There are a lot of theories out there about why women continue to be underrepresented in certain careers and industries, and why they tend not to rise to the top of their organizations in similar numbers to men.

According to Wharton post-doctoral fellow Jessica Kennedy, one possible explanation might be women’s perceptions about the ethical compromises that have to be made to achieve results in certain careers — whether those outcomes are monetary gains or a rise in social status. Kennedy and co-author Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley detail the results of three studies looking at this phenomenon in a recent paper, titled “Who Is Willing to Sacrifice Ethical Values for Money and Social Status? Gender Differences in Reactions to Ethical Compromises.”

“There is a lot of debate out there about whether businesses can do well and do good at the same time. Our research suggests that doing business ethically could help businesses retain talented women,” Kennedy says.

The first study found that women on average felt more moral outrage than men when confronted with decisions that went against their values, and also thought those decisions made less practical business sense. They felt this way no matter what the motivation for the decision: “When ethical values were compromised, people were as outraged when social status was gained as when money was gained,” Kennedy says. Social status gains included a boost in respect or admiration from others, or increased chances for a promotion, she adds.

Moreover, when presented in the second study with simulated job descriptions in the fields of consulting, private equity and wealth management, women only reported less interest than men when the blurbs stated that the firms required employees to prioritize profits or status over ethics when they conflicted.

But when the position outlines indicated that a company valued ethics, or when they simply didn’t mention ethics at all, women expressed as much interest in the jobs as male participants, “suggesting it was not the mere presence of a conflict between ethical and secular values, but the forfeiture of ethical values, that caused women’s reactions,” the researchers write.

Kennedy and Kray found that these perceptions still held true even when women weren’t prompted by discussion about what role ethics or values would play in a particular decision or career. In the final study outlined in the paper, the researchers asked men and women to classify words they associated with either business or law. Women’s reaction times showed they were more likely than men to correlate words like “wrong” or “unethical” with business, even though the legal field typically isn’t devoid of ethical dilemmas.

“The research doesn’t clearly say that women are more ethical than men … and it doesn’t say that business actually is more unethical than law or medicine. It says that women perceive it to be more unethical,” Kennedy notes.

Since certain industries or jobs may be consciously or unconsciously tarnished by these perceptions in the minds of female job candidates, Kennedy says that firms can respond by being upfront about how they deal with questions of ethics.

“I think the research suggests that, to the extent that businesses want to retain talented women, they should be holding ethics training, selecting leaders who have high ethical standards and emphasizing ethics within the core culture of the company,” Kennedy notes.  “It could also be a good reason to encourage all employees to voice ethical concerns when they have them.”

She adds that women, too, should keep the research in mind when charting their career paths and researching companies they may want to work at in the future. Even if ethical compromises aren’t a challenge they face in the present, the studies indicate that “women may care about this more than they initially appreciate, and more than some of their male colleagues might,” Kennedy says.

Even as the Indian government is making it mandatory for companies to spend 2% of their net profit on corporate social responsibility, Wipro chairman Azim Premji, whose net worth is estimated to be around $16 billion, is setting new standards in personal philanthropy within the country.

Premji recently became the first person from India to sign up for the Giving Pledge, a global philanthropic initiative spearheaded by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. The Giving Pledge is a commitment by the world’s wealthiest individuals and families to dedicate the majority of their wealth to philanthropy. For the first time since its inception in 2010, the pledge has now expanded beyond the U.S. Premji is among 12 non-U.S. signatories from eight countries who signed the pledge recently. With the addition of these new global pledgers, the group now totals 105.

Philanthropy is not new to Premji, the third richest Indian after Mukesh Ambani, chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries, and steel tycoon L. N. Mittal. Premji’s emphasis has been on bringing systemic changes. In 2000, he set up the Azim Premji Foundation with an initial contribution of around Rs.1000 crore ($184 million at the current exchange rate of Rs. 54 to a dollar) worth of Wipro shares and a clear focus on primary education. In an earlier interview with India Knowledge@Wharton, Dileep Ranjekar, co-CEO of Premji’s foundation, recalled that in the early days of the organization, Premji went to slums in Mumbai and to the interiors of Andhra Pradesh to see for himself what some others were doing in this space and how his foundation could contribute most effectively.

In December 2010, Premji made an endowment of $2 billion toward the foundation — at the time, biggest single act of philanthropy by any Indian. Soon after signing up for the Giving Pledge, Premji has given shares worth Rs. 12,300 crore ($2.2 billion) to the Azim Premji Trust, which funds the activities of his foundation. Once again, this is the largest amount given for philanthropy by any Indian in recent memory.

In a letter to the Giving Pledge Group, Premji said: “I strongly believe that those of us who are privileged to have wealth should contribute significantly to try and create a better world for the millions who are far less privileged. I will continue to act on this belief.” Last year, the usually reticent Premji co-hosted a first-of-its kind event with Ratan Tata and Gates to encourage philanthropy.

Talking recently to Indian business daily The Economic Times, S. (Kris) Gopalakrishnan, co-founder and executive co-chairman of Infosys, noted that Azim “has been leading from the front in terms of philanthropy in India, whether by directly contributing or encouraging others to contribute.” In a recent article in Forbes, Buffet points out that along with being a financial commitment by individuals, the Giving Pledge provides a platform for participants to share their experiences and see how best they can makes their philanthropic initiatives more effective.