Deakin Research Online
This is the authors’ final peer reviewed (post print) version of the
item published as:
McDonald, Gael 2009, An anthology of codes of ethics, European business
review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 344-372.
Available from Deakin Research Online:
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30020122
Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner.
Copyright : 2009, Emerald Group Publishing
An anthology of codes of ethics
Gael M. Mcdonald, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – Corporate codes of conduct originated around 1900 in the USA gaining further
momentum in the 1950s in relation to anti-trust legislation. Subsequently, the adoption of
codes of ethics has spread throughout the world and they now feature extensively in many
organisations. The literature relating to codes of ethics, therefore, spans many decades and is
undoubtedly comprehensive. The purpose of the paper is to provide an appropriate anthology
of codes of ethics.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive, historical, anthological approach has been
taken.
Findings – This paper examines the motivations for the adoption of codes of ethics, which
naturally also includes international codes, their frequency of use and content. Codes are also
not without critique and it is appropriate to highlight the criticisms of codes, to provide an
assessment of their potential effectiveness, the issues surrounding implementation and
enforcement and the relationship to organisational culture and leadership.
Research limitations/implications – As noted, the literature on codes of conduct is
extensive and while effort has been made to capture the key themes the review is not
necessarily exhaustive.
Originality/value – The literature is characterised by the means of institutionalising ethics in
organisations and the paper concludes with a summative reflection on the key dimensions
that appear to be paramount for improving the efficacy of codes of conduct.
Introduction
The writing of an anthology in relation to codes of ethics is a somewhat daunting task given
that the literature spans many decades and ranges, for example, from the seminal questioning
of ethical behaviour by Baumhart (1961) to the more recent examination of the strategic
approaches to corporate codes of ethics (Svensson and Wood, 2007; Wood and Rimmer,
2003). On a business ethics continuum with normative philosophical thought at one end,
corporate codes of ethics undoubtedly reside at the opposing end where one would find the
more prescriptive literature. This literature is characterised by guidelines for managers as a
means of institutionalising ethics in organisations and pedagogical suggestions for ethical
training. A significant component of the prescriptive literature is of a pragmatic nature
providing more action-related suggestions for practising managers and is undoubtedly
dominated by material relating to codes of ethics.
Codes of ethics have been described by Langlois and Schlegelmilch (1990) as a statement
laying down corporate principles, ethics, rules of conduct, code of practice or company
philosophy, concerning responsibilities to employees, shareholders, consumers, the
environment and society. It should be noted that while discussion is centred on codes of
ethics, the terminology could naturally be widened to include ethical guidelines, ethical
policy, codes of conduct and governance directions. All of these terms have been utilised in
the past to denote material relating to ethics within organisations intended to provide moral
guidance to employees and, more recently, wider stakeholders. It should also be noted that
there is a distinction between corporate codes of ethics where the sphere of influence is that
of the organisation, and professional codes that seek to regulate and guide members of a
professional body. For clarity, the focus of this discussion is primarily on corporate codes of
ethics.
In the USA, corporate codes of conduct originated around 1900 and began to gain traction in
the 1950s with an undoubtedly legalistic approach frequently referencing anti-trust laws and
how to obey those laws (Wiley, 1995). Given the wealth of material on corporate codes that
has been written since that time, and for the purpose of this discussion, it is appropriate to
utilise a structure which provides an informative division of key dimensions surrounding
codes and which will enable insight into some of the significant contributions to date. This
chapter, therefore, initially examines the motivations for the adoption of codes, the frequency
of use and the likely content, including those for use in the international context. This is then
followed by a reflection on the criticisms of codes as well as the indicators of their
effectiveness as well as the more pragmatic dimensions associated with implementation,
enforcement, the influence of corporate culture and leadership before concluding with a brief
reflection on some of the key issues surrounding the development and dissemination of
corporate codes in the future.
Motivations for the adoption of codes of ethics
The reasons for adopting codes of ethics have been found to vary significantly, with Cressey
and Moore (1983) suggesting, somewhat cynically, that the main aim of codes was for the
maintenance of profits, which suggests that the presence of codes builds reputation and trust
with customers. Alternatively, risk management, that is, protecting organisations against
criminal liability or damage as a result of employee misconduct, was identified by Stevens
(1994). The risk dimension became even more apparent in the USA in the early 1990s with
the Sentencing Guidelines that proposed the potential minimising of corporate liability if an
organisation could demonstrate effective programmes to prevent and detect legal violations.
The implicit moral motivations behind codes have been identified as primarily corporate selfdefence (Snell et al., 1996), and protection of the firm (Lefebvre and Singh, 1996). More
recently, the reasons identified in the European context include; adherence to policy,
procedures and objectives and instilling company values, culture and philosophy (Svensson et
al., 2006). Broadening the discussion further in a three-country study of businesses in South
America, Mele et al. (2006) identified eight motives for implementing ethical statements,
with the spreading of the company's values or philosophy being the most dominant. While
Bondy et al. (2006), in their research on the articulated motivations for code adoption, went
one step further and identified ten of the most commonly listed reasons. From this research
and previous discussions, it therefore appears that the most common motivations for the
adoption of codes of ethics can be appropriately truncated into seven reasons:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
ensuring legal compliance and other statutory requirements;
providing a guide for behaviour and formalised expectations;
protecting and enhancing organisational reputation;
ensuring employee, management and supplier compliance and minimising risk;
ensuring consistency across global networks;
creating and maintaining trust and confidence with stakeholders; and
communicating principles and commitments to stakeholders.
Naturally, these reasons are not mutually exclusive and may be interacting with each other in
both intrinsic (e.g. the communication of behavioural guidelines) and extrinsic ways (e.g.
articulating the expectations of industry bodies or head office directives, and responding to
concerns resonating from corporate scandals). In a three-level model of motivations, the first
level could represent simplistic motivations. It could be recognised, particularly given the
ease with which some firms readily adopt the codes of ethics of others that the motivation for
adoption at this level is merely because other firms are doing it. For some organisations codes
of conduct have merely become a “must-have” in today's corporate environment, which
suggests a low level of commitment. This commitment could however ramp up to a second
level where companies are primarily motivated by the strategic need for risk reduction and
managing their reputation. As a consequence, there is a concern for compliance and
significant communication, both internally and externally, of the existence of the code
functioning within the organisation. Firms operating at this second level are seeking to
address the inconsistencies that they perceive may exist between what is happening and
should be happening in order to protect the firm. The third level of motivation is more
genuine and the reasons underpinning and driving the commitment to codes are seen to be
largely as a result of a recognition of the organisation's ethical accountability to not only
shareholders but also to a wider range of current and future stakeholders. Organisations
operating at this level are characterised as having philosophies and norms of behaviour which
they hold dear and wish to inculcate throughout their organisation. To achieve this, the
organisation will have strategies that support not only the dissemination of the codes but also
additional processes for building of an ethical climate.
The motives prompting companies to develop and disseminate codes of ethics vary
considerably and are complex. The reasoning behind the evolving use of codes is probably
underpinned by the level of an organisation's moral development, ranging from self-interest,
peer pressure to a genuine commitment to developing an ethical climate. In all likelihood, the
motivation to adopt a code of ethics will come from a combination of reasons, ranging from a
genuine desire to clarify and inform behavioural expectations and policy, the need for
consistency across a growing and possibly international operation, through to achieving the
benefits from risk reduction, attraction of staff and a solid reputation.
Frequency of use
While recognising the variety of different terms used, for example, corporate ethics policies,
codes of practice, corporate principles, rules of conduct, etc. studies have largely
demonstrated the existence and/or increasing popularity of the adoption of codes of ethics.
These studies have covered a wide range of geographical areas including: USA (Brenner and
Molander, 1977; White and Montgomery, 1980; Centre for Business Ethics, 1986, 1992;
Berenbeim, 1987, 1992; Hite et al., 1988; Court, 1988; Schlegelmilch, 1989; Benson, 1989;
Pitt and Groskaufmanis, 1990; Sweeney and Siers, 1990; Cochran and Weaver, 1995; Gross,
1995; Murphy, 1995; Reichert et al., 2000); Japan (Nakamo, 1997); Australia (Kaye, 1992;
Farrell and Cobbin, 1996; Wood, 2000; Wood et al., 2004); Canada (Lefebvre and Singh,
1992; Berenbeim, 1995); Ireland (Stohs and Brannick, 1999; O'Dwyer and Madden, 2006);
Spain (Guillen et al., 2002); Sweden (Wood et al., 2004 and Svensson et al., 2006); Britain
(Epstein, 1976, 1977; Schlegelmilch and Houston, 1988; Ryan, 1994); South Africa (HiggsKleyn and Kapelianis, 1999); Europe (Langlois and Schlegelmilch, 1990; Weaver, 1993;
Winkler and Remisova, 2007); and South America (Arruda, 1997; Mele et al., 2006). Many
of these studies also undertook comparative analyses across more than one country location
with multiple dimensions examined other than that of frequency of use.
To be expected, the percentage of firms adopting codes is wildly dependent on the samples
studied, that is, whether they are small or large companies, independently owned, or multinationals so, naturally, caution should be exhibited in generalising from the findings.
However, the trend appears to be that an increasing number of companies, predominantly
larger organisations, are adopting codes of ethics and with multi-nationals clearly seeing the
benefit of standardised policies across their operations. A further hesitation when examining
the increased adoption of codes is that few studies are longitudinal. However, there are
notable exceptions (Wood et al., 2004; Singh, 2006; Callaghan et al., 2008). Wood et al.
(2004) observed in the Australian context that codes of ethics had moved over time from a
regulatory requirement and were now considered an integral component of corporate culture
and commercial practice in many of Australia's top companies. Singh (2006) undertook a
longitudinal study of corporate codes of ethics in 1992 and 2003, finding an increase in the
frequency of environmental issues and enforcement procedures. Callaghan et al. (2008)
undertook a longitudinal study conducted at five-yearly intervals from 1995 to 2005 and
observed that, in 1995, moderate usage (45.7 per cent) of codes was evident but dramatically
increased with more substantial adoption in 2005 (89.4 per cent). Anecdotally it therefore
appears that codes of ethics are increasing in frequency for many of the reasons previously
mentioned.
Content
Concurrent with the increased usage of codes of conduct, has been an examination of their
source and content. The borrowed versus tailored approach was mooted by Snell et al. (1996)
who found, surprisingly, half the companies in his study had borrowed a model code of ethics
and had adopted it without significant changes. More recently, Svensson and Wood (2007)
also noted that corporate codes of ethics in Australia are often standardised and replicated,
and that customised and individualised approaches are not penetrating the ethos of corporate
codes of ethics.
From the initial off-the-peg approach, where companies significantly plagiarised their codes
from other organisations, greater effort is being made to write codes for the needs of a
specific organisation. For those organisations that have taken the more tailored approach and
developed their own codes an historical review indicates some interesting transitions that
have occurred in the design and themes covered in codes of ethics. Initially, the themes
contained in codes of ethics were quite narrow and commonly related to: extortion, conflict
of interest, illegal payments, and potential violations of law (Chattov, 1980), or more general
ethical domains of honesty, equity, and rights (Gavin et al., 1990) with misuse of funds and
improper accounting being the most frequent topics cited (Hite et al., 1988). Criticism of the
inward focus of many codes to the detriment of the welfare of external stakeholders (Benson,
1989) saw a move to an initial concern for customers and then a widening of the sphere of
responsibilities contained in codes, with the recognition of the influence of other stakeholders
and the potential organisational impacts on society at large. Webley (1993) acknowledged
these broadening areas of responsibility with the development of a comprehensive list of key
areas to be contained in a code of ethics incorporating such issues as safety for employees
and consumers, as well as the needs and rights of suppliers. More recently, as a result of an
increase of consumer, shareholder and other stakeholders' demands for minimum standards of
social and environmental responsibility, there has been a suggestion that there should be a
common environmental content in corporate codes of conduct and that this content must be
rigorous enough to meet stakeholder needs but simple enough to be adopted (Fischer et al.,
2005). This trend must be catching as noted by Singh (2006) who in the Canadian context
recognised an increase in the frequency of the mention of environmental issues in codes.
Many of the studies examining codes have taken a content analysis approach and developed
ethical categories of the issues often contained in codes of ethics (Bowman, 1981; Cressey
and Moore, 1983; Hite et al., 1988; Weaver, 1993; O'Dwyer and Madden, 2006). Broadly,
these categories are, issues impacting primarily on:



employees;
companies; and
the wider society.
There have also been numerous attempts to classify formats and styles of codes. Lowe (1996)
identified common formats which could be described as: Foreign/Legal: which emphasises
legal compliance and contain criteria for invoking penalties where violation occurs. These
codes are common in large multi-national organisations. The other format could be called
follow the leader, an approach where companies use an existing framework borrowed from
state or professional associations, and where the code largely conforms to this format. Farrell
and Cobbin (1996) distinguished between codes that are value-based (broad principles that
should guide action) and rule-based (detailed precepts that should be obeyed). While Bondy
et al. (2006) identified four distinctive styles of codes:
1. Stipulative codes which used words such as “shall”, “will” and “required”. Stipulative
codes also frequently included sanctions or threats for non-compliance.
2. Commitment-based codes that indicated a corporation's intention to engage in
corporate social responsibility and to provide some indication of how this engagement
will occur.
3. Principles-based codes which indicate a corporation's over-arching philosophy and the
principles that underpin the organisation's approach to managing ethical behaviour.
4. Information-based codes, these codes are largely informative and are comprised of
information on what has already been done by the corporation in relation to its
corporate responsibilities.
Attempts to link codes of ethics in ethical theory do not appear to have gone far (Starr, 1983).
In a review of Canadian codes, Lefebvre and Singh (1992) observed that the focus of the
codes was on the protection of the firm and, while some referred to issues of social
responsibility, they were primarily concerned with conduct against the firm. Noting that little
attention has been given to the relationship of codes of ethics and ethical theory, Starr (1983)
has advocated the use of rule utilitarianism as a conceptual underpinning for codes of ethics.
L'Etang (1992) also advocated the use of ethical theory but was more inclined to the use of
Kantian theory as an appropriate foundation for formulation of both ethical policy and ethical
codes. Raiborn and Payne (1990) identified the four principles of integrity, justice,
competence, and utility as being the fundamental ethical principles upon which to base all
ethical decisions and, therefore, appropriate for inclusion in codes of conduct.
The common structure for North American codes appears to be a four-part format of general
information, types of conduct to be addressed, enforcement and compliance procedures, and
penalties for unethical behaviour (Lefebvre and Singh, 1996) and it should be noted from a
cross-county comparison of USA, Australian and Canadian codes that the codes from these
locations were not “dramatically distinct in construction and content” (Wood, 2000, p. 297).
The underlying qualitative characteristics of a code have been identified as; specificity,
publicity, clarity, revisability, and enforceability (Wiley, 1995). Raiborn and Payne (1990)
provided a similar list of characteristics, these being; clarity, comprehensiveness and
enforceability, and reflective of the corporate culture from which the code stems. Brinkmann
and Ims (2003) believe that ethical codes have three principal functions, to be educational,
regulatory and aspirational. It has also been suggested that every code of conduct has four
elements:
1. Notice, that is, to provide to employees the employer's expectations.
2. Discretion in interpreting and applying the rule. This discretion is naturally
diminished as more detail and specificity is provided.
3. Risk, the code is a reflection of the degree to which an employer is attempting to
minimise risk.
4. Tone, positive and respectful (Redeker, 1990).
Getting down to the details of tone and the functional linguistics of corporate codes, Stevens
(1996, p. 71) suggested that ethical codes are generally “framed from a defensive position
designed to protect the organisation from the employee, and are not written for the most part
using guiding or visionary language”. Codes of ethics have also been found to rarely contain
operational definitions in order to direct employees on moral hazards and the required
responses, and that the language used in corporate codes (in the Australian context) was of an
authoritarian nature with the over-use of grammatical structures such as relational clauses, the
passive, nominalisation, grammatical metaphors, and modality (Farrell and Farrell, 1998).
From their research, Snell and Herndon (2004) have identified that the content and tone of
codes should be reader-friendly, address relevant ethical issues, encourage personal
judgements and open discussion, apply to everyone, match an organisation's core values, and
cover broad social responsibility issues.
Molander (1987) was one of the first writers to highlight the dilemma inherent in code
design, this being the tension between specific practices and general precepts. While the trend
is increasingly towards the development of principles-based codes, where the broad principle
is articulated, for example, that of objectivity and independence, the need for specific
recommendations is required when these principles become too broad, for example, integrity.
When left to the individual employee to apply a principle to an actual circumstance, there is
concern that the principle may not be articulated well enough to provide specific and practical
guidance. In order to overcome this problem, Raiborn and Payne (1990, p. 885) made the
distinction between four different standards of performance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
basic – minimal acceptable behaviour;
currently attainable – behaviour deemed basically moral;
practical, achievable but difficult; and
theoretical – highest potential for good.
International codes of ethics
The issues surrounding the need, content, implementation and consequences of international
codes of ethics have been discussed in detail (Rowan and Campbell, 1983; Cottrill, 1996;
Payne et al., 1997; Desai and Rittenburg, 1997; Stajkovich and Luthans, 1997; Jackson,
1997, 1999; Robertson and Fadil, 1998; Smeltzer and Jennings, 1998; Rallapalli, 1999; Kolk
et al., 1999; Reynolds, 2000; Nijhof et al., 2003; Kaptein, 2004; Painter-Morland, 2006) and
as Jackson (1997) has quite rightly observed establishing a cosmopolitan ethical culture for a
multi-national company requires “special effort above and beyond that needed for standard
domestic initiatives” (Jackson, 1997, p. 17). However, as Painter-Morland (2006) have
amusingly noted “sighs, yawns and, in some places, frowns often confront academics and
consultants who have had to broach the issue of global codes of conduct in corporate
boardrooms” (Painter-Morland, 2006, p. 352).
Clearly one of the inherent difficulties in the development of international codes of ethics is
the attempt to reconcile ethical views across international borders. Robertson and Fadil
(1998) provided one of the earlier frameworks for development of a culture-based code of
ethics, in contrast, Smeltzer and Jennings (1998) have argued that cultural relativism is not
always appropriate and that a code of conduct should be adapted with guidelines for core
ethical business conduct across cultures. International or global codes therefore frequently
struggle with the relativism versus absolutism dichotomy. In a quite nod to the difficulties of
developing codes for an international environment, Schwartz (2005) when questioning how
can one establish whether a corporate code of ethics is ethical in terms of its content, he
endeavoured to establish that a first step might be the establishment of core universal moral
values by which corporate codes of ethics can be constructed and evaluated. From his
analysis, he identified six universal moral values for a corporate codes of ethics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
trustworthiness;
respect;
responsibility;
fairness;
caring; and
citizenship.
As mentioned earlier ethical theory has often not featured significantly in the development of
codes of ethics on the domestic front and yet, in a effort to find universal guiding principles
this appears not to be the case for the development of international codes. International codes
have been more successful in drawing in ethical theory with Donaldson (1992) being one of
the first to suggest different languages of ethics, these being:






virtue and vice;
self-protection through to self-control;
maximisation of human welfare;
avoidance of human harm;
rights and duties as well as legal constraints; and
social contracts.
In addition to standard ethical theories, Jackson (1999) has also promoted spirituality, in the
broad sense, as a deeper foundation for principles of international business ethics. Consistent
with the recommendations for locally orientated codes of ethics and specifically in relation to
the international marketing arena Rallapalli (1999) has proposed that any global code of
ethics should consider two levels – normative guidelines as well as specific behaviour and
Smeltzer and Jennings (1998) have suggested four steps that will help a company ensure that
their ethical standards are followed. These suggestions being:
1. training managers on the relationship between capitalism and excessive payments for
services;
2. developing a code of universal values;
3. conducting cultural, economic, political and financial evaluations prior to
commencing operations; and
4. using internal auditors extensively in foreign operations.
