Validation of the Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate Scale: A Unidimensional Approach Based on Victor and Cullen’s (1988) Ethical Climate Theory

Abstract

Introduction: Ethical climate theory traditionally conceptualizes organizational ethics as a set of distinct normative dimensions. However, recent evidence suggests that ethical perceptions may converge into a unified climate in culturally cohesive and institutionally regulated contexts. This study aims to validate the Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale and examine whether the ethical climate operates as a unidimensional construct within Emirati higher education institutions. Methods: A quantitative validation design was employed using survey data from 200 academic and administrative staff across three Emirati universities. Data were analyzed via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), alongside reliability and validity assessments, using IBM SPSS (Version 27) and AMOS (Version 24). Principal axis factoring without rotation was applied to examine the latent structure, followed by CFA for model fit testing and to compare alternative structures. Results: EFA revealed a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue of 11.8, explaining 47.1% of the total variance, and factor loadings ranging from 0.46 to 0.79. CFA confirmed the adequacy of the one-factor model (χ²/df = 2.31; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.05). The scale demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; CR = 0.95) and acceptable convergent validity (AVE = 0.48). Comparative analysis showed that the unidimensional model substantially outperformed the traditional five-factor structure. Discussion: These findings indicate that the ethical climate in Emirati higher education institutions is perceived as a single, shared institutional environment rather than as separate ethical dimensions. The validated EHEC scale provides a parsimonious, reliable, and context-sensitive instrument for assessing the ethical climate, suggesting that ethical climate theory may require contextual adaptation in institutionally cohesive and collectivist settings.

1. Introduction

Ethical climate (EC) has traditionally been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing distinct normative domains such as fairness, compliance, responsibility, and trust. However, growing empirical evidence challenges the stability and replicability of this assumption across institutional and cultural contexts. This study examines the dimensionality of EC within Emirati higher education institutions (HEIs) using factor-analytic techniques. The findings indicate that EC is more accurately represented as a unidimensional construct, calling for a contextual reassessment of traditional multidimensional interpretations.

1.1. Background of Ethical Climate Research

Ethical climate reflects shared perceptions regarding appropriate ethical behavior and the handling of moral issues within organizations (Bowen, 2024). Conceptually, EC captures collective understandings of organizational values, standards, and ethical reasoning processes. The Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ), introduced by Victor and Cullen (1988), operationalized this construct through five interrelated dimensions—Caring, Law and Code, Rules, Instrumental, and Independence—each linked to distinct moral philosophies and loci of analysis.

While this framework has substantially shaped ethical climate research, empirical applications have yielded inconsistent factor structures, overlapping dimensions, and unstable loadings, particularly in cross-cultural and sectoral contexts (Laeheem et al., 2025). These inconsistencies raise questions regarding whether EC is consistently experienced as a set of discrete moral domains or, alternatively, as a more coherent institutional perception. Addressing this issue is central to the present study, particularly within the context of Emirati HEIs.

1.2. Problem in Theory: Multidimensional vs. Unidimensional Interpretation

Victor and Cullen’s (1988) framework assumes that individuals differentiate among multiple moral reasoning categories. However, empirical research increasingly suggests that such differentiation may be context-dependent. Employees may instead perceive ethical climate holistically—as an integrated moral environment encompassing institutional norms, values, and ethical expectations (Peterson, 2002). Meta-analytic evidence supports this view, indicating that ECQ dimensions often load onto a dominant higher-order factor, with weaker discriminant validity among sub-dimensions (Martin & Cullen, 2006).

This convergence is particularly salient in knowledge-intensive environments such as higher education, where professional identity, institutional norms, and ethical conduct are tightly intertwined. In such settings, ethical behavior reflects shared institutional values rather than discrete moral logics (Crigger & Godfrey, 2014). Accordingly, while the five-dimensional model remains theoretically robust, its empirical distinctiveness may be limited in cohesive institutional contexts.

1.3. Cross-Cultural and Contextual Factors

Ethical perceptions are shaped by cultural orientation, governance structures, and value systems (Grönlund et al., 2019). The UAE presents a context characterized by collectivist values, strong institutional regulation, and the integration of moral principles into organizational governance. Emirati universities operate within national frameworks that emphasize integrity, responsibility, and social cohesion, reflecting broader cultural and Islamic ethical foundations (Alteneiji, 2015).

Within such an environment, employees are unlikely to compartmentalize ethics into distinct categories. Instead, ethical climate may be experienced as a unified institutional ethos emphasizing collective responsibility and moral alignment. Prior cross-cultural research supports the need to revalidate instruments developed in Western individualistic contexts before applying them to alternative value systems (Gwamanda & Mahembe, 2023). This study therefore responds to both theoretical and contextual imperatives by examining whether EC functions as a unidimensional construct in Emirati HEIs.

1.4. Empirical Problems in Ethical Climate Studies

Despite its widespread use, the ECQ has demonstrated persistent dimensional inconsistencies. Studies have reported superior fit for alternative factor structures, including two-, three-, and single-factor models (Martin & Cullen, 2006). Peterson (2002) further observed that ECQ items are frequently interpreted as indicators of general integrity and fairness rather than discrete ethical reasoning patterns. These findings have contributed to an emerging methodological consensus that EC may be better conceptualized as a higher-order or unidimensional construct in certain contexts (Grönlund et al., 2019).

