International Journal of Value-Based Management 16: 181195, 2003.

2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

181
Codes of Ethics: What Are They Really
and What Should They Be?
GREG WOOD & MALCOLM RIMMER
Bowater School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria,
Australia
Abstract. Codes of ethics are prevalent in major corporations around the world. They are seen
as the rst tangible commitment to being ethical. This paper examines codes of ethics and tries
to establish what they are, how they are developed and their net utility. We then proffer the idea
of codes as the rst part of a ve-stage process that leads to an overall corporate commitment
to being ethical in ones business dealings.
Keywords: codes of ethics, commitment
1. Introduction
The development of a code of ethics is a tangible sign that a company is
thinking about business ethics. However, that is about all that one can say
for sure. Having a code does not reveal motives and or practices in place to
facilitate a code being used to its maximum to enhance ethical behaviour in
corporations. If it is an action prompted by a me-too attitude then the code
may actually be counterproductive. Codes of ethics and codes of conduct are
found everywhere from nonprots, to professional associations and to large
conglomerates involved in international business dealings. These groups all
appear to feel compelled to have one, but what are these codes of ethics and
what purposes should they serve?
2. The history of codes of ethics
It is difcult to pinpoint the original date of the rst code of ethics for a
business. It has been suggested that U.S. retailer JCPenney had a code from
as early as 1913 (Adams, Tashchian and Stone, 2001).
Benson (1989) cites research by Thomson, in 1958, which analysed for
the American Management Association, what Thomson termed credos of
103 corporations. Seventy-ve per cent of the credos reviewed by Thomson
had been written since 1953, suggesting that they were part of a movement
that existed since that time to formalise ethics in business.
182 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
Baumharts (1961) research suggested the need for better guidelines for
executives to assist them in facing ethical dilemmas. Baumhart suggested the
establishment of codes of ethics. To this end he quizzed executives about their
views on codes of ethics. He found that only 10% of executives opposed the
idea whilst 50% strongly favoured the establishment of a code of ethics for
their industry. At that time in U.S. business history, (the early 1960s) some
industries had codes of ethics.
Cressey and Moore (1983) concentrated upon events in the mid-1970s as
the cause for the adoption of codes by many U.S. companies. By November
1976, over 200 company codes of ethics had been placed in the Conference
Boards John H. Watson Library in New York. Cressey and Moore depict this
as an immediate consequence of the then recent publication of widespread
corruption allegations. In 1977, the U.S. Government enacted the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act designed to legislate against unconscionable practices
by U.S. corporations dealing internationally. By 1979, there were 249 codes
in the Watson collection suggesting that growth had slowed down. Cressey
and Moore, therefore, believed that this movement was temporary. They
contend that it passed nearly as quickly as it had been born.
During the late 1980s one could argue that the movement was revived.
A precipitating factor was the revelation of unethical and illegal practices
of entrepreneurs in the 1980s. The actions of these individuals affected the
community in a more direct way, than the corruption issues of the 1970s,
because of the massive monetary losses sustained by nancial institutions
and private investors due to unethical and illegal practices.
Whatever the reason, codes of ethics enjoyed renewed popularity. Ac-
cording to the Center for Business Ethics (1986) a survey of Fortune 1000
industrial and service companies, found that of the 28% of respondents 75%
had corporate codes of ethics. This represented an increase in the vicinity of
ve to 10% over the incidence reported in a similar study done in 1979 by the
Ethics Resource Center, and a 40% increase against the ndings of the Con-
ference Board study of the early 1960s. Similarly in Britain, Schlegelmilch
and Houston (1990) concluded from their research of the top 200 compa-
nies that 42% of the companies surveyed had introduced a code of ethics.
By 1995, Berenbeim was reporting incidences of codes of ethics in over
84% of comparable U.S. companies, 66% of Canadian and 50% of European
companies. In research undertaken in 1995 and 1996, Wood, McClaren and
Callaghan (1999) were quoting a rate of 33% for codes of ethics in the top
500 companies operating in the private sector in Australia.
To summarise, there have been codes of ethics in many companies in the
U.S.A. since the early 1960s. In Europe and Australia, their development has
occurred later in the last century, more as a response to the stock market
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 183
crashes of the late 1980s than anything else (Donaldson and Davis, 1990;
Maclagan, 1992; Mahoney, 1990; Milton-Smith, 1995; Schelgelmilch, 1989;
Small, 1993; Smith, 1993). This rise in popularity of codes appears to be in
inverse proportion to the communitys perception of the ethical behaviour of
business. As the communitys perception of unethical practices by business
increases so then does business respond by introducing such codes.
3. Dening codes of ethics
The previous section reviewed some evidence on the historical development
of codes of ethics, but what exactly is a code of ethics? It is important to be
clear on this denitional point.
It is difcult to nd a universally acceptable denition of codes of ethics
because of the complexity of the phenomenon and the differing perceptions of
codes. Nevertheless, there are denitions. McDonald and Zepp (1989, p. 61)
quote Hosmers denition of codes of ethics:
Ethical codes are statements of the norms and beliefs of an organization
. . . they are the ways that the senior people in the organization want
others to think. This is not censorship. Instead, the intent is to encourage
ways of thinking and patterns of attitudes that will lead towards the
wanted behavior.
This denition has several signicant elements that can be taken to be
fundamental to any denition of a code of ethics. First, the ethical code is
a statement. One may presume that in large businesses that this must be a
formal written statement, although a verbal one may sufce in small business.
Second, the code deals with norms and beliefs of the organisation presum-
ably concerning what is good conduct. Third, the intent is to encourage ways
of thinking and patterns of attitude thus targeting the beliefs of individuals.
Fourth, this will lead towards wanted behaviour or actions. These four el-
ements seem common to all denitions of codes of ethics. More debatable
in Hosmers denition is the contention that senior managers are the ones
who have the wisdom to determine code content. Whilst the initiative for a
code of ethics should be supported by senior management, it can be argued
that the construction of the code of ethics may be better accepted within an
organisation if representatives of all of the employees have some input. Then,
they may own the end product rather than have a code imposed upon them
from above.
A succinct form of words that not only describes a code of ethics, but
differentiates it from a code of conduct or practice is one proffered by The St
James Ethics Centre (1993, p. 4) which says that,
184 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
A Code of Ethics expresses fundamental principles that provide guid-
ance in cases where no specic rule is in place or where matters are
genuinely unclear. . . In comparison to a Code of Conduct, a Code of
Ethics will tend to:
be more general,
contain fewer principles,
be expressed in terms of ought or should (and not must),
be directed to all persons affected (and not just to employees),
and
provide general guidance in those cases where a Code of Conduct
is silent, ambiguous or unclear.
Thus, the code of ethics enunciates the philosophical values of an or-
ganisation, whilst the code of conduct contains the practical guidelines that
enables the ethos of the code to come alive. One could suggest that the code of
ethics should provide the guiding principles and the code of conduct should
be the prescriptive rules.
One interesting question raised by this distinction centres on the types of
codes of ethics claimed to exist within organisations. The St James Ethics
Centre (1993) believes that some organisations develop a document that is a
combination of a code of ethics with a code of conduct. Other organisations
have a code of ethics without a code of conduct, and vice versa, a code of
conduct without a code of ethics.
There is another school of thought that separates types of codes in a dif-
ferent way. Vinten (1990) believes that there are three types of codes of ethics
which he denes as regulatory, aspirational and educational. The regulatory
code is similar to the Ten Commandments. There are no shades of grey and
statements about ethical imperatives are not open to debate. The aspirational
code provides a standard to which one can aspire. However, this type of code
does not believe that one will attain full compliance, or at best, that one will
rarely attain it. The last code is the educational code. It does not prescribe
rules or standards. It contends that the individual needs to decide for ones self
and that conscience ought to dictate ones actions. It encourages discussion,
but then the individual must decide.
These three types of codes exacerbate the difculty of distinguishing be-
tween codes of ethics and codes of conduct. The U.S. experience tends to
suggest that the term codes of ethics is a generic term. If one then examines
the three types of codes distinguished by Vinten (1990), the rst two fall
into the area of codes of conduct, according to The St James Ethics Centre
(1993) denition, because they are prescriptive. The educational code ap-
proximates more to the denition of a code of ethics denition because it
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 185
is based upon shaping individual values and actions. It is interesting to see
that Vinten (1990, p. 11) says of the educational code that, the educational
code model is recommended as being the least developed, but the one with
the most potential and professional mileage.
4. International research on codes of ethics: what are they, how are
they developed and how do they work?
There is an extensive body of research on codes of ethics, mainly in the
U.S.A., examining their content, the way they are formed and their ad-
vantages and disadvantages. In this section the research will be briey
summarised to show the state of contemporary knowledge on codes of ethics.
Turning rst to what codes are, what is contended in the research to be the
common characteristics of codes of ethics?
Davis (1988, p. 6) believes that all codes of ethics share at least three
characteristics:
1. They ask more of employees than would otherwise be expected . . .
2. They generally govern activities, or those aspects of an activity, that
cannot be supervised closely enough to assure compliance out of
such motives as fear or ordinary self-interest, or the close supervi-
sion of which would be too expensive or otherwise undesirable.
3. They can serve the long-term interests of a company only if ordinary
employees generally go along without being closely supervised.
Murphy (1988, p. 909) adopts a pragmatic approach to codes of ethics. He
believes that a number of characteristics should be considered. The charac-
teristics listed are: specicity; should be public documents; should be blunt
and realistic about violations; should be revised periodically. Laczniak and
Murphy (1991, p. 269) reinforced and added to Murphys criteria. The major
change being the inclusion of the need for the document to be pertinent to the
organisation. They say that,
In our examinations of codes of ethics we are continually struck by how
similar they are . . . The point is that each organization has certain areas
that are particularly likely to encounter ethical abuse, and these concerns
are ones on which the code should focus.
One could argue that if the code of ethics of an organisation is to be ef-
fective then it must be relevant to the personnel within the organisation who
must use it as the guidelines for their decision-making. Hence, it should be
186 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
benecial to the organisation to tailor the code to its specic work environ-
ment and not adopt a code based upon requirements of others either within
or outside of their industry. A companys code of ethics should be just that, a
code developed by the company for that company, taking into consideration
the companys individual circumstances and culture. To do otherwise will
only weaken the code as a viable and relevant document. It should be owned
by the staff and used by them in situations that may confront them.
To summarise, research focuses upon ve aspects of the content of codes
of ethics:
Moral content what are the prescribed actions and values?
Procedural content how are codes enforced and violations dealt
with?
Public ownership how is the code publicised and amongst which
stakeholders?
Adaptation is the code a living document updated to meet
changing conditions?
Company specicity is the code tailored to the needs and culture
of the organisation?
The last two of these aspects concern the way codes of ethics are devel-
oped and especially the relative role of insiders and outsiders, and the
sensitivity of the code to specic company environmental conditions. Re-
search has spawned a lively debate on this issue how are codes developed
and which stakeholders do they serve?
The research literature on the development of codes of ethics raises several
issues. To begin, Weber (1981) believes that in the development process the
company must be aware of the business environment within which it exists
and of the culture of the organisation for which it is to be developed. A
code cannot be developed in isolation. This pragmatic approach focuses the
attention of the people developing the code upon the specic issues that the
company has faced and hopefully ensures the relevance of the document to
the companys business and cultural environment.
Raiborn and Payne (1990, p. 882) have noted some problems that arise
when designing and developing a corporate code. They list six areas of
concern:
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 187
. . . codes are often viewed by workers as touting the way things should
be as opposed to the way things are.
. . . when management drafts a code of ethics, many employees feel
that there is an implication that someone is doing something
wrong.
. . . another problem relating to the development of a code of ethics is
that of determining who has violated it.
. . . the code of ethics must make provisions for investigating a situa-
tions facts before damage may be done to a reputation.
. . . Determining the level of specicity of a code is also a problem.
. . . The tone of a code must be appropriate. If the tone is negative
rather than positive, it can create an attitude problem among em-
ployees. Workers view many current codes as accusatory, threaten-
ing, demeaning, unrealistic, and excessively legalistic.
The concerns expressed by Raiborn and Payne were based, in most cases,
upon procedural problems at the time of the development of a code. These
procedural problems may rest upon the possibility that the code had been
imposed by management and had not been developed in a consultative and
participatory manner as suggested by Stead, Worrell and Stead (1990). They
contend that if a code is to achieve the maximum effect then it must be
constructed, discussed and distributed in a manner that encourages employee
involvement in all stages of the process. Many of Raiborn and Paynes (1990)
concerns would be addressed if the participatory approach of Stead et al.,
(1990) was followed.
From his research, Benson (1989, p. 317) has also developed a number of
developmental guidelines for improving the usefulness of codes. He believes
that,
. . . codes rst should be written in a manner designed to give the
reasons for each.
. . . codes need beginnings and perhaps conclusions which try to secure
support of the corporation or bureau team in a cooperative effort to
keep the organizations actions strictly above board.
. . . codes would be more welcome if they included provisions which
recognize the responsibilities of management as well as the respon-
sibilities of employees . . . Rights of stockholders and customers
and citizens should also be recognized.
. . . as codes become better means of ethical education, they should
be publicized more, especially in areas near company factories
188 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
or administrative headquarters; the interested public will learn to
appreciate the organization more.
. . . the usefulness of the code depends on boards of directors and top
management who want to keep their organizations ethical. If the
board chairman or chief executive ofcer distributes the code with
a note of strong endorsement, the results will be better.
The prescriptions of all of these authors Weber, Raiborn and Payne, and
Benson are founded in research that shows the development of codes to be
problematic. Rather than uniting stakeholders around a shared set of ethical
values, they may codify divisions in existing ethical positions, reecting only
the political dominance of a particular stakeholder. Research by these authors
shows the political aspects of code development to be important in shaping
their acceptance and use.
Third and nally, the research literature upon codes of ethics deals with
the balance of advantages and disadvantages. What is their net utility to the
corporation?
McDonald and Zepp (1989, p. 61) believe that the advantages of codes
of ethics to the organisations that adopt them are: to clarify managements
thoughts of what constitutes ethical behaviour; to help employees to think
about ethical issues before they are faced with the realities of the situa-
tion; to provide employees with the opportunity for refusing compliance
with an unethical action; to dene the limits of what constitutes acceptable
or unacceptable behaviour; to provide a mechanism for communicating the
managerial philosophy in the realm of ethical behaviour, and to assist in the
induction and training of employees. These ideas are comprehensive and
seem to cover the major reasons why companies may implement a code of
ethics. Whilst they all seem plausible, other writers argue, to the contrary,
that codes of ethics also have disadvantages.
Cressey and Moore (1983) claim that codes of ethics have not in them-
selves curtailed unethical business practices. Dean (1992) agrees with the
Cressey and Moore view. Dean suggests that even though the code of ethics
in itself does establish within the organisation the expectation for behavior
and can be used as a measure for evaluating the decisions made by employees,
the codes do not necessarily guarantee that ethical behaviour will always be
improved as a result. Cressey and Moore (1983, p. 63) also argue that codes
of ethics may be couched in terms that may appear to be authoritarian and
paternalistic. Employees may gain an impression from the codes that ones
ethical expertise could be a direct result of the management position that
one may occupy in the organisations hierarchy. Thus, codes may distort the
culture or value system of an organisation or reinforce existing defects.