Once again, in an attempted to generate a usable code for application in the international
context, it is not uncommon for companies to look at the older, more established
multinationals and to borrow from their experience. While a good starting point it is
imperative that a firm first reflect on the values that they are committed to despite variations
in operating locales and to then consider those standards of practice that they believe are both
operational and enforceable.
Criticisms of codes
Having discussed the content of codes of ethics it is appropriate to reflect on the concerns
surrounding the effectiveness of ethical codes. Criticisms regarding the likelihood of codes of
conduct improving ethical standards in organisations have frequently been made (Cressey
and Moore, 1983; Hunt et al., 1984; Matthews, 1987; Buchanan, 1987; Akaah and Riordan,
1989; Robin et al., 1989; Hyman et al., 1990; Bavaria, 1991; Kjonstad and Willmott, 1995).
Robin et al. (1989), for example, lamented, “codes have little to do with ethics and may not
be able to mandate an ethical business climate” (Robin et al., 1989, p. 66). The detractors of
ethical codes have highlighted the difficulty of finding resolutions to inherent conflicts
between business profit and societal ethical demands and have also emphasised the problems
of reaching a consensus on the values underpinning codes (Callan, 1992). Naturally, this
becomes even more problematic in the context of international codes. Robin et al. (1989)
espoused that the true nature of most corporate ethics codes is that they are a bland list of
platitudes that extol mum and apple pie type values and are largely intended for public
relations purposes. Also of concern is that ethical codes of conduct are “superficial and
distracting to the question of how to promote ethical behaviour in corporate life” (Warren,
1993, p. 185) with caution expressed that there is “ no general statement of business
principles recognised as definitive by practising managers” (Dunfee, 1987, p. 385). In a paper
cynical of ethical codes, Schwartz (2000) posited that ethical codes are used by management
merely to ensure compliance, as part of their control system, and are actually devoid of
ethical content. Possibly, somewhat unfairly McCusker (1998) has indicated that there is a
degree of naivety amongst organisations and some academics concerning the benefits of
codes of conduct for an organisation and ultimately for the public and that ethical conduct
“should reflect a corporation's actual behaviour and not provide a canvas upon which a
representation of proposed or ideal behaviour can be exhibited” (McCusker, 1998, p. 2).
It has been suggested that criticisms of codes can be categorised under content and context
with content being the range of ethical responsibilities covered and the context being the
relevance of the code to the operating environment in which employees are making decisions
(Lysons, 1995). Jenkins (2001) has gone even further and identified the shortcomings of
codes as being related to; the limited number of issues they address, confusion as to who the
codes apply to, structural limitations of the codes themselves, the limitation of codes to
particular sectors and the tendency for codes to focus on particular issues. It therefore appears
that criticisms of codes tend to raise the issues that the guidelines are not exhaustive and
cannot cover all areas of potential unethical practices. As such, many codes rely on more
general sentiments and, in doing so lack the specificity to be of practical value. Also that
many employees find codes frustrating in that they are rarely prioritised. In a concluding
comment, Cassell et al. (1997) have summarised that whilst there exists an informative body
of literature concerning the prevalence of codes, there is a lack of consideration of their
impact upon actual organisational behaviour.
Effectiveness of codes
Rising to the challenge the impact of codes in regard to their ability to alter employee
behaviour has naturally come under the spotlight (Brenner and Molander, 1977; Weller,
1988; Kohut and Corriher, 1994) and it has been mooted that more research be conducted to
establish the effectiveness of codes in promoting ethical conduct (Weber, 1993). Responding
to this inevitable line of enquiry, some researchers have concluded that codes have limited to
no impact (Matthews, 1987; Akaah and Riordan, 1989; Callan, 1992; Cleek and Leonard,
1998). Matthews (1987) discovered only a weak link between the existence of ethical codes
and corporate misbehaviour while Callan (1992) observed that employees' awareness and use
of the organization's code of conduct generally proved to be poor predictors of ethical values.
Similarly, Mitchell et al. (1996) found that the presence or absence of a code of ethics was
not significantly correlated with perceptions of illegal activity. In a further effort to address
the research deficit on whether codes are effective, Cleek and Leonard (1998) concluded that
corporate codes of ethics are not influential in determining a person's ethical decision-making
behaviour.
To be expected there are alternative perspectives. given the empirical support of the role of
corporate codes and policy for improving ethical perceptions and standards in organisations
(Brenner and Molander, 1977; Hegarty and Sims, 1979; Chonko and Hunt, 1985; Laczniak
and Inderrieden, 1987; Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; Weller, 1988; Weeks and Nantel, 1992;
Murphy et al., 1992). In addition, Weaver and Ferrell (1977) concluded that the existence of
corporate policy is directly linked with improved ethical beliefs and behaviour of marketing
managers. Examining market researchers, Ferrell and Skinner (1988) asserted that more
formalisation in an organisation is associated with ethical decisions and also with reference to
marketers, Singhapakdi and Vitell (1990) generally found organisations that have codes of
ethics that are enforced, tend to be more sensitive to ethical problems when they occur and to
choose ethical alternatives in the decision-making process. McCabe et al. (1996) concluded
that the existence of a corporate code of ethics was associated with significantly lower levels
of self-reported unethical behaviour in the workplace among college graduates. Ferrell and
Skinner (1988) also determined positive effects on employee moral behaviour and the
presence of corporate codes of ethics has been found by Somers (2001) to be associated with
less perceived wrong-doing in organisations (intriguingly, professional codes of conduct have
no influence on perceived wrong-doing) but not with an increased propensity to report
observed unethical behaviour. In a somewhat tenuous finding, Valentine and Johnson (2005)
confirmed that the practice of reviewing ethics codes during employee orientation was
positively related to individual's beliefs that incorruptibility is an important individual virtue.
The research has also expanded to examine not only behavioural but also job related impacts.
For example, Weeks and Nantel (1992) noted that a sales force that is employed in an
environment marked by the existence of a well-communicated code appears to be relatively
high in job performance and job satisfaction.
In an attempt to reconcile the differing assessments as to the effectiveness of codes of ethics
Hunt et al. (1984) has provided a plausible explanation for the inconsistencies indicating that
they relate to the construction of the codes themselves, that is, codes were less effective
where they were written in a vague manner and failed to address important issues. Taking a
more proactive approach attention has subsequently turned from assessing the effectiveness
of codes to ascertaining the factors that enhance the effectiveness of corporate codes of
ethics. These were seen by Herndon (1994) as:



the corporate code itself, specifically, how it was written and publicised, whether it
was relevant, applicable to all levels of the organisation, accepted and contained
sanctions and rewards;
top management actions of ethics, meaning codes were supported by top management
and with communication that unethical behaviour is not tolerated as well as an overall
commitment towards ethical behaviour at all levels of the organisation;
extent of ethical problems within the organisation, that is, the extent that ethical
problems are limited and that peers are perceived to behave ethically; and

external environment, where industry competition is limited and the national culture
supports organisational core values.
With a similar set of precursors, Snell and Herndon (2004) also indicated the factors likely to
increase code effectiveness as being; corporate normative structure, leadership, external
industry environment that supports the code's values, societal values, consultation,
participation and involvement in code design, code content with a tone that is reader-friendly,
internal consistency, a document that encourages open discussion, and is implemented with
training rewards and disciplinary procedures.
Implementation
It has been extolled that implementing and enforcing a code of ethics can help companies
reap success “fiscally and socially” (Verschoor, 1997, p. 42) however, it has been suggested
that despite the recent proliferation of codes, their implementation remains relatively limited
(Jenkins, 2001). The literature on the implementation of codes has for the most part been
directed at organisations that are wishing to introduce codes of conduct, rather than an
assessment of varying methodologies to support and enrich the adoption of codes (Laufer and
Robertson, 1998; Sanders, 1982; Webley, 1988; Dean, 1992). In specific reference to
marketing practices, Lozano (2001) provided guidance for the development of ethical codes,
suggesting that, in the first stage, that an in depth analysis is made of the organisation and its
environment; in the second stage, a first proposal should be drawn up to be discussed in
different groups within the organisation and, in the third stage, a definitive version of the
ethical code is developed. This should utilise experts in ethics and the support of the board in
order to summarise the essential character traits and behavioural expectations of the
organisation. In doing so, Lozano (2001) emphasises the importance of consultation and
dialogue. Interestingly, companies indicated that the time taken to develop their code was
usually less than a year and electronic communication and written booklets are the major
methods of communication codes of ethics to employees (Svensson et al., 2006).
Having developed and introduced a code of ethics, Ferrell and Pride (1981) cautioned that
where a code of ethics is not integrated into organisational activities on a systematic basis,
then the impact that it has on improving ethical behaviour is somewhat limited. The
implementation of codes of ethics has therefore gone further in recent years than their just
communicative intent, to also embrace an understanding and facilitation of the ethical
decision-making process. Similarly, attempts to embed ethics as part of the overall
organisational corporate culture suggest that codes require multiple attachments into
organisational processes and behaviours in order to be effective.
To achieve this, Guerrette (1988) posed a five-step development plan of strategies towards
rebuilding a company's value system in order to ensure the development of a corporate
ethical ethos:




development of corporate policy;
corporate ethical code promulgation and value statement formulations;
management ethical training and corporate ethical education; and
corporate ethical performance evaluation.
Weber (2006) undertook a similar approach but in relation to the development of an ethical
ethos in a school of business. O'Dwyer and Madden (2006) also outlined the characteristics
for enhancing implementation of ethics codes, these being:




the method of code creation and introduction to employees;
appropriate revision of codes;
procedures for seeking advice or reporting violations; and
disciplinary procedures in place for breach of codes.