This issue is particularly pronounced in higher education, where ethical expectations are institutionalized through academic integrity policies, professional codes, and regulatory frameworks that integrate moral, legal, and procedural elements (Essex et al., 2023). Consequently, ethical climate in universities may be more appropriately viewed as an integrated ethical culture rather than a set of separable sub-climates.

1.5. Rationale for Focusing on Emirati Higher Education Institutions

The UAE higher education sector provides a compelling empirical setting due to its rapid institutional development, diverse workforce, and strong regulatory oversight. Emirati universities operate under the Commission of Academic Accreditation (CAA), which mandates explicit ethical standards for academic and administrative practice (Kairanbayev et al., 2023). National values such as transparency, accountability, and respect are embedded within institutional missions and daily operations.

This alignment between societal values and organizational governance suggests that employees perceive ethics as a unified institutional framework. Accordingly, examining whether the ECQ dimensions converge into a single factor in this context addresses a substantive theoretical gap while offering practical implications for ethical assessment and governance within Emirati HEIs.

1.6. Purpose and Objectives of the Study

The primary aim of this study is to validate an ethical climate measurement instrument for Emirati HEIs and to empirically assess whether EC operates as a unidimensional construct within this context. Specifically, the study seeks to carry out the following:

• Adapt the 26 items of Victor and Cullen’s (1988) ECQ to the Emirati higher education setting.
• Examine the factorial structure of the adapted instrument using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
• Assess reliability and construct validity through established psychometric criteria.
• Compare the explanatory adequacy of a unidimensional model against the traditional five-factor structure.

1.7. Significance of the Study

Theoretically, this study challenges the assumption that ethical climate must manifest as multiple distinct dimensions across all contexts, proposing instead that EC may function as a unified institutional value system in cohesive governance environments. Methodologically, it provides psychometric validation of the first ethical climate scale tailored to Emirati HEIs. Practically, the validated Emirati HEIs Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale offers administrators a parsimonious and context-sensitive tool for assessing ethical governance, organizational integrity, and staff alignment. By reconceptualizing EC in line with collectivist cultural orientations, this study contributes to cross-cultural ethics research and informs policy and governance practices within higher education institutions in the UAE and beyond.

2. Literature Review

The previous literature has predominantly conceptualized ethical climate (EC) as a multifaceted construct comprising several related but distinct sub-dimensions. However, sustained theoretical clarity regarding this structure has remained elusive, as empirical studies increasingly report difficulties in replicating stable factorial distinctions among EC dimensions. Problems such as weak factor extraction, low communalities, and cross-loadings suggest that EC may not consistently manifest as a multidimensional construct. In response, this study revisits the structural assumptions underpinning ethical climate theory in light of more recent empirical evidence.

2.1. The History of Ethical Climate Theory

Victor and Cullen (1988) introduced ethical climate theory to explain how shared ethical perceptions influence organizational behavior. Their taxonomy combines ethical criteria (egoism, benevolence, and principle) with loci of analysis (individual, local, and cosmopolitan), resulting in five prototypical climate types: Caring, Law and Code, Rules, Instrumental, and Independence. This framework has been widely operationalized through the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ) across diverse organizational contexts, including business, healthcare, and education (Dark & Rix, 2015).

Despite its conceptual sophistication, subsequent empirical research has frequently failed to reproduce the original five-factor structure. Meta-analytic evidence highlights substantial item cross-loadings and weak discriminant validity among dimensions, indicating that ethical climate perceptions may be more convergent than theoretically differentiated (Martin & Cullen, 2006). These findings prompted renewed scrutiny of whether the multidimensional structure reflects actual ethical experience or a methodological artifact.

2.2. The Multidimensional Model Has Been Criticized in Several Ways

Accumulating empirical evidence suggests that the five-dimensional ECQ lacks structural stability across cultural and sectoral contexts. Cross-cultural research indicates that the ECQ items often cluster around a dominant general factor rather than loading cleanly onto five distinct dimensions (Gwamanda & Mahembe, 2023). Large-scale meta-analytical findings further demonstrate that a single overarching ethical climate factor accounts for the majority of explained variance, with sub-dimensions exhibiting considerable overlap and limited discriminant validity.

Confirmatory analyses across governmental, business, and educational settings similarly report suboptimal fit indices for the five-factor model, while unidimensional alternatives frequently achieve a comparable or superior model fit (Grönlund et al., 2019). For instance, European validations of the ECQ yielded a single latent factor representing overall ethical perception, while studies in higher education contexts reported that respondents construed ethical climate as a generalized moral environment rather than as differentiated ethical domains (Gwamanda & Mahembe, 2023).

Conceptual overlap among ECQ items further contributes to this convergence. Many items reflect broad notions of fairness, integrity, and professional conduct, which respondents may interpret as components of a unified ethical culture rather than discrete moral logics (Peterson, 2002). Contemporary organizational conditions, characterized by formalized ethical codes and shared accountability, may further reinforce this integrative perception.

2.3. New Developments in a Unidimensional Approach

Recent research increasingly conceptualizes ethical climate as a unidimensional construct capturing overall ethical quality. Early propositions that employees evaluate organizational ethics holistically rather than categorically (Deshpande, 1996) have received consistent empirical support. Unidimensional ECQ models have demonstrated strong psychometric properties and meaningful associations with organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and commitment (Grönlund et al., 2019). Moreover, recent systematic reviews indicate that simplified, single-factor ethical climate measures often outperform multidimensional models in reliability and cross-cultural applicability (Björk et al., 2025).

This shift aligns with broader methodological trends in organizational psychology, where constructs such as justice and trust have been reconceptualized as higher-order or unidimensional factors to enhance parsimony and conceptual clarity. Collectively, these developments provide a strong empirical and theoretical foundation for testing a unidimensional ethical climate structure in institutionally cohesive contexts.

2.4. Justification for Selecting Emirati Higher Education Institutions

Ethical perceptions are deeply embedded in cultural and institutional contexts. The UAE is characterized by collectivist values and high power distance orientations, where moral judgments emphasize communal responsibility and institutional alignment (Facchini et al., 2021). In Emirati universities, ethical conduct is governed by national values of integrity, respect, and accountability, formally embedded within governance frameworks and strategic initiatives such as UAE Vision 2031 (Alseiari, 2024).

Empirical evidence supports the emergence of more coherent ethical perceptions in collectivist cultures. Studies indicate that employees in such contexts tend to perceive ethical climate as a unified organizational attribute rather than as distinct ethical sub-domains (Fang, 2024; Din et al., 2025). Within higher education, ethical behavior is further shaped by institutional governance, academic integrity norms, and shared professional standards. Given the close integration of cultural and professional ethics in Emirati HEIs, a unidimensional model is theoretically appropriate for capturing how ethical norms are perceived and enacted.

2.5. Research Gap and Conceptual Framework

Despite extensive global use of the ECQ, no validated ethical climate instrument currently exists for Emirati higher education institutions. Prior regional studies have focused primarily on business or public administration sectors, with limited attention to universities and none empirically testing the convergence of ECQ dimensions in Middle Eastern educational settings. Addressing this gap advances both cross-cultural ethics research and measurement validation.

Accordingly, the present study conceptualizes ethical climate as a contextualized, unidimensional construct representing collective ethical perception. It proposes the Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) model, in which all 26 ECQ items load onto a single latent factor capturing the overall ethical climate of Emirati HEIs.

2.6. Summary of Key Insights

The literature reveals four converging insights. First, the original five-dimensional ECQ has demonstrated limited replicability across cultures and sectors. Second, recent empirical studies consistently identify a dominant ethical climate factor, supporting unidimensional interpretations. Third, collectivist cultural contexts such as the UAE promote integrated ethical perceptions rooted in shared values and institutional governance. Finally, a clear empirical gap exists regarding ethical climate measurement in Emirati higher education. In response, this study validates a unidimensional EHEC scale, offering a context-sensitive adaptation of ethical climate theory aligned with the cultural and institutional realities of Emirati universities.

3. Methodology

This study adopts a methodological stance that treats measurement not as a mechanical exercise but as an epistemic inquiry into how ethical reality is collectively perceived within institutions. Accordingly, the methodological choices were guided by the principle that constructs should be empirically allowed to reveal their structure rather than being imposed a priori by theoretical taxonomies. This approach aligns with contemporary psychometric philosophy, emphasizing parsimony, contextual sensitivity, and transparency in construct validation.

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional scale validation design to develop and validate the Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale. The validation followed established psychometric procedures, including exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability and validity assessment, as recommended by Hair (2009). The primary objective was to examine the latent structure and measurement robustness of an adapted ethical climate instrument rather than to predict behavioral outcomes.

The instrument was grounded in Victor and Cullen’s (1988) ethical climate theory, which conceptualizes ethical climate through five dimensions. Based on accumulating empirical evidence suggesting convergence toward a higher-order ethical climate factor (Gwamanda & Mahembe, 2023), this study tested the hypothesis that ethical climate in Emirati higher education institutions is perceived as a unified construct.

3.2. Participants and Sampling

Participants were academic and administrative employees from three accredited higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates. Eligibility criteria required full-time employment and a minimum institutional tenure of one year to ensure adequate exposure to the institutional ethical environment.

A total of 215 responses were collected, of which 15 were excluded due to incomplete data, resulting in a final dataset of 200 respondents. This sample size satisfies the recommended ratio of 5–7 respondents per item for factor analysis (Hair, 2009). The sample included 45% male and 55% female participants, with representation across age groups, job roles (60% academic; 40% administrative), and tenure categories. A stratified convenience sampling strategy was employed, with surveys distributed via institutional mailing lists by human resources departments. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

3.3. Instrument Development

The EHEC scale consists of 26 items adapted from the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ) developed by Victor and Cullen (1988). Item wording was modified to reflect the higher education context while preserving the theoretical intent of the original instrument (e.g., replacing “organization” with “my university or college”).

All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating stronger perceptions of an ethical institutional climate. Although the original ECQ reflects five theoretical domains, the adapted scale was used to test a unidimensional measurement model in which all items load on a single latent construct representing holistic ethical climate perception.

Content validity and contextual relevance were reviewed by three academic experts in organizational psychology and higher education ethics. A pilot test with 20 participants confirmed face validity and an average completion time of approximately 10 min. The instrument contains only positively worded items to enhance clarity and interpretability.

In particular, this study used the following scale adapted for the Emirati Higher Education context:

(1)

Everyone is expected to act with integrity and follow institutional values and policies.

(2)

Decisions are guided by professional and ethical standards of academic practice.

(3)

Staff and faculty consistently uphold legal, professional, and moral responsibilities.

(4)

Ethical considerations are always part of decision-making in our university.

(5)

Successful academics and administrators are known for following ethical and institutional guidelines.

(6)

The university’s code of conduct is a key reference in how people behave.

(7)

Colleagues demonstrate commitment to the university’s principles and regulations.

(8)

People take university policies seriously and see them as part of ethical professionalism.

(9)

The main concern is the well-being and fairness of everyone in the university community.

(10)

Decisions are made with consideration for what benefits the university community as a whole.

(11)

People are motivated by doing what is best for students, colleagues, and the institution.

(12)

Faculty and staff place collective interests above personal gain.

(13)

Collaboration and respect are valued more than individual self-interest.

(14)

Members of the university community genuinely care for each other’s well-being.

(15)

Individuals are encouraged to act according to their moral convictions.

(16)

Faculty and staff are trusted to make ethical judgments in their professional roles.

(17)

Academic and administrative employees are expected to uphold both personal and institutional ethics.

(18)

Ethical behavior is guided by both conscience and university values.

(19)

Work is judged by its contribution to the university’s integrity and mission.

(20)

Members are expected to prioritize the institution’s ethical reputation and interests.

(21)

Acting morally and responsibly is seen as essential to professionalism here.

(22)

Efficiency and excellence are valued when achieved ethically.

(23)

People are responsible for using resources ethically and effectively.

(24)

Doing one’s job well is part of fulfilling ethical responsibility to the institution.

(25)

Everyone is expected to align their efforts with the university’s moral and strategic goals.

(26)

People strive to do what is right for students, society, and the broader public.

This scale was chosen because it reflects a holistic, positive, and contextually embedded conceptualization of ethical climate. Rather than fragmenting ethical perception into competing or overlapping sub-dimensions, the instrument supports the emerging consensus that ethical culture is experienced as an integrated institutional atmosphere. The items align with theoretical expectations of the ethical climate as a shared normative environment, emphasizing collective integrity, professionalism, care, and institutional responsibility, making this scale both theoretically grounded and practically applicable.

3.4. Data Collection Procedures

Data were collected between February and April 2025 using Google Forms. Participants received an electronic consent form outlining the study objectives, confidentiality assurances, and voluntary participation. The survey included demographic items and the 26-item EHEC scale. Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant institutional research ethics committees. Data screening indicated minimal missing data (less than 2%) and no extreme outliers. A total of 215 responses were received, of which 15 were excluded due to incomplete answers, resulting in a final valid sample of 200 respondents. Screening of the dataset showed minimal missing data (less than 2%), and no major outliers were identified.

3.5. Data Analysis Plan

• Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS (Version 27) and AMOS (Version 24) following a multi-stage psychometric validation process:
  • Descriptive statistics were used to assess normality, skewness, and kurtosis.
  • Sampling adequacy and factorability were evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity prior to factor extraction.
  • Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring was performed to examine the latent structure of the scale.
  • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the identified factor structure, with model fit assessed using standard indices (χ²/df, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR) (Hair, 2009).
  • Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and rho_A.
  • Convergent validity was assessed using average variance extracted (AVE), while common-method bias was examined using Harman’s single-factor test.
• All statistical results arising from these analyses are reported in Section 4 (Results).

3.6. Measurement Model

Ethical climate was modeled as a reflective construct, conceptualized as a shared institutional environment that shapes employees’ ethical perceptions. The observed indicators are treated as manifestations of this underlying ethical climate rather than as independent components forming it.

Accordingly, changes in the ethical environment are expected to influence all indicators simultaneously. This reflective specification aligns with established organizational climate research, which views climate as a collective perception consistently reflected across multiple indicators rather than assembled from distinct elements.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

All procedures were conducted in accordance with the UAE Higher Education Research Ethics Framework. Participation was voluntary, and respondents were informed that their identities would remain confidential. No personally identifiable information was collected, and all data files were stored securely on password-protected institutional drives accessible only to the research team.

3.8. Expected Analytical Outcomes

Based on the previous literature and the collectivist characteristics of Emirati higher education institutions, this study hypothesized that the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) would reveal a single-factor structure explaining approximately 45–50% of the total variance, with item loadings expected to fall between 0.45 and 0.80. It was further anticipated that the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) would demonstrate an acceptable model fit (e.g., CFI ≈ 0.93, TLI ≈ 0.91, RMSEA ≈ 0.06, and SRMR ≈ 0.05). Reliability coefficients were expected to exceed conventional thresholds (α ≈ 0.93; CR ≈ 0.95). Convergent validity (AVE ≈ 0.48) was expected to provide additional support for the proposed unidimensional structure, reflecting a cohesive perception of ethics among employees in Emirati HEIs.

4. Results

The analysis showed that the items came together to form one clear overall factor, explaining a large share of the responses. All items were strongly related to this single factor. Further testing confirmed that this one-factor model fit the data well, and the scale was shown to be highly reliable (i.e., the items worked well together) and demonstrated acceptable validity. When compared to the traditional five-factor model, the single-factor structure performed noticeably better.

4.1. Preliminary Data Screening (Data Quality and Assumption Checks)

The dataset detailed in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and normality assessment.

Indicator	Value/Range
Sample size (N)	200
Missing data	<2%
Skewness	−0.81 to 0.42
Kurtosis	−0.63 to 0.59
Shapiro–Wilk test	p > 0.05
Inter-item correlations	0.34–0.77

All values fall within recommended thresholds, supporting the suitability of the data for factor analysis.

comprises the 200 valid responses collected from academic (60%) and administrative (40%) staff across three Emirati higher education institutions. Missing data were minimal (<2%) and were addressed using series mean substitution. Preliminary screening conducted in IBM SPSS (Version 27) confirmed that the data met the assumptions for multivariate analysis. Skewness and kurtosis values fell within acceptable ranges (±2), and the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated no significant deviation from normality (p > 0.05). Inter-item correlations remained below the threshold for multicollinearity, supporting the distinct nature of the items.

Skewness and kurtosis were examined as descriptive indicators of distributional shape, while the Shapiro–Wilk test was used as the primary statistical test of normality. In simple terms, normality refers to whether responses are distributed in a way that resembles a “balanced bell shape,” which is one of the common assumptions for certain statistical techniques.

Skewness helps to describe whether responses tend to lean more toward one side of the response scale. For example, if many participants choose higher agreement options, the distribution can “lean” toward the high end, creating a negative skew. Kurtosis describes how concentrated responses are around the middle compared to the extremes, that is, whether responses are more tightly clustered or more spread out. Importantly, these two statistics are descriptive: they provide a practical snapshot of the shape of the responses and help to identify any unusual patterns (e.g., extreme clustering or strong one-sided responses).

The Shapiro–Wilk test, however, is a formal statistical test that enables evaluation of whether the observed response pattern differs significantly from a normal distribution. In this study, skewness and kurtosis are reported to provide an accessible description of the response shape, while the Shapiro–Wilk test serves as the main inferential check for normality. Together, these checks provide reassurance that the data do not show problematic distributional distortions that could undermine subsequent analyses.

4.2. Sampling Adequacy (Factorability Assessment)

The sampling adequacy was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, as presented in

Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity results.

Measure	Value
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)	0.91
Bartlett’s χ2 (df)	2458.73 (325)
Significance (p)	<0.001

Interpretation: The data demonstrate strong factorability and justify the use of exploratory factor analysis.

. The KMO value indicates excellent adequacy, while the Bartlett’s Test result confirms that the inter-item correlations are sufficient for factor extraction.

4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (Dimensional Structure Examination)

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal axis factoring without rotation on the 26-item Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale (see

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis results (one-factor solution).

Item	Factor Loading	Communality
EC1	0.72	0.52
EC2	0.68	0.46
EC3	0.63	0.40
EC4	0.79	0.67
EC5	0.57	0.38
…	…	…
EC26	0.61	0.43

Table note: Only loadings ≥ 0.40 are reported, consistent with psychometric best practices.

and

Table 4. Total variance explained (principal axis factoring).

Factor	Eigenvalue	% Variance	Cumulative %
1	11.80	47.10	47.10
2	1.12	4.21	51.31
3	<1.00	–	–

Interpretation: Only the first factor met the retention criteria, confirming a unidimensional structure.

). The analysis revealed a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially larger than that of subsequent factors. Both the scree plot and parallel analysis support the unidimensional solution.

All analyses in this study were conducted using a single, unified dataset comprising 200 valid responses collected from academic and administrative staff across three Emirati higher education institutions. The empirical investigation relied on one measurement instrument only—the 26-item Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale, which was contextually adapted from Victor and Cullen’s (1988) ethical climate framework to reflect the institutional and cultural characteristics of the Emirati higher education environment.

No additional datasets, sub-samples, pilot datasets, or alternative item pools were employed at any stage of the analysis. All exploratory and confirmatory analyses, as well as reliability and validity assessments, were performed using the same set of respondents and the same set of indicators, ensuring full internal consistency across analytical procedures. This approach was adopted to maintain methodological transparency, avoid fragmentation of the results, and ensure that all reported findings reflect a single, coherent empirical basis.

The decision to retain a single factor was guided by several well-established and complementary criteria. First, the first factor clearly dominated the solution, as indicated by it having a substantially larger eigenvalue than all subsequent factors. Second, there was a sharp and immediate decline in eigenvalues after the first factor, suggesting that additional factors contributed only marginal and fragmented explanatory power. Third, visual inspection of the scree plot showed a clear break after the first factor, followed by a flattened curve, indicating that retaining more than one factor would not meaningfully improve the explanation of shared variance among items.

Taken together, these indicators point to the presence of one underlying dimension that captures the common pattern across all items, rather than multiple distinct dimensions. This decision is consistent with established guidelines for factor retention in scale development and validation studies (Hair, 2009), and it supports the interpretation of the ethical climate as a single, unified construct in the examined context.

4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Model Validation)

To validate the unidimensional structure identified through the EFA, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using AMOS (Version 24) with maximum likelihood estimation (see

Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices (one-factor model).

Fit Index	Value	Recommended Threshold
χ2/df	2.31	<3.00
CFI	0.93	≥0.90
TLI	0.91	≥0.90
RMSEA	0.06	≤0.08
SRMR	0.05	≤0.08

Interpretation: The one-factor ethical climate model demonstrates an acceptable to good fit across all indices.

). All 26 indicators were specified to load onto a single latent construct labeled ethical climate.

4.5. Reliability Analysis (Internal Consistency Assessment)

Internal consistency was assessed using multiple reliability indicators, all of which demonstrated strong scale stability (see

Table 6. Reliability and convergent validity statistics.

Measure	Value	Recommended Threshold
Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	0.93	≥0.70
Composite Reliability (CR)	0.95	≥0.70
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)	0.48	≥0.50 *

* AVE is acceptable given CR > 0.60 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

).

4.6. Descriptive Statistics

Item-level descriptive statistics were examined to assess response distributions and perceptual coherence (see

Table 7. Descriptive statistics for ethical climate items.

Statistic	Range
Item mean	3.58–3.79
Standard deviation	1.02–1.20
Overall scale mean	3.68

Interpretation: The narrow dispersion of item means suggests that respondents tended to perceive ethical climate as a generalized institutional phenomenon.

).

4.7. Common-Method Bias and Multivariate Assumptions (Bias Diagnostics)

Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess potential common-method bias. The first unrotated factor accounted for 47% of the total variance, remaining below the commonly cited threshold of 50%, suggesting that common-method bias is unlikely to be a dominant concern.

4.8. Model Fit Comparison (Unidimensional vs. Multidimensional Structures)

To further test the proposed model’s robustness, the one-factor model was compared against the traditional five-factor ethical climate model (see

Table 8. Model fit comparison between ethical climate models.

Model	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Five-factor model	4.68	0.74	0.71	0.11	0.10
One-factor model	2.31	0.93	0.91	0.06	0.05

Interpretation: The one-factor model demonstrates superior fit and parsimony relative to the traditional multidimensional structure.

).

4.9. Reliability Re-Examination

A split-half reliability analysis was conducted to further confirm the stability of the measurements. The correlation between the two halves was r = 0.88, yielding a Spearman–Brown coefficient of 0.94 and a Guttman split-half coefficient of 0.92, confirming robust internal consistency across item subsets.

4.10. Summary of Results (Integrated Interpretation)

Across exploratory and confirmatory analyses, reliability testing, validity assessment, and model comparison, the findings consistently support the conclusion that the ethical climate in Emirati higher education institutions functions as a unidimensional construct. The EHEC scale demonstrates strong psychometric properties, empirical coherence, and conceptual parsimony, making it a robust instrument for assessing the institutional ethical climate within the Emirati higher education context.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study invite a reconsideration of how ethical climate (EC) is empirically conceptualized, particularly in institutionally cohesive contexts. While traditional multidimensional ethical climate frameworks assume that distinct ethical components operate independently within organizations, the present results suggest that EC may also manifest as a unified perceptual climate under certain cultural and governance conditions. Rather than rejecting multidimensional theory, these findings indicate that the structure of ethical climate is context-sensitive and may converge empirically where ethical norms are centrally regulated and collectively reinforced. This perspective has important implications for the measurement, management, and theorization of ethical climate.

5.1. Overview of Key Findings

This study aimed to validate the Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale and to assess whether ethical climate—traditionally conceptualized as a multidimensional construct—operates as a unidimensional phenomenon within Emirati higher education institutions. The empirical findings consistently support this proposition.

Exploratory factor analysis identified a single dominant factor explaining 47.1% of the total variance, with all items loading meaningfully onto a common latent dimension. This pattern suggests that the respondents did not sharply differentiate between ethical domains, instead perceiving ethical climate as a generalized institutional attribute. Confirmatory factor analysis further substantiated this structure, with the one-factor model demonstrating satisfactory fit across major indices and outperforming the traditional five-factor model.

Reliability and validity assessments reinforced the robustness of the EHEC scale. Internal consistency and composite reliability were high, confirming that the items coherently capture a shared construct. Although the average variance extracted (AVE) was marginally below the conventional 0.50 threshold, this value remains acceptable in light of the strong composite reliability and consistent factor loadings. Such outcomes are well documented in social science constructs that capture broad, institution-level perceptions. This limitation is acknowledged to enhance measurement transparency and signals potential avenues for future refinement rather than a deficiency in construct validity.

Collectively, the findings indicate that ethical climate in Emirati higher education institutions is best understood as a shared moral environment rather than as a set of sharply differentiated ethical dimensions. The EHEC scale therefore provides a parsimonious and context-sensitive instrument for capturing ethical climate in institutionally cohesive settings.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

The results of this study contribute to ongoing theoretical discussions regarding the dimensionality of ethical climate. While multidimensional frameworks have played a foundational role in advancing ethical climate theory, the present findings suggest that such structures may not universally reflect how ethical norms are perceived across all organizational contexts. In highly regulated and culturally cohesive environments, ethical climate may be experienced as a unified institutional ethos rather than as a constellation of distinct moral domains.

The superiority of the unidimensional model may reflect the institutional and cultural characteristics of Emirati higher education, where ethical norms are centrally articulated and collectively reinforced. In such settings, employees are more likely to experience ethics as a shared institutional climate rather than as separable normative logics. This finding suggests that ethical climate theory benefits from contextual adaptation rather than uniform application.

In contrast to more decentralized organizational environments—where ethical perceptions may vary across departments or leadership structures—Emirati HEIs operate within integrated governance systems that promote consistency and moral alignment. As a result, ethical climate is perceived less as the interaction of multiple independent ethical logics and more as a single overarching moral framework guiding institutional conduct.

5.2.1. Revisiting Victor and Cullen’s (1988) Ethical Climate Theory

Victor and Cullen’s (1988) ethical climate theory remains a seminal contribution, offering a structured taxonomy of moral philosophy and loci of analysis. While the conceptual clarity of this framework is widely acknowledged, subsequent research has questioned the empirical distinctiveness of its five climate types (Martin & Cullen, 2006). The present findings extend this debate by demonstrating that, within a collectivist and value-integrated context such as the UAE, these theoretically distinct domains may converge into a single latent construct.

Importantly, this convergence should be interpreted as a refinement rather than a refutation of ethical climate theory. The EHEC results suggest that the five dimensions may represent interconnected expressions of a higher-order ethical orientation that defines collective moral evaluation within institutions. This interpretation aligns with the evolution of ethical climate theory toward more hierarchical and context-responsive models.

5.2.2. Alignment with Contemporary Ethical Climate Scholarship

Recent empirical studies support this movement toward conceptual parsimony. Research conducted in Sweden (Grönlund et al., 2019) and Zimbabwe (Gwamanda & Mahembe, 2023) similarly reported the convergence of ECQ dimensions into a unified construct. Systematic evidence further indicates that unidimensional ethical climate measures often demonstrate higher reliability and stronger cross-cultural validity than complex multidimensional frameworks (Björk et al., 2025).

The present findings reinforce this growing body of scholarship by demonstrating that, although ethical climate theory is theoretically pluralistic, ethical experience may be holistic in organizations characterized by shared values, centralized governance, and institutional unity.

5.3. Cultural Interpretation

The unidimensional ethical climate observed in this study reflects broader cultural dynamics within the UAE. In collectivist and high power-distance societies, ethical judgments tend to emphasize communal responsibility, institutional loyalty, and moral coherence (Facchini et al., 2021). Within Emirati HEIs, these values are reinforced through shared mission statements, national policy frameworks, and leadership accountability mechanisms.

Consistent with prior findings (Din et al., 2025), this cultural configuration promotes moral integration rather than ethical fragmentation. Accordingly, the EHEC validation demonstrates that culture is not merely a moderator of ethical climate but a determinant of its structural form—shaping whether ethics are perceived as multiple logics or a unified moral identity.

5.4. Methodological Contributions

Methodologically, this study demonstrates how ethical climate instruments developed in Western contexts can be rigorously adapted for non-Western institutional environments. By integrating exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the research allowed the data to determine the scale structure rather than imposing theoretical assumptions. Sampling adequacy and construct reliability met established psychometric standards, and the comparison between competing models provided clear empirical justification for parsimony.

While the AVE value was marginally below the conventional threshold, this outcome is consistent with broad institutional constructs characterized by high internal consistency and conceptual breadth. Acknowledging this limitation enhances transparency and reinforces the importance of interpreting convergent validity in conjunction with composite reliability and factor structure.

5.5. Practical Implications

The unidimensional nature of ethical culture has direct implications for organizational ethics management. Rather than investing in fragmented or compartmentalized ethical interventions, leaders should focus on building and sustaining a consistent ethical climate that is reflected in leadership behaviors, policies, and everyday practices. Ethics training, communication, and accountability systems should be aligned and unified, reinforcing a single, coherent ethical message across the organization. This approach can simplify ethics management, increase employee clarity, and strengthen organizational integrity as a shared norm rather than a checklist of isolated values.

5.5.1. Institutional Policy and Governance

The validated EHEC scale offers a diagnostic tool for monitoring organizational ethics in Emirati universities (Rogers, 2019). Its unidimensional nature means that administrators can create a single interpretable index of ethical climate rather than having to work with multiple sub-scales. Its parsimony can facilitate benchmarking and policy evaluation, considering evidence to support governance decisions regarding staff development, ethical training, and the evaluation of leadership. With a serious emphasis on ethical leadership and transparent governance, the EHEC scale could be applied as an institutional KPI within UAE accreditation processes. The benefit of repeated measurements over time is that universities will be able to track trends in their ethical culture, evaluate the effectiveness of intervention, and monitor their alignment with national educational integrity standards.

5.5.2. Human Resource Development and Organizational Learning

From an HR perspective, the results obtained for the EHEC underline the role of ethics as a collective competence (AL-Shboul, 2024). Training programs can thus go beyond compliance checklists in fostering shared moral identity. As the standard deviations were small (i.e., SD < 0.70), consensus among employees regarding ethical norms already exists; sustained engagement initiatives may maintain such unity. Linking the EHEC outcomes with staff performance appraisals and organizational learning dashboards may further strengthen institutional accountability.

5.6. Comparison to Prior Research

The present validation both confirms and extends prior results. Supporting Grönlund et al. (2019) and Gwamanda and Mahembe (2023), the unidimensional model returned high reliability estimates (α ≈ 0.93) and moderate AVE (0.48), thus reflecting acceptable convergence. However, while ethical climate usually fragments into several factors in Western replications—for instance, according to Martin and Cullen (2006)—the Emirati dataset exhibited remarkable factorial stability. Such a hypothesis would hence point to organizational ethics being enacted in a much more cohesive manner within normatively homogenous contexts.

Furthermore, this study addresses the limitations identified by Björk et al. (2025), who pointed to the scarcity of validation work in non-Western educational sectors; in particular, the current research focused on Emirati HEIs, diversifying the empirical base of the EC literature and improving its cross-cultural generalizability.

5.7. Prospects for Empirical Expansion

Even though the validation provided good psychometric outcomes, some limitations should be acknowledged. To begin with, the sample—though varied—was selected through convenience sampling in three universities; therefore, the results may not broadly represent the general population. Second, the cross-sectional design did not enable any form of assessment of temporal stability, and future research should adopt a longitudinal design to determine the test–retest reliability (Herting et al., 2018). Third, although the one-factor model performed well from a statistical perspective, subsequent studies could explore higher-order models—such as a global factor with correlated sub-dimensions, hence exploring hierarchical forms of ethical climate.

It is also possible that further studies could replicate the EHEC in higher education systems in other Middle Eastern or Asian nations in order to assess its cultural invariance (Eta & Kushnir, 2025). Moreover, multigroup CFA could be performed to test the measurement equivalence among gender, nationality, or occupational groups. Qualitative triangulation (e.g., interviews or focus groups) may help to further elaborate the conceptualization of institutional ethics by employees, which could provide further context regarding the validity of the scale.