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 189
Benson (1989) also believes that codes of ethics are limited in their useful-
ness. The situation that he considers involves nancial management. Ethical
principles may be valuable, but if adherence to the code of ethics will force
the bankruptcy of an organisation then one must ultimately reconsider the
code. This issue is also discussed by Fraedrich (1992). What then is the utility
of the code if it conicts with corporate goals?
Research into the content of codes of ethics by Mathews (1987), Lefebvre
and Singh (1992) and Wood (2000) in the U.S.A., Canada and Australia
respectively, shows that codes of ethics are documents designed, it would
appear, primarily to protect the organisation from harm. Wood (2000, p. 297)
concluded that, Whilst culture plays a part in shaping the codes of the indi-
vidual companies within each country, the overriding force and the paramount
concern of organisations within the three cultures appears to be: the self
preservation and protection of the organisation. The concern with this rev-
elation is that many companies seemed to have missed the corporate social
responsibility for having a code. One should have a code that is designed to
protect all equally. To bias ones ethical concerns towards ones self-interest
devalues the intentions of operating in an ethical manner in business.
A further criticism is that codes of ethics are not brought to life by or-
ganisations but become a legislative dead letter. Benet can only be derived
if codes of ethics are brought to life by organisations that genuinely wish
to pursue a better ethical culture Davis (1988, p. 4). Townley (1992, p. 37)
further explores this evolutionary process and responds to these criticisms
when he says that codes, But codes . . . are only the beginning of a systematic
program. They are clearly no panacea for companies. They will not totally
halt unethical behavior.
These statements do put people in organisations on notice that their
company has a value system. While codes will clearly not make unethical be-
havior extinct, they will surely make employees at all levels more responsible
and more accountable for their actions. Adams et al (2001) found in the U.S.
that just having a code was important in having an impact on ethical behaviour
exhibited by employees in organisations. As a consequence, many business
leaders believe that codes, properly disseminated and properly understood,
will reduce the probability of unethical behavior.
Fraedrich and Ferrell (1992, p. 249) also respond to the criticisms of codes
listed above.
If personnel are not given ethical guidance in decision making, the
organization could expect a wide variation in ethical behavior. An or-
ganization that leaves ethics to chance, hoping for uniformity in moral
philosophies of employees, is decentralizing ethical decision making on
a random basis.
190 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
Clearly the utility of codes may be low if they are not socially supported,
and may only be signicant where steps are taken to build them into an
organisations culture. Self preservation as the main focus of a code is in-
herently unethical, as one should act at all times in the marketplace for the
general good and not to protect ones own rights. Such a stance heightens
cynicism amongst staff and others in the marketplace who do not need to be
exceedingly astute to work out the primary motivations of such organisations.
To summarise, the review of the research literature raises three issues
concerning the content of codes of ethics, their development and their net
utility. Research on all three of these issues tends to return to the same
themes. A relatively low priority is given to the actual moral content of codes.
Rather researchers have focussed on procedural aspects of codes (how are
they formed, and reinforced) and the attendant socialisation processes (how
are stakeholders informed, trained, or brought towards acceptance of codes).
5. Are ethical codes possible, and if they are, how should rms be
committed to them?
In previous sections, the growing use of codes of ethics was noted. A def-
inition of codes of ethics, which possessed four key elements concerning:
statement, good conduct, beliefs, and actions that may be shaped by the
code, was also examined. A code of ethics is a statement of beliefs about good
conduct that inuences actions. Two sets of questions arise in relation to the
role that codes of ethics may perform. The rst set of questions is theoretical.
They relate to whether or not codes of business ethics are meaningful. It may
be that there is no logical possibility for the meaningful existence of codes of
ethics in business. The denition proposed in a previous section reveals the
problem. A code of ethics must have certain elements. Each of these elements
raises questions about the possibility of ethical codes.