Enforcement
From past research, it appears that some form of normative structure does have an impact on
ethical attitudes and behaviour, whether in the form of corporate policy (Weaver and Ferrell,
1977; Chan and Lee, 1986), formalisation (Ferrell and Skinner, 1988), or ethical codes
(Brenner and Molander, 1977; Chonko and Hunt, 1985; Laczniak and Inderrieden, 1987;
Ferrell and Skinner, 1988; Weller, 1988; Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990; Weeks and Nantel,
1992; Murphy et al., 1992; Vitell and Hidalgo, 2006) and a notable feature of the material on
implementation of codes are the numerous discussions focusing specifically on enforcement
(Andrews, 1984; Vitell and Hidalgo, 2006). Molander (1987) has identified the most
problematic aspect of implementing an ethical code as code enforcement. He noted that
“incorporating an ethical code into existing procedures of personnel evaluation and reward
substantially reduced the cost of enforcement” (Molander, 1987, pp. 629-30). The importance
of enforcement to ensure adoption and ultimate effectiveness of codes has also been endorsed
by Ferrell and Gresham (1985) and Adams et al. (2001).
Enforcement as a factor increasing the effectiveness of codes has been alluded to for some
time but it does needs to be examined from the perspective of expectancy theory which
includes not only punishment but also rewards. In a laboratory setting utilising an in-basket
exercise, Stead et al. (1987) discussed the impact of rewards and penalties, referred to a
“contingencies of reinforcement”, with the suggestion that the cause of behaviour could be
explained by two alternative processes:
1. that situational and individual variables interact to cause behaviour; and
2. behaviour is not a result of individual differences but is socially learned via three
situational variables – contingencies of reinforcement, learning history, and the
vicarious influence of significant others (Stead et al., 1987, p. 105).
When examining contextual influences that may impact on an individual's propensity toward
unethical actions, Mayer (1970) proposed that there are three conditions that have the
potential to influence an individual's behaviour in situations with an ethical content the:
1. individual's inclination toward unethical behaviour;
2. opportunity to engage in unethical behaviour; and
3. expected gain versus the penalties of the unethical behaviour.
Initially examining the second condition of opportunity to engage in unethical behaviour this
has been referred to as opportunity structure by Knouse and Giacolone (1992). Zey-Ferrell et
al. (1979), Zey-Ferrell and Ferrell (1982) and Chan et al. (1988) reported that the opportunity
for an individual to become involved in ethical/unethical behaviour will influence reported
behaviour. In fact, the opportunity for unethical behaviour was found to be a better predictor
of behaviour than personal or beliefs.
Turning now to the expected gains versus the penalties of the unethical behaviour and
utilising a laboratory setting, which is not common in ethical research, Hegarty and Sims
(1978, 1979) concluded: an individual's inclination toward unethical behaviour is affected by
the impact of differing rewards and penalties on unethical behaviour. Naturally if rewards are
derived from unethical decision making, a higher incidence of such behaviour is likely to
occur (Hegarty and Sims, 1978). Trevino and Youngblood (1990) found that unexpected
rewards for ethical behaviour influenced their subjects while, in contrast, expected
punishments for unethical behaviour did not. Consistent with expectancy theory, Knouse and
Giacolone (1992) have pointed out that “where strong instrumentalities exist, that is, that
certain behaviours lead directly and consistently to rewards, this would produce strong
motivations toward both ethical or unethical behaviours” (Knouse and Giacolone, 1992, p.
373). Supporting this, Logsdon and Yuthas (1997) observed that employees make more effort
to understand and follow top management's ethical values and guidelines if the organisation
rewards people for following desired ethical practices while also punishing those who fail to
behave ethically. Of more practical value, Weber (1993) identified four possible incentives
that could act as rewards for ethical behaviour: recognition, appreciation, commendation, and
monetary rewards while Kerr (1995) cautioned that organisations have a tendency to reward
those aspects that are easily measured or quantified, such as financial performance or cost
savings, rather than actual desired behaviours that cannot be readily observed or measured,
such as ethical behaviour.
Converse to rewards it has been observed that ethical behaviour that is disciplined, and for
which negative reinforcement or punishment is received, will be less likely to be repeated
(Laczniak and Inderrieden, 1987). Consequently, disciplinary action in organisations has
been found to be related to ethical positions (Chan and Lee, 1986) and in the study by
Sweeney and Siers (1990) they reported that 70 per cent of the companies they surveyed
included disciplinary measures in their codes. One could, therefore, assume that organisations
with equitable reward systems, reinforcing ethical behaviour and in which a formal
disciplinary policy is in operation, are likely through these direct and indirect control
mechanisms, to impact positively on ethical attitudes and behaviour. Dean (1992) has
however cautioned that the fear of sanctions may not be enough to ensure ethical decision
making and more recently Nitsch et al. (2005) indicated that the ability to enforce the
provisions of a code of conduct influences whether the code will be effective in shaping
employee behaviour, but noting that enforcement relies, in part, often on the willingness of
employees to report violations.
While advising managers to link rewards and punishments to ethical and unethical behaviour,
Baucus and Beck-Dudley (2005) are wary that an over-reliance on rewards and punishments
encourages employees to operate at lower levels of moral reasoning. Alternatively, advocate
designing organisations as “ethical communities”. Baucus and Beck-Dudley (2005, p. 364)
propose that:
[…] organisation based on virtues or moral principles results in a high trust culture, specifically in this type of
environment, employees are fully empowered and trusted to make ethical decisions and behave ethically thus
requiring minimal control systems and little reliance on rewards and punishments.
Organisational culture
Highlighting the importance of organisational culture Fritzsche (1991, p. 844) has defined
culture as “the glue' that binds the organisation together in common identity and actions”.
Corporate culture influences the thoughts, feelings, and actions of employees and can
“contribute to an individual's moral development” (Trevino, 1986, p. 611). As Akaah and
Riordan (1989) in their study of marketing managers have suggested a healthy ethical
environment leads to strong ethical resolve. Trevino and Youngblood (1990) also found that a
value-based cultural approach to creating an ethical organisation was most effective at
preventing ethical lapses. Similarly, Vitell and Hidalgo (2006, p. 39) findings indicated that:
[…] in addition to one's country, playing a role in the perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility to
the success of the firm, this construct was also influenced by the corporate culture.
The results highlight the important role that organisational culture plays in ethical decision
making and in supporting codes. However, as a multi-dimensional phenomenon the
measurement of corporate culture can be difficult and a perceptional indication of the
strength of one's organisational culture needs to be combined also with a measure of value
congruence. For example, Akaah (1990) confirmed that a strong identity with the
organisation is associated with higher ethical behaviour. Consequently, when evaluating the
impact of an organisation's corporate culture on ethical decision making, it is not enough
merely to ask for a judgement of the perceived strength of the corporate culture, information
also needs to be sought on the compatibility of personal values (value congruence) to the
organisational values contained in that culture and the pressure they may experience where
these values are at variance.
Closely related to opportunity structure is the factor of organisational pressure. Although
initially intended to reflect external organisational pressures such as competitor influence and
scarcity of resources, pressure to conform is a potential outcome of ethical conflict when an
employee's personal business ethics are not compatible with the ethical expectations of the
organisation. To date, the research has largely centred on the circumstance of an individual
with higher ethical standards than the organisation feeling pressured to conform to the lower
standards of the company (Brenner and Molander, 1977; Laczniak, 1983; Posner and
Schmidt, 1987; Soutar et al., 1994), and the behavioural responses of managers to such
circumstances have also been discussed (Smith and Carroll, 1984; Posner and Schmidt, 1987;
Soutar et al., 1994). Moving from an individual to a group perspective interestingly the
positive influence of conformity to group pressure has some support, with Nicholas and Day
(1982, p. 202) presenting evidence that individuals interacting in a group produce decisions at
a higher level of moral reasoning than the average of individuals acting alone.
Differential association theory also broadens the scope of influence to include the impact of,
peers and associates. Originally developed in the criminological realm of deviant behaviour
and defined by Fritzsche (1991, p. 844) simply as “ the degree to which members associate
with each other”. The theory of differential association posts that a person will tend to adopt
the behaviour and beliefs of those he associates with according to the ratio of contacts with
the individual. Differential association assumes that “unethical behaviour is learned in the
process of interacting with persons who are part of intimate personal groups or role sets”
(Ferrell and Gresham, 1985, p. 90). Zey-Ferrell et al. (1979) concluded differential
association with peers and opportunity were found to be better predictors of ethical/unethical
behaviour than the respondent's own ethical belief system. They also concluded that an
individual may act in compliance with group pressure without internalising group norms.
Izraeli (1988) also noted what peers do was the best predictor of ethical behaviour.
Svensson et al. (2006, p. 547) have noted that “companies are beginning to implement not
only a code of ethics but other complementary initiatives that reinforce the need for the
culture of the organisation to be ethical” and an ethical climate has been found to be
positively related to a codes's perceived usefulness (Wotruba et al., 2001). In order to
strengthen the ethical climate and cultural dimension supporting codes numerous additional
organisational strategies have been suggested such as; enhanced employer appraisal systems,
the conducting of ethical audits, the support of whistleblowers, judiciary boards enhanced
corporate planning, and ethics training (Lindsay et al., 1996; McDonald, 1998, 1999; Wood
et al., 2004; Falkenberg and Herremans, 1995). Vitell and Hidalgo (2006) have observed that
in addition to codes of ethics as a means of institutionalising ethics, organisations have made
structural and procedural changes such as the introduction of ethics ombudsmen, ethics
committees and ethics newsletters. In addition to codes of conduct, Murphy (1988)
recommended formal organisational implementation factors as, ethics committees, ethics
conferences and training, and also ethical audits. He also identified informal organisational
implementation strategies as being open and candid communication, and management setting
a leadership example.
