Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review clarifies the conceptual core and measurement of Islamic work ethic, suggesting new research directions.
Purpose The Islamic work ethic (IWE) literature has expanded across geographies and disciplines but remains fragmented on three fronts, which are (1) conceptual boundaries, (2) operationalization and (3) empirical dispersion. We, therefore, conduct a systematic review to clarify IWE's conceptual core, assess its measurement architecture and synthesize its empirical nomological network. Design/methodology/approach To achieve this objective, we conducted a systematic search on Scopus and the Web of Science, applying a rigorous selection process that yielded 122 articles published between 1988 and 2024. Findings The systematic review was conducted in three aspects covering (1) conceptualization of IWE, (2) measurement and (3) empirical applications. The conceptualization clarifies its moral architecture, boundary distinctions and scope conditions. The measurement theme reviews dominant unidimensional scales alongside emerging multidimensional instruments. The empirical applications bring together evidence on individual and organizational outcomes, determinants and antecedents and the moderating and mediating roles of IWE across contexts. There are several areas that require future consideration; those have also been critically discussed. Originality/value This review makes a three-part contribution. First, it consolidates the conceptual foundations of IWE by specifying its core tenets, distinguishing it from adjacent constructs and setting scope conditions across person, organization and institution. Second, it reviews measurement approaches, contrasting established unidimensional scales with newer multidimensional instruments. Third, it integrates dispersed empirical evidence on outcomes and determinants and clarifies the roles of IWE as predictor, moderator and mediator across contexts. Collectively, these contributions guide future research agendas.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zafar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: