Termination

Disciplinary decisions can be influenced by:

• managers’ biases

• power dynamics

• personal relationships

• perceptions of “fit” or “alignment”

• stereotypes (e.g., gendered expectations about “emotional behaviour”)

Peripheral employees often face harsher discipline and fewer opportunities for appeal.

4.4 Digital Surveillance and HR Analytics: Data, Privacy, and Control

The digitalisation of HR has expanded organisational power in unprecedented ways.

4.4.1 The Growth of Data-Driven HRM

HR analytics now influences:

• recruitment filtering

• performance scores

• promotion decisions

• absenteeism tracking

• turnover prediction

• safety compliance

• productivity monitoring

These systems promise efficiency but raise ethical concerns.

4.4.2 Surveillance of Remote and Gig Workers

Remote workers increasingly face:

• keystroke logging

• webcam monitoring

• app usage tracking

• attention-tracking software

• real-time productivity dashboards

Gig workers may be algorithmically managed through opaque rating systems and automatic penalties.

4.4.3 Global Data Inequalities

Data infrastructures are usually controlled by core-country teams, yet deployed worldwide. Workers in peripheral regions often:

• have fewer data protections

• lack avenues to challenge analytics

• face more intensive monitoring

Ethical HRM requires respecting privacy and creating transparent, fair digital ecosystems.

4.5 Cross-Border Work and Global Inequality: Whose Ethics Count?

Globalisation has transformed HRM into a transnational field.

4.5.1 Offshoring and Outsourcing

Companies may outsource labour-intensive work to regions with:

• lower wages

• weaker labour protections

• limited unionisation

• higher unemployment

Although formal codes prohibit exploitation, enforcement is inconsistent.

4.5.2 Migrant Labour and Ethical Vulnerability

Migrant workers often experience:

• recruitment fees

• contract substitution

• restricted mobility

• dependency on sponsors

• limited access to grievance systems

Many suffer silently due to fear of deportation or job loss.

4.5.3 Ethical Implications of Global Value Chains

Ethical HRM cannot be confined to headquarters. It must include:

• suppliers

• subcontractors

• franchisees

• platform-based labour ecosystems

World-systems analysis shows that ethical HRM must challenge global structures that normalise inequality.

5. Findings and Discussion

5.1 Ethics Cannot Be Separated from Power

The first major finding is that ethical HRM is impossible without understanding power. HR decisions:

• allocate resources

• define legitimacy

• construct merit

• reinforce hierarchies

Power is embedded in recruitment criteria, performance metrics, and disciplinary standards. Ethical HRM must therefore focus on redistributing power, not merely applying rules.

5.2 Structural Inequalities Are Reproduced Through HR Decisions

HR systems often reproduce inequality through:

• valuing elite credentials

• favouring insiders

• assigning symbolic capital to certain backgrounds

• uneven global labour practices

Ethical HRM must recognise that fairness cannot be achieved without addressing structural domination.

5.3 Global HRM Reflects Core–Periphery Divisions

Ethical risks are highest in peripheral regions where:

• legal protections are weak

• surveillance is intense

• wages are low

• worker voice is limited

Ethical HRM must extend beyond headquarters to the entire value chain.

5.4 Institutional Pressures Shape Ethical Behaviour—Often Superficially

Ethical frameworks spread through coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures. However:

• policies may be symbolic

• ethics offices may lack power

• whistleblowing systems may be ineffective

• ethical statements may not affect behaviour

Authentic ethical HRM requires substantive—not symbolic—change.

5.5 Ethical HRM Requires Leadership, Voice, and Accountability

Research consistently shows that ethics improve when:

• leaders model moral behaviour

• employees can safely voice concerns

• HR has independence

• sanctions apply to powerful offenders

• outcomes are audited for fairness

This aligns with Bourdieu’s call for reflexivity and institutional theory’s call for embedding ethical culture.

6. Conclusion

Ethics and power are woven into every HR decision. Ethical HRM requires:

• recognising hidden power dynamics

• addressing global inequalities

• empowering employee voice

• auditing actual outcomes

• ensuring transparency and fairness

• strengthening ethical leadership

• extending ethical standards across global value chains

Real ethical HRM is not merely procedural; it is transformative. It challenges the structures that reproduce inequality and seeks to build workplaces that are fair, dignified, and just for all employees—whether in core, semi-periphery, or periphery positions.

Hashtags

#EthicalHRM

#WorkplaceJustice

#PowerAndPeople

#GlobalHRM

#SustainableWork

#PeopleFirst

#HumanCentricHR

References

• Alowais, A. A. (2025). The impact of ethical leadership on employee behaviours in higher education institutions. Administrative Sciences, 15(10).

• Anlesinya, A., Amponsah-Tawiah, K., Dartey-Baah, K., Adeti, S., & Brefo-Manuh, A. (2022). Institutional isomorphism and sustainable HRM adoption. Industrial and Commercial Training.

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

• Christensen, G. (2024). Three concepts of power: Foucault, Bourdieu, and Habermas. Power and Education.

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Gusdorf, M. L. (2010). Ethics in Human Resource Management. SHRM.

• Kaufman, B. (2016). Globalization and HRM convergence. Human Resource Management Review, 26(4).

• Lamers, L. (2025). Ethical impact in HRM: Advancing knowledge through Mode E. Human Resource Management Journal.

• Lakhani, T., Kuruvilla, S., & Avgar, A. (2013). Global value chains and employment relations. International Labour Review, 152(3–4), 297–312.

• Mayer, D., & Greenbaum, R. (2013). Ethical leadership and misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 67–81.

• Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and Performance. Oxford University Press.

• Tenbrunsel, A. & Messick, D. (2004). Ethical fading. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

• Wiley, B. & Zulkifli, N. (2025). Institutionalization of ethical culture through evolutive compliance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

• Wood, G. & Budhwar, P. (2021). Human Resource Management and Ethics. Routledge.