Leadership
Despite a few studies indicating that the actions of top management have minimal, or no,
significant influence on organisational ethical behaviour (Murphy et al., 1992; Zey-Ferrell et
al., 1979), referent others, as alluded to earlier, have been found to significantly influence
ethical decision making in organisations (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner and Molander, 1977;
Carroll, 1975; Hegarty and Sims, 1978, 1979; Arlow and Ulrich, 1980; Hunt et al., 1984;
Posner and Schmidt, 1984; Vitell and Festervand, 1987; Akaah and Riordan, 1989; Dubinsky
and Loken, 1989). Referent others could include the influence of peers (Izraeli, 1988; ZeyFerrell and Ferrell, 1982) but more notably includes the role of supervisors and organisational
leaders. Fisher (2001) observed that a manager's understandings and responses to ethical
codes was a mediating factor between codes and their implementation and the research
strongly supports the conclusion that the ethical philosophies and values of management have
a major impact on the ethical choices and behaviour of employees (Stead et al., 1990; Soutar
et al., 1994; Wimbush and Shepard, 1994).
The vicarious influence of leaders has been investigated by Posner and Schmidt (1984) who
found employees consider unethical behaviour as being dependent upon organisational
climate, especially the action of one's immediate boss and peers. This research replicated
earlier studies that found the perceived behaviour of superiors to be the most important factor
influencing unethical decision (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner and Molander, 1977). Zey-Ferrell et
al. (1979, p. 559) also asserted that “peers and supervisors have a greater impact on
behaviour in situations having ethical content than would mass media and impersonal
agencies”. Dukerich et al. (1990) examined moral reasoning and noted that a group's moral
reasoning decreased when the group leader operated at a low level of moral reasoning while
Hornett and Fredricks (2005) when examining ethical leadership observed a distinction
between public and private behaviour. Consequently, the role of management has been
studied extensively with the common and intuitive conclusion that unethical decisions of
employees are significantly influenced by the perceived attitudes and behaviour of immediate
supervisors and senior managers.
With organisational leadership having a significant impact on both ethical and unethical
behaviour it appears that despite all the good work that goes into the development of codes
they can be relatively easily eroded (and enhanced) given the attitudes and behaviours of
supervisors and organisational leaders. It is therefore not enough to rely on the code itself to
achieve ethical outcomes as its effectiveness can be mitigated by counter prevailing views
and actions of those in senior positions.
Conclusion
As Berenbeim (1995) observed, increasingly companies are viewing their employees as
moral legislators and looking to them to reflect the company's principles and values in their
everyday decisions. To achieve this, the role of ethical codes has been enhanced and the
frequency of their adoption notably increased. More recently, Berenbeim (2000) observed
three trends prompting the increased importance of codes of ethics, these being; globalisation
and the need to apply core principles that are universally acceptable, recognition that codes
are now firmly part of corporate governance and the improved ethical literacy of senior
managers. These trends were endorsed by Jenkins (2001) who also isolated several factors
that have contributed to the growing interest in corporate codes of conduct. These factors are;
global value chains that have led to calls for increased responsibility (not only on quality but
also working conditions), environmental impacts, corporate reputation and the vulnerability
to bad publicity, changing public attitudes and developments in global communication which
has increased public awareness (Jenkins, 2001).
Evidence suggests that the adoption of codes is more prelevant in some industries than others.
Reichert et al. (2000) observed that there is a relationship between the adoption of ethical
codes and industry type. Industries such as the computer, electronic, scientific and
photographic sectors that are involved with high-precision products, as well as industries
mining crude oil, petroleum and natural resources, are more inclined to have a formal written
code of ethics. In relation to the public sector, Doig and Wilson (1998, p. 140) caution that
“the public sector must realise that it cannot look solely to formal codes to revive and sustain
public sector values”. Despite the proliferation of codes there are those that are somewhat
cynical of the motivations underpinning their introduction and use. For example, there is the
danger of codes being seen as something more than they really are, and being used primarily
to deflect criticism and reduce the demand for external regulation (Jenkins, 2001). On
balance, it would appear that despite well-articulated reservations the benefits of codes of
conduct are many and varied. These benefits being:




altruistic, i.e. that of earning the respect of stakeholders, being a good corporate
citizen and increasing staff morale;
mercenary, i.e. increased business performance and company reputation;
differentiating, i.e. enhancing differentiation and customer loyalty; and
regulatory, i.e. avoiding litigation (Svensson et al., 2006).
From the perspective of company personnel the advantages of codes include; providing
guidance to and inculcating company values, signalling expectations of proper conduct,
nurturing a business environment of open communication, providing a basis for working
together, and providing a safe environment (Lysons, 1995).
The benefits of ethical codes have been identified as impacting on not only the individual
employees but that of the organisation and stakeholders. For employees, the use of ethical
codes can provide a mechanism for communicating organisational philosophy in the realm of
ethical behaviour as well as exposing employees to ethical issues before they are faced with a
real ethical situation. A code will define the limits of what constitutes acceptable or
unacceptable behaviour and creates greater levels of security. Codes of ethics can assist in the
induction and training of employees and the building of corporate cultures. On a more
practical level, the design, development and revision of codes requires constant clarification
of employee and managerial thought on what actually constitutes unethical behaviour and the
level of reflection and sensitivity that presupposes the development of codes of ethics is, in
itself, an important organisational development tool Lozano (2001). Undoubtedly, the
presence of a code of conduct, which outlines relationship management expectations, tends to
evoke greater levels of support by customers and key stakeholders. For some organisations
interestingly, codes of ethics are perceived to “have assisted them in dealings in the market
place” and have used their ethical values to underpin their strategic planning process
(Svensson et al., 2006, p. 547). Given these benefits and the likely continued use of codes of
ethics the following discussion highlights a few key issues surrounding the development and
dissemination of corporate codes to be considered in the future.
Customisation and flexibility
The design of codes and their content is not always easy with many organisations regrettably
replicating, or slightly modifying existing codes, and in the future it hoped that great attention
is given to the customisation of codes to the specific needs of the organisation in which the
code will function. The key elements in the determination of the content are clearly the
industry or sphere of activity that the organisation is operating in, the significant
stakeholders, the anticipated target audience and the intended outcomes of the code. All of
these need to be thought through before embarking on construction of a code. In relation to
the actual content of codes, the dilemma between specific practices and general precepts has
been significantly alluded to and continues to vex code writers. Robin et al. (1989) observed
the tendency for codes they studied to be legalistic while Molander (1987) noted that where a
code was too specific or prescriptive, there is a danger that the code becomes relatively
inflexible. Alternatively, should a code be too general and rely purely on ethical principles, it
has the potential to lack detail to provide necessary and adequate guidance. In the case of
code design, it is definitely a case of the Goldie Locks Paradox of not being too hot and not
being too cold. The dilemma of documents being too prescriptive and therefore not
empowering employees versus the need for detailing of best practices has been significantly
address by Farrell et al. (2002, p. 52) who have proposed “that the only satisfactory contents
for codes are clear and precise behavioural dictates that lend themselves to a supporting
disciplinary function”.
Consistency between codes and policy
Higgs-Kleyn and Kapelianis (1999) have noted in their study of professional and corporate
codes that there was the potential existence of conflict with individuals being regulated by
more than one code of ethics. Fortunately, in their study, few respondents experienced any
conflict between such codes, however, given the multiple dimensions of professional lives the
opportunity does exist and consideration needs to be given in those circumstances as to which
code (profession or organisational) takes priority. A similar conflict could also occur where
organisations have developed their code in isolation to other policies and processes operating
in the organisation. It sounds axiomatic, but it is surprising to see the number of
inconsistencies that can develop in the range of guidelines to employees that originate from a
variety of different sources and which have been developed over time.
Revision and consultation
Codes are often viewed as static and once written remaining unchanged as part of the
organisation's infrastructure for years to come. This is incorrect and it must be recognised that
codes need constant revision in order to be updated and to accurately reflect the current
concerns of employees, the organisation and the community at large. Consideration also
needs to be given to the impact of changing technologies and the ethical ramification
associated with these developments. To achieve this revision, further thought needs to be
given as to how codes and their content are developed. It appears that codes are enhanced by
undertaking consultation with employees to ensure both buy in Sanderson and Varner (1984),
Stead et al. (1990), Stevens (1994), Trevino and McCabe (1994) and Trevino et al. (1999)
and relevance (Doig and Wilson, 1998). Stead et al. (1990) recommended that to be effective,
a code should be developed in an open, participative environment involving as many
employees as possible. Trevino and McCabe (1994) also advocated the active involvement of
employees in the development, interpretation and review of codes of ethics. While
increasingly staff are having input into the development of codes, the initiation of the
development, implementation and the revision of codes still appears to be the primary
responsibility of senior management, notably the chief executive officer, and with a low
participation of external stakeholders, particularly unions and suppliers, an area which could
warrant further attention in the future.
Dissemination and integration
When considering dissemination, that is, whether companies inform stakeholders of both the
existence of a code and also of its content, this has been the subject of examination (Svensson
et al., 2006; Benson, 1989). Alarmingly, Schlegelmilch and Houston (1988) found that only
60 per cent of codes were circulated to employees and that some did not go beyond the board
of directors. It is hoped this is no longer the case. Clearly if a code is to be of any
inspirational or instructional value then it needs to get out and be fully integrated into the
organisation. In fact, Wotruba et al. (2001) has concluded that the perceived usefulness of
ethics codes is positively related to familiarity with the code. Effective dissemination can be
achieved through a variety of mechanism such as a published booklet, or a searchable web
option and with frequent opportunities orchestrated where the code is discussed, i.e. during
induction, training, strategic or departmental planning sessions code, as well as the more
fomalised arenas, e.g. corporate newsletters, ethics committees, ethical ombudsperson, ethical
hot lines. But what of external stakeholders? The general conclusion is that outside
stakeholders should also be informed of an organisations code of ethics particularly where
their behaviour may inadvertently compromise the behaviour of an employee for example, in
the event of gift giving.
Implementation and adoption
As has been noted, the existence of codes of ethics does not necessarily reflect active
implementation of ethical practices (Nijhof et al., 2003). Clearly, some form of normative
structure refers to the existence of codes of conduct but also to the presence of a formalised
planning and review process. It is assumed that in organisations where both task and
behaviour expectancies are established, communicated and reviewed, this will have a positive
effect on the ethical climate of those organisations and the employees It is also important to
align the normative structure with the values upon which a code of ethics is based; otherwise
the code will be ineffective (Snell and Herndon, 2004; Weaver, 1999). Therefore, for a code
of conduct to be meaningful it must have clear methods of implementation and means to
ensure that it is being complied with (Jenkins, 2001, p. 25). Implementation of codes could be
perceived as falling into two categories, the adaptation of existing processes versus the
creation of new processes to assist in code implementation, with the latter relating to new
means of communication, induction, discipline, staff appraisal and strategic planning
(Svensson et al., 2006). Directly looking at the issues of implementing an ethical code of
conduct, Adam and Rachman-Moore (2004) commented that in recent years business
organisations have invested heavily in formalised methods of implementation such as training
courses and enforcement, however, their study indicated that informal methods such as the
social norms of the organisation are perceived by employees to have more influence on their
conduct and are likely to yield greater commitment. As a consequence, it is recommended
that further investigation be undertaken of the means by which initiatives might be introduced
to facilitate the orchestration of the informal communication and organisational structures
that would support the implementation of codes.
Reporting and monitoring
The presence of corporate codes of ethics has been found to be associated with less perceived
wrongdoing in organisations but, intriguingly, not with an increased propensity to report
observed unethical behaviour (Somers, 2001). Nitsch et al. (2005) also noted the
phenomenon of non-reporting of ethical violations. This flags an important point for those
responsible for corporate codes and increased attention possibly needs to be given to the
development of strategies for increasing the propensity to report ethical violations. That is,
how in a safe and respectful manner may ethical violations be identified, appropriately
handled and incorporated into organisational learning. Weaver (1999) observed that in 1995,
50 per cent of American firms had a telephone-based method for employees to request advice
on reported breaches of the code. Since this time one suspects organisations have embraced
e-mail and with the ability to provide confidential and sometimes anonymous feedback to
employee requests. Clearly the effective encouragement of appropriate means of reporting
ethical violations is also an area where further consideration could be given.
Similarly, another area for attention is in relation to monitoring and reporting. How well an
organisation is doing in promoting an ethical climate is often difficult to gauge and while
there are no doubt metrics that can be used to assess key performance areas it would be
intriguing to know the ability and extent to which organisations go to judge the effectiveness
of a code and its supporting mechanisms. Both internal and external monitoring could be
considered and at present it has been suggested that only few organisations (10 per cent)
include “provision for independent external monitoring” (Jenkins, 2001, p. 25).
To conclude, to improve codes of conduct, they require relevant content, periodic revision,
codes that match policy, simple terminology, the use of examples, mechanisms by which they
are disseminated and supported, and sanctions clearly communicated and actioned where
violations have occurred. In addition, codes need to be implemented within the context of the
multi-faceted ethics programme and it is important to observe when examining codes that
there is the likelihood of a maturing process that occurs over time. This evolution could be
depicted through a series of identifiable steps, or tiers. First, tier codes would contain broad
statements of principle and frequent references to statutory obligations. They include periodic
internal reviews and are considered to be live documents to be amended as needed. They are
disseminated out of routine. Second, tier codes are more prescriptive, including compliance
measures, review mechanisms, public reporting via annual reports and web-sites, active
participation in the code development and with the code's introduction possibly being
supplemented with training. Third, tier codes are fully integrated with all organisational
policies, compliance checks are formalised, internal and external review undertaken, regular
revisions, oversight mechanisms are firmly established, supporting strategies implemented
and personal ethical decision-making skills are developed (adapted from Canadian Banker,
1996).
Adam and Rachman-Moore (2004, p. 239) appropriately recognised “the disillusionment that
can occur when an organisation does not live up to its rhetoric”. The realisation of the gap
between what is preached by the organisation and what is practised by its employees can
result in disappointment. This may impede the moral authority of the organisation so it
should be remembered that good business ethics are produced not by codes but by a culture
that is self-consciously ethical and walking the talk.
Notes
1. This paper has been developed from a chapter in G. Svensson and G. Wood (2000),
Business Ethics: Through Time and across Contexts, Stuentlitteratur Publishing.
References
Adam, A.M., Rachman-Moore, D. (2004), "The methods used to implement an ethical code
of conduct and employee attitudes", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54 pp.225-44.
Adams, J.S., Tashchian, A., Shore, T.H. (2001), "Codes of ethics as signals for ethical
behaviour", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 29 pp.199-211.
Akaah, I.P. (1990), "Attitudes of marketing professional toward ethics in market research: a
cross national comparison", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 pp.45-53.
Akaah, I.P., Riordan, E.A. (1989), "Judgements of marketing professionals about ethical
issues in marketing research: a replication and extension", Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No.1, pp.112-20.
Andrews, K.R. (1984), "Difficulties in overseeing ethical policy", California Management
Review, Vol. 26 No.4, pp.133-7.
Arlow, P., Ulrich, T.A. (1980), "Business ethics, social responsibility and business students:
an empirical comparison of Clark's study", Akron Business & Economic Review, Vol. 11
No.3, pp.17-23.
Arruda, M.C. (1997), "Business ethics in Latin America", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16
pp.1597-604.
Baucus, M.S., Beck-Dudley, C.L. (2005), "Designing ethical organisations: avoiding the
long-term negative effects of rewards and punishments", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 56
pp.355-70.
Baumhart, R.C. (1961), "How ethical are businessmen?", Harvard Business Review,
July/August, pp.6-19.
Bavaria, S. (1991), "Corporate ethics should start in the boardroom", Business Horizons,
January/February, pp.9-12.
Benson, G.C.S. (1989), "Codes of ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 pp.305-19.
Berenbeim, R.E. (1987), "Corporate ethics practices", Report No. 900, The Conference
Board, New York, NY, .
Berenbeim, R.E. (1992), "Corporate ethics practices", Report No. 986, The Conference
Board, New York, NY, .
Berenbeim, R.E. (1995), "Transforming employees into moral legislators", Executive
Speeches, Vol. 9 No.6, pp.13-15.
Berenbeim, R.E. (2000), "Global ethics", Executive Excellence, Vol. 17 No.5, pp.7.
Bondy, K., Matten, D., Moon, J. (2006), "MNC codes of conduct: CSR or corporate
governance?", International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Research Paper
Series, No. 40-2006, pp.1-28.
Bowman, J.S. (1981), "The management of ethics: codes of conduct in organisations", Public
Personnel Management Journal, (special issue), Vol. 10 No.1, pp.59-66.
Brenner, S.N., Molander, E.A. (1977), "Is the ethics of business changing?", Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 55 pp.57-76.
Brinkmann, J., Ims, K. (2003), "Good intentions aside: drafting a functionalist look at codes
of ethics", Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 12 No.3, pp.265-74.
Buchanan, S. (1987), "Corporate ethics codes can lack punitive punch", International Herald
Tribune, November, pp.27.
Callaghan, M., Wood, G., Svensson, G. (2008), "A longitudinal study of the business ethics
of corporate Australia", International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol.
6 No.1, pp.173-84.
Callan, V.J. (1992), "Predicting ethical values and trading needs in codes of ethics", Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No.10, pp.761-9.
Canadian Banker (1996), "How codes of conduct evolve", Canadian Banker, Vol. 103 No.2,
pp.33.
Carroll, A. (1975), "Managerial ethics: a post-watergate view", Business Horizons, Vol. 18
pp.75-80.
Cassell, C., Johnson, P., Smith, K. (1997), "Opening the black box: corporate codes of ethics
in their organisational context", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 pp.1077-93.
Centre for Business Ethics (1986), "Are corporations institutionalising ethics?", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 5 pp.86-91.
Centre for Business Ethics (1992), "Instilling ethical values in large corporations", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.863-8.
Chan, C.F., Lee, K.H. (1986), "Organisational culture and salesperson's ethical position", in
Hsieh, R.T., Scherling, S.A. (Eds),Proceedings of the Academy of International Business SEA
Regional Conference, National Chiao Tung University, Taipei, pp.636-44.
Chan, C.F., Lau, K.F., Ip, P.K. (1988), "Factors affecting business ethics: an exploratory
study in Hong Kong", in Hongladarom, C. (Eds),Proceedings of the 1988 AIB Southeast Asia
Regional Conference, Thammasat University, Bangkok, pp.E122-37.
Chattov, R. (1980), "What corporate ethics statements say", California Management Review,
Vol. 22 No.4, pp.20-9.
Chonko, L.B., Hunt, S.H. (1985), "Ethics and marketing management: an empirical
examination", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13 pp.339-59.
Cleek, M.A., Leonard, S.L. (1998), "Can corporate codes of ethics influence behaviour?",
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No.9, pp.619-30.
Cochran, P.L., Weaver, G.R. (1995), "Codes of conduct to the rescue", Financial Executive,
Vol. 11 No.6, pp.47-8.
Cottrill, K. (1996), "Global codes of conduct", Journal of Business Strategy, May/June,
pp.55-60.
Court, J. (1988), "A question of corporate ethics", Personnel Journal, Vol. 67 No.9, pp.37-9.
Cressey, D., Moore, C.A. (1983), "Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics",
California Management Review, Vol. 25 pp.53-77.
Dean, P.J. (1992), "Making codes of ethics real", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.28590.
Desai, A.B., Rittenburg, T. (1997), "Global ethics: an integrative framework for MNEs",
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 pp.791-800.
Doig, A., Wilson, J. (1998), "The effectiveness of codes of conduct", Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 7 No.3, pp.140-9.
Donaldson, T. (1992), Business Ethics: A European Casebook, Academic Press, London, .
Dubinsky, A.J., Loken, B. (1989), "Analysing ethical decision making in marketing", Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 19 pp.83-107.
Dukerich, J.M., Nicholas, M.L., Elm, D.R., Vollrath, D.A. (1990), "Moral reasoning in
groups: leaders make a difference", Human Relations, Vol. 43 No.5, pp.473-93.
Dunfee, T. (1987), "The case for professional norms of business behaviour", American
Business Law Journal, Vol. 25 pp.385-406.
Epstein, E.M. (1976), "The social role of business enterprise in Britain: an American
perspective: Part I", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 13 pp.213-33.
Epstein, E.M. (1977), "The social role of business enterprise in Britain: an American
perspective: Part II", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 14 pp.281-316.
Falkenberg, L., Herremans, I. (1995), "Ethical behaviours in organisations: directed by the
formal or informal systems?", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 14 pp.133-43.
Farrell, B.F., Cobbin, D.M., Farrell, H. (2002), "Codes of ethics: their evolution,
development and other controversies", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No.2,
pp.152-63.
Farrell, B.J., Cobbin, D.M. (1996), "A content analysis of codes of ethics in Australian
enterprises", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No.1, pp.37-55.
Farrell, H., Farrell, B.J. (1998), "The language of business codes of ethics: implications of
knowledge and power", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 pp.587-601.
Ferrell, O.C., Gresham, L. (1985), "A contingency framework for understanding ethical
decision making in marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 pp.87-96.
Ferrell, O.C., Pride, W.M. (1981), "Management must practise support and enforce usable
ethical policies", Marketing News, Vol. 1 pp.11.
Ferrell, O.C., Skinner, S.J. (1988), "Ethical behaviour and bureaucratic structure in marketing
research organisations", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No.1, pp.103-9.
Fischer, C., Parry, I., Aguilar, F., Jawahar, P. (2005), "Corporate codes of conduct: is
common environmental content feasible?", Discussion Paper 05-09, Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC, .
Fisher, C. (2001), "Manager's perceptions of ethical codes: dialectics and dynamics",
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No.2, pp.145-56.
Fritzsche, D.J. (1991), "A model of decision making incorporating ethical values", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 10 pp.841-52.
Gavin, T.A., Roy, R.A., Sumners, G.E. (1990), "A corporate code of conduct: the internal
auditor's role", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 11 No.3, pp.32-40.
Gross, D. (1995), "School for scandal, CFO", The Magazine for Chief Financial Officers,
Vol. 11 No.7, pp.71-5.
Guerrette, R.H. (1988), "Corporate ethical consulting: developing management strategies for
corporate ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No.5, pp.373-80.
Guillen, M., Mele, D., Murphy, P. (2002), "European versus American approaches to
institutionalisation of business ethics: the Spanish case", Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 11 No.2, pp.167-78.
Hegarty, W.H., Sims, H.P. (1978), "Some determinants of unethical decision behaviour: an
experiment", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No.4, pp.451-7.
Hegarty, W.H., Sims, H.P. (1979), "Organizational philosophy, policies and objectives
related to unethical decision behaviour: a laboratory experiment", Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 64 No.3, pp.331-8.
Herndon, N.C. Jr (1994), "Toward enhancing the effectiveness of a corporate code of ethics",
Proceedings of Inaugural Conference of the Centre for the Study of Business Values,
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1-3 June, .
Higgs-Kleyn, N., Kapelianis, D. (1999), "The role of professional codes in regarding ethical
conduct", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19 No.4, pp.363-74.
Hite, R.E., Bellizi, J.A., Fraser, C. (1988), "A content analysis of ethical policy statements
regarding marketing activities", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7 No.10, pp.771-6.
Hornett, A., Fredricks, S. (2005), "An empirical and theoretical exploration of disconnections
between leadership and ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59 pp.233-46.
Hunt, S.D., Chonko, L.B., Wilcox, J.B. (1984), "Ethical problems of marketing researchers",
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21 pp.309-24.
Hyman, M.R., Skipper, R., Tansey, R. (1990), "Ethical codes are not enough", Business
Horizons, March/April, pp.15-22.
Izraeli, D. (1988), "Ethical beliefs and behaviour among managers: a cross-cultural
perspective", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7 pp.263-71.
Jackson, K.T. (1997), "Globalizing corporate ethics programs: perils and prospects", Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 pp.1227-35.
Jackson, K.T. (1999), "Spirituality as a foundation for freedom and creative imagination in
international business ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 19 pp.61-70.
Jenkins, R. (2001), "Corporate codes of conduct: self-regulation in a global economy",
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development, Technology, Business and Society Programme Paper, No.
2, April, pp.1-35.
Kaptein, M. (2004), "Business codes of multinational firms: what do they say?", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 50 pp.13-31.
Kaye, B.N. (1992), "Codes of ethics in Australian business corporations", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.857-62.
Kerr, S. (1995), "On the folly of rewarding a while hoping for B", Academy of Management
Executive, February, pp.7-19.
Kjonstad, B., Willmott, H. (1995), "Business ethics: restrictive or empowering?", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 14 No.6, pp.445-64.
Knouse, S.B., Giacolone, R.A. (1992), "Ethical decision making in business: behavioural
issues and concerns", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.369-78.
Kohut, G.F., Corriher, S.E. (1994), "The relationship of age, gender, experience and
awareness of written ethics policies to business decision making", SAM Advanced
Management Journal, Vol. 59 pp.32-3.
Kolk, A., Tulder, R.V., Welters, C. (1999), "International codes of conduct and corporate
social responsibility: can transnational corporations regulate themselves?", Transnational
Corporations, Vol. 8 No.1, .
L'Etang, J. (1992), "A Kantian approach to codes of ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
11 No.10, pp.737-44.
Laczniak, G.R. (1983), "Business ethics: a manager's primer", Business, Vol. 33 pp.23-9.
Laczniak, G.R., Inderrieden, E.J. (1987), "The influence of stated organisational concern
upon ethical decision making", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 pp.297-307.
Langlois, C.C., Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1990), "Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national
character? Evidence from Europe and the United States", Journal of International Business
Studies, fourth quarter, pp.519-39.
Laufer, W.S., Robertson, D.C. (1998), "Corporate ethics initiatives as social control", Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No.10, pp.1029-48.
Lefebvre, M., Singh, J.B. (1992), "A comparison of the contents and foci of Canadian and
American corporate codes of ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.799-808.
Lefebvre, M., Singh, J.B. (1996), "The content and focus of Canadian corporate codes of
ethics", International Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No.2, pp.156-70.
Lindsay, R.M., Lindsay, L., Irvine, B. (1996), "Instilling ethical behaviour in organisations: a
survey of Canadian companies", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 No.4, pp.393-407.
Logsdon, J.M., Yuthas, K. (1997), "Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation
and organisational moral development", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 pp.1213-26.
Lowe, S. (1996), "Codes of conduct in Hong Kong organisations", International Journal of
Value-Based Management, Vol. 9 No.3, pp.211-25.
Lozano, J.F. (2001), "Proposal for a model for the elaboration of ethical codes based on
discourse ethics", Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No.2, pp.157-62.
Lysons, K. (1995), "Code or codswallop: the relevance of ethical codes", Purchasing and
Supply Management, December, pp.18-20.
McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L., Butterfield, K.D. (1996), "The influence of collegiate and
corporate codes of conduct on ethics-related behaviour in the workplace", Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 6 No.4, pp.461-76.
McCusker, R. (1998), "Codes of ethics: the emperor's new clothes or valuable corporate
assets?", The Business Ethics Network News, Vol. 14 pp.1-4.
McDonald, G.M. (1998), "Stimulating an ethical climate in organisations", Organisations
and People: Successful Development, Vol. 5 No.1, pp.25-31.
McDonald, G.M. (1999), "Business ethics: practical proposals for organisations", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 19 No.2, pp.143-58.
Matthews, M.C. (1987), "Codes of ethics: organisational behaviour and misbehaviour", in
Frederick, W.C., Preston, L.E. (Eds),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy,
JAI Press, Greenwich CT, pp.107-30.
Mayer, R.R. (1970), "Management's responsibility for purchasing ethics", Journal of
Purchasing, Vol. 4 pp.13-20.
Mele, D., Debeljuh, P., Arruda, M.C. (2006), "Corporate ethical policies in large corporations
in Argentina, Brazil and Spain", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 63 pp.21-38.
Mitchell, D.R., Daniels, D., Hopper, H., George-Faley, J., Ferris, G.R. (1996), "Perceived
correlates of illegal behavior in organizations", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15 pp.43055.
Molander, E.A. (1987), "A paradigm for design, promulgation and enforcement of ethical
codes", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 pp.619-31.
Murphy, P.E. (1988), "Implementing business ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 7
pp.907-15.
Murphy, P.E. (1995), "Corporate ethics statements: current status and future prospects",
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 14 pp.727-40.
Murphy, P.R., Smith, J.E., Daley, J.M. (1992), "Executive attitudes, organisational size and
ethical issues: perspectives on a service industry", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.1119.
Nakamo, C. (1997), "A survey study of Japanese managers: views of business ethics",
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16 No.16, pp.1737-51.
Nicholas, M.L., Day, V.E. (1982), "A comparison of moral reasoning of groups and
individuals on the defining issues test", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25 pp.201-8.
Nijhof, A., Cludts, S., Fisscher, O., Laan, A. (2003), "Measuring the implementation of codes
of conduct: an assessment method based on process approach of the responsible
organisation", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 No.1, pp.65-78.
Nitsch, D., Baetz, M., Hughes, J.C. (2005), "Why code of conduct violations go unreported: a
conceptual framework to guide intervention and future research", Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 57 pp.327-41.
O'Dwyer, B., Madden, G. (2006), "Ethical codes of conduct in Irish companies: a survey of
code content and enforcement procedures", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 63 pp.217-36.
Painter-Morland, M. (2006), "Triple bottom-line reporting as social grammar: integrating
corporate social responsibility and corporate codes of conduct", Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 15 No.4, pp.352-64.
Payne, D., Raiborn, C., Askvik, J. (1997), "A global code of business ethics", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 16 pp.1727-35.
Pitt, H.L., Groskaufmanis, K.A. (1990), "Minimizing corporate civil and criminal liability: a
second look at corporate codes of conduct", The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 78 pp.1559.
Posner, B.Z., Schmidt, W.H. (1984), "Values and the American manager: an update",
California Management Review, Vol. 26 pp.202-16.
Posner, B.Z., Schmidt, W.H. (1987), "Ethics in American companies: a managerial
perspective", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 pp.383-91.
Raiborn, C.A., Payne, D. (1990), "Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and
continuum", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9 No.11, pp.879-89.
Rallapalli, K.C. (1999), "A paradigm for development and promulgation of a global code of
marketing ethics", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 18 pp.125-37.
Redeker, J.R. (1990), "Code of conduct as corporate culture", HR Magazine, July, pp.83-7.
Reichert, A.K., Webb, M.S., Thomas, E.G. (2000), "Corporate support for ethical and
environmental policies: a financial management perspective", Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 25 pp.53-64.
Reynolds, M.A. (2000), "Contents of codes of ethics of professional business organisations",
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 21 No.4, pp.35-49.
Robertson, C., Fadil, P.A. (1998), "Developing corporate codes of ethics in multinational
firms: Bhopal revisited", Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. IX No.4, pp.454-68.
Robin, D., Giallourakis, M., David, F.R., Moritz, T.E. (1989), "A different look at codes",
Business Horizons, January/February, pp.66-73.
Rowan, R., Campbell, D. (1983), "The attempt to regulate industrial relations through
international codes", Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 18 No.2, pp.64-72.
Ryan, L.V. (1994), "Ethics codes in British companies", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 3
pp.54-64.
Sanders, P. (1982), "Implementing international codes of conduct for multinational
enterprises", The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 30 pp.241-54.
Sanderson, G., Varner, I. (1984), "What's wrong with corporate codes of conduct",
Management Accounting, Vol. 66 No.1, pp.28-35.
Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1989), "The ethics gap between Britain and the United States: a
comparison of the state of business ethics in both countries", European Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No.1, pp.59-64.
Schlegelmilch, B.B., Houston, J.E. (1988), "Corporate codes of ethics in large UK
companies: an empirical investigation of use, content and attitudes", University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, working paper series, .
Schwartz, M.S. (2000), "Why ethical codes constitute an unconscionable regression", Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 21 pp.173-84.
Schwartz, M.S. (2005), "Universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 59 pp.27-44.
Singh, J.B. (2006), "Ethics programs in Canada's largest corporations", Business and Society
Review, Vol. 111 No.2, pp.119-36.
Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S.J. (1990), "Marketing ethics: factors influencing perceptions of
ethical problems and alternatives", Journal of Macro Marketing, Vol. 12 pp.4-18.
Smeltzer, L.R., Jennings, M.M. (1998), "Why an international code of business ethics would
be good for business", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 pp.57-66.
Smith, H.R., Carroll, A.B. (1984), "Organisational ethics: a stacked deck", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 3 pp.95-100.
Snell, R.S., Herndon, N.C. Jr (2004), "Hong Kong's code of ethics initiative: some
differences between theory and practice", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 51 pp.75-89.
Snell, R.S., Chak, A.M-K., Chu, J.W-H. (1996), "Codes of ethics in Hong Kong: espousal,
evidence and impact", paper presented at the ANZAM '96 Conference, Diversity and Change:
Challenges for Management into the 21st Century, Wollongong, .
Somers, M.J. (2001), "Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: a study of the
relationship between codes of conduct, employee behaviour and organisational values",
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30 No.2, pp.185-95.
Soutar, G., McNeill, M., Molster, C. (1994), "The impact of the work environment on ethical
decision making: some Australian evidence", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 pp.327-39.
Stajkovich, A.D., Luthans, F. (1997), "Business ethics across cultures: a social cognitive
model", Journal of World Business, Vol. 32 No.1, pp.17-34.
Starr, W.C. (1983), "Codes of ethics: towards a rule-utilitarian justification", Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 2 pp.99-106.
Stead, E.W., Worrell, D.L., Stead, J.G. (1990), "An integrative model for understanding and
managing ethical behaviour in business organizations", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9
No.3, pp.233-42.
Stead, E.W., Worrell, D.L., Spalding, D.L., Stead, J.G. (1987), "Unethical decisions: social
learned behaviours", Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.105-15.
Stevens, B. (1994), "An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: where do we go from
here", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 pp.63-9.
Stevens, B. (1996), "Using the competing values framework to assess corporate ethical
codes", Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 33 No.1, pp.71-84.
Stohs, J.H., Brannick, T. (1999), "Code and conduct: predictors of Irish managers' ethical
reasoning", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 22 pp.311-26.
Svensson, G., Wood, G. (2007), "Strategic approaches of corporate codes of ethics in
Australia: a framework for classification and empirical illustration", Corporate Governance,
Vol. 7 No.1, pp.93-101.
Svensson, G., Wood, G., Callaghan, M. (2006), "Codes of ethics in corporate Sweden",
Corporate Governance, Vol. 6 No.5, pp.547-66.
Sweeney, R.B., Siers, H.L. (1990), "Survey: ethics in corporate America", Management
Accounting, June, pp.34-40.
Trevino, L.K. (1986), "Ethical decision making in organisations: a person-situation
interactionist model", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No.3, pp.601-17.
Trevino, L.K., McCabe, D. (1994), "Meta-learning about business ethics: building
honourable business school communities", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13 pp.405-16.
Trevino, L.K., Youngblood, S.A. (1990), "Bad apples in bad barrels: a causal analysis of
ethical decision making behaviour", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 pp.378-85.
Trevino, L.K., Weaver, G.R., Gibson, D.G., Tofler, B.L. (1999), "Managing ethics and legal
compliance: what works and what hurts", California Management Review, Vol. 41 No.2,
pp.131-51.
Valentine, S., Johnson, A. (2005), "Codes of ethics, orientation programmes and the
perceived importance of employee incorruptibility", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61
pp.45-53.
Verschoor, C.C. (1997), "Principles, profits", Management Accounting, October, pp.42-6.
Vitell, S.J., Festervand, T.A. (1987), "Business ethics: conflicts, practices and beliefs of
industrial executives", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 pp.111-22.
Vitell, S.J., Hidalgo, E.R. (2006), "The impact of corporate ethical values and enforcement of
ethical codes on the perceived importance of ethics in business: a comparison of US and
Spanish managers", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 64 pp.31-43.
Warren, R.C. (1993), "Codes of ethics: bricks without straw, business ethics", Business
Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 2 No.4, pp.185-91.
Weaver, G.R. (1993), "Corporate codes of ethics: purpose, process and content issues",
Business and Society, Vol. 32 No.1, pp.44-58.
Weaver, G.R. (1999), "Does ethic code design matter: effects of ethics code rationales and
sanctions on recipients, justice perceptions and content recall", Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 14 No.5, pp.367-85.
Weaver, K.M., Ferrell, O.C. (1977), "The impact of corporate policy on reported ethical
beliefs and behaviour of marketing practitioners", in Greensburg, B.A., Bellenger, D.N.
(Eds),Contemporary Marketing Thought '77, Educators' Proceedings, No. 41, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp.477-81.
Weber, J. (1993), "Institutionalising ethics into business organisations: a model and research
agenda", Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 3 No.4, pp.419-36.
Weber, J. (2006), "Implementing an organisational ethics program in an academic
environment: the challenges and opportunities for the Duquesne University Schools of
Business", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65 pp.23-42.
Webley, S. (1988), Company Philosophies and Codes of Business Ethics: A Guide to Their
Drafting and Use, The Institute of Business Ethics, London, .
Webley, S. (1993), Codes of Business Ethics – Why Companies Should Develop Them,
Institute of Business Ethics, London, .
Weeks, W.A., Nantel, J. (1992), "Corporate codes of ethics and sales force behavior: a case
study", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11 pp.753-60.
Weller, S. (1988), "The effectiveness of corporate codes of ethics", Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 7 pp.389-95.
White, B., Montgomery, B. (1980), "Corporate codes of conduct", California Management
Review, Vol. 23 No.2, pp.80-7.
Wiley, C. (1995), "The ABCs of business ethics: definitions, philosophies and
implementation", Industrial Management, Vol. 37 No.1, pp.22-7.
Wimbush, J.S., Shepard, J.M. (1994), "Toward an understanding of ethical climate: its
relationship to ethical behaviour and supervisory influence", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
13 pp.637-47.
Winkler, I., Remisova, A. (2007), "Do corporate codes of ethics reflect issues of societal
transformation? Western German and Slovak companies compared", Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 16 No.2, pp.419-31.
Wood, G. (2000), "‘A cross cultural comparison of the contents of codes of ethics’: USA,
Canada, and Australia", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25 No.4, pp.287-98.
Wood, G., Rimmer, N. (2003), "Codes of ethics: what are they really and what should they
be?", International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 16 pp.181-95.
Wood, G., Svensson, G., Singh, J., Carasco, E., Callaghan, M. (2004), "Implementing the
ethos of corporate codes of ethics: Australia, Canada and Sweden", Business Ethics: A
European Review, Vol. 13 No.4, pp.15-26.
Wotruba, T.R., Chonko, L.B., Loe, T.W. (2001), "The impact of ethics code familiarity on
managerial behaviour", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 pp.59-69.
Zey-Ferrell, M., Ferrell, O.C. (1982), "Role set configuration and opportunity as predictors of
unethical behaviour in organisations", Human Relations, Vol. 35 pp.587-604.
Zey-Ferrell, M., Weaver, K.M., Ferrell, O.C. (1979), "Predicting unethical behaviour among
marketing practitioners", Human Relations, Vol. 32 No.7, pp.557-69.
Corresponding author
Gael M. Mcdonald can be contacted at: deanbuslaw@deakin.edu.au