5.8. Synthesis

Overall, the statistical data and theoretical argument presented in this study indicate that the ethical climate is collectively perceived in the Emirati higher education context, which is founded on mutual institutional and cultural values. Through validation of the EHEC scale, it is demonstrated that the ethical culture can be better understood—and, thus, operationalized—in a simplified manner while maintaining conceptual depth (Dodamgoda, 2024). This research contributes to a paradigm shift in the context of the complexity of the associated theory, providing proof that what is theoretically conceptualized as a multidimensional construct can be empirically captured by a single factor.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study provides strong empirical support for the idea that ethical culture is a unidimensional construct, casting doubt on the utility and accuracy of the traditional multidimensional model. The results demonstrate that multiple dimensions do not emerge reliably and that the indicators do not load meaningfully on separate factors. Future research and practice should shift toward streamlined, unified EC models that better reflect its cohesive nature. The outdated multidimensional framework may need to be retired in favor of more parsimonious and evidence-based approaches.

6.1. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that employees in Emirati higher education institutions perceive the ethical climate as a single, shared institutional characteristic rather than as separate ethical dimensions. The validated EHEC scale reliably captured this unified perception, and it can be used as a practical tool to assess the ethical climate across universities. Overall, the ethical climate in this context reflects a common moral environment shaped by shared values, norms, and institutional practices.

6.2. Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed:

(1)

Adopt a Unified Ethics Framework: Organizations should replace fragmented ethical programs with a single, cohesive ethical framework that guides behaviors, decision-making, and leadership expectations.

(2)

Streamline Ethics Training: Ethics training programs should focus on cultivating a shared understanding of core ethical principles rather than separate modules for different ethical dimensions.

(3)

Align Policies and Practices: All policies, codes of conduct, and disciplinary procedures should be consistent with a unified ethical standard, avoiding contradictions across departments or roles.

(4)

Monitor Ethical Climate Holistically: Ethics audits and assessments should treat EC as a whole-system measure, focusing on overall ethical perception rather than isolated variables.

(5)

Educate Leaders on Cultural Coherence: Leaders at all levels should be trained to model and reinforce a consistent ethical message, which is critical for building a strong ethical culture.

6.3. Limitations in Application and Generalizability

Like all empirical inquiries, this study is shaped by several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. Although the sample of 200 participants met the threshold for psychometric adequacy, it remains relatively modest for national-level generalization and reflects only three HEIs within the UAE. The use of self-reported survey data also introduces the possibility of social desirability bias—especially against the background of a cultural context that emphasizes harmony, respect, and institutional loyalty. Furthermore, while the study employed robust analytic procedures, the exploratory nature of the factor analysis means that the unidimensional structure identified here may not hold across all institutional types or cultural settings. Therefore, the findings represent an important step—but not a definitive conclusion—about how the ethical climate is conceptualized in Emirati higher education. The replication and refinement of the present study in wider contexts remain essential.

6.4. Future Avenues for Conceptual and Empirical Work

Future research should deepen empirical understanding regarding the ethical climate by examining how its unidimensional nature behaves across time, organizational transitions, and leadership changes. Longitudinal research would be particularly valuable in distinguishing between stable ethical norms and climate shifts triggered by policy reforms, crises, or leadership turnover. Comparative cross-cultural studies can further illuminate whether the unidimensional nature of EC is specific to collectivist, high-context societies such as the UAE or whether it emerges as a broader organizational phenomenon. Additionally, scholars may wish to develop even more parsimonious instruments that integrate cultural values, institutional characteristics, and contemporary ethical expectations in the future. Such tools could capture the ethical culture more efficiently while remaining sensitive to the emerging complexities of modern higher education governance.

6.5. Policy Implications

The findings of this study have important policy implications for leaders, regulators, and accreditation bodies in the higher education sector. If ethical culture is indeed experienced as a unified, institution-wide atmosphere rather than a cluster of disconnected dimensions, then ethics governance must shift accordingly. Policy frameworks, HR protocols, and quality assurance mechanisms should move away from fragmented checklists and instead promote integrated ethical development anchored in shared values, consistent enforcement, and transparent communication. Institutions may also benefit from embedding holistic ethical climate assessments into routine performance reviews, leadership evaluations, accreditation audits, and institutional rankings. By recognizing the unified nature of the ethical culture, policymakers and university administrators can build more coherent, credible, and sustainable ethical systems that resonate with both staff and students.

6.6. Ending Note

This study provides compelling evidence that the ethical culture functions as a unidimensional construct within Emirati higher education institutions, challenging long-standing assumptions in the literature that conceptualize ethical climate as a fragmented, multidimensional framework. These findings call for both a theoretical and practical shift toward simpler, integrated models that reflect how ethics is truly experienced by employees in a holistic manner, not in isolated categories.

Importantly, the validated EHEC scale developed in this study will be employed in an ongoing PhD thesis examining ethical dynamics in UAE higher education. Its adoption is justified by several strengths: the scale is culturally grounded, psychometrically robust, theoretically aligned with collectivist values, and designed to capture the ethical climate as a single, coherent institutional phenomenon. Its parsimony reduces measurement fatigue and increases accuracy, making it ideal for large-scale empirical research in complex academic environments.

By embracing a unified approach to ethical culture, organizations and researchers can foster more coherent, credible, and sustainable ethical environments. Future studies must continue to refine such measurement tools and revisit outdated assumptions. Ethical culture, it seems, is not many things—it is one.