First, a code must be a statement of norms and beliefs concerning good
conduct. This begs the question whether a company in a competitive market
can hold any norms and beliefs about good conduct which lead to actions
which differ from protable conduct. To the extent that good and prof-
itable conduct differ, competitive markets demand the latter. Does this make
codes of ethics subservient to the prot-making imperative, and do they then
become meaningless? Second, a code must state norms and beliefs of the
organisation and so inuence the beliefs of individuals who make up the
organisation. However, the ethical ideas of individuals may be fundamen-
tally independent of corporate ideas, thus voiding this part of the concept
of business ethics? Third, these beliefs must guide actions for the code to
be meaningful, but is this a relevant way of looking at organisations? Do
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 191
hierarchical organisational business structures have scope for individuals to
choose morally independent actions?
What is suggested here is that the notion of individual moral choice and
action may be inappropriate in a business world characterised by competition
and hierarchy. Were this mismatch to be signicant, there may be no possi-
bility of a code of ethics in any meaningful sense. However, this view is not
only a pessimistic one, but it denies the fact that many companies do value
their codes of ethics and ascribe organisational importance to them (Adams
et al., 2001; Somers, 2001).
The issue revolves around dening this ideal of commitment to codes. The
concept of commitment to codes is not a simple idea that can be translated
into a solitary quantitative measure. Rather it is a complex idea that can be
approached from a number of different directions.
The suggestion in this nal section of the paper is that organisations can
examine their commitment to codes of ethics by considering ve major areas.
Each one acts as a part of the whole measure of commitment to codes of
ethics. Figure 1 (Appendix A) highlights these issues that appear to be critical
to ensuring commitment to codes.
The rst level of commitment can be signied at a threshold level by
having a code, but is having a code enough? Is it important or marginal?
Having a code is not enough to ensure commitment to the code. It must be
intertwined into the daily life of the organisation. It should not be an ornament
of the organisation, but the catalyst for an entire program of business ethics
within organisations that engenders better practices in the marketplace.
The second level is to examine the ways in which organisations develop
their codes. Who developed these codes and why? This issue is aimed at
seeing which groups or individuals had contributed to the code and from
whence the document had originated. Had companies adopted another com-
panys code, modied another companys code or developed their own code?
Also, which individuals developed the code? Had organisations used a wide
group of individuals or restricted input to only a few select individuals? (Stead
et al., 1990). Broad based involvement and customisation are taken to be
more indicative of higher corporate commitment than a code that is imposed
or borrowed (Townley, 1992).
A third question concerns the measures in place within organisations to
assist implementation. A range of measures should be in place including the
education given to new employees at the time of induction (McDonald and
Zepp, 1989); use in strategic planning (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987); use
in staff performance appraisal (Fraedrich, 1992; Harrington, 1991; Laczniak
and Murphy, 1991); and the protection of whistleblowers (Grace and Cohen,
1998). These activities include the provision of ethics education committees
192 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
(Center for Business Ethics, 1986; McDonald and Zepp, 1989; Sims, 1991;
Weber, 1981), ethics audits (Center for Business Ethics, 1986), an ombuds-
man and the provision of ongoing ethics education for staff (Browning and
Zabriskie, 1983; Center for Business Ethics, 1986; Dean, 1992; Harrington,
1991; Laczniak and Murphy, 1991; Maclagan, 1992; McDonald and Zepp,
1989; Murphy, 1988; and Sims, 1992). By exploring supporting mecha-
nisms it ought to be possible to distinguish whether rms with a code have
high commitment to it.
The fourth area concerns communication. High commitment to the code
is taken to be signied by communication to both internal stakeholders (man-
agers and employees) and external stakeholders (customers, shareholders
and other interested and/or effected stakeholders) (Benson, 1989; Fraedrich,
1992; Stead et al., 1990; Townley, 1992). Where a code is communicated
solely to external stakeholders its purpose might be to improve public rela-
tions rather than ethical conduct. Where it is only communicated internally it
may be an attempt at behavioural control rather than ethical guidance. Where
it is not publicised at all it may have no role. Obviously, to communicate it to
all stakeholders is the desired method and shows a higher commitment to the
ideals of being ethical.
The fth issue concerns the perceived value of codes of ethics. When com-
panies consider a code of ethics adds to protability, helps with the resolution
of ethical problems, or assists in some other fashion, it is considered that the
company will be more committed to the code than if it is held irrelevant to
these outcomes. However, it should be noted that a sole focus on protabil-
ity as the end might well engender the wrong message about the reasons
or the means for pursuing ethical business practices. Companies should
consider that protability is a result of having the code not the aim of
having the code. For such a focus on protability being the motive is a sinister
manipulation of the concept of business ethics.
6. Conclusion
Codes of ethics have proliferated because senior managers in corporations see
them as a tangible means of appearing ethical. Codes can be valuable starting
points on a companys path to achieving ethical behaviour in the marketplace,
however, the code is only the rst step in creating an ethical culture. It is an
artefact of the process and not the delineator of the existence of an ethical
organisational culture. They are not stand-alone documents, but a starting
point for an integrated ethics program: a program that should be targeted at
improving ethical behaviour in organisations and between organisations. A
code in isolation is only a veneer for being ethical and in essence is mislead-
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 193
ing to all that come in contact with the company that purports to possess one.
A code needs to be one part of an entire program aimed at increasing business
ethics. The program should be based on the commitment to actually being
ethical and not just appearing to be ethical. It is this level of commitment
upon which corporations should be and will be judged.
References
Adams, J. S., A. Tashchian, and T. H. Stone (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 29, 199211.
Baumhart, R. C. (1961). How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review July
August, 612, 16, 19, 156166.
Benson, G. C. S. (1989). Codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 8, 305319.
Berenbeim, R. (1995). Transforming employees into moral legislators. Executive-Speeches
9 (6), 1315.
Browning, J. and N. B. Zabriskie (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers? Industrial
Marketing Management 12, 219224.
Center for Business Ethics (1986). Are corporations institutionalizing ethics? Journal of
Business Ethics 5, 8591.
Cressey, D. R. and C. A. Moore (1983). Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics.
California Management Review 25 (4), Summer, 7380.
Davis, M. (1988). Working with your companys code of ethics. Management Solutions,
June, 410.
Dean, P. J. (1992). Making codes of ethics real. Journal of Business Ethics 11, 285290.
Donaldson, J. and P. Davis (1990). Business ethics? Yes, but what can it do for the bottom
line? Management Decision (U.K.) 28 (6), 2933.
Fraedrich, J. P. (1992). Signs and signals of unethical behavior. Business Forum Spring,
1317.
Fraedrich, J. P. and O. C. Ferrell (1992). Cognitive consistency of marketing managers in
ethical situations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20 (3), 245252.
Grace, D. and S. Cohen (1998). Business ethics: Australian problems and cases, 2nd edn.,
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Harrington, S. J. (1991). What corporate America is teaching about ethics. Academy of
Management Executive 5 (1), 2130.
Laczniak, G. R. and P. E. Murphy (1991). Fostering ethical marketing decisions. Journal of
Business Ethics 10, 259271.
Lefebvre, M. and J. B. Singh (1992). The content and focus of Canadian corporate codes of
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 11, 799808.
Maclagan, P. W. (1983). The concept of responsibility: Some implications for organizational
behaviour and development. Journal of Management Studies 20 (4), 411423.
Mahoney, J. (1990). An international look at business ethics: Britain. Journal of Business
Ethics 9, 545550.
Mathews, M. C. (1987). Codes of ethics: organizational behavior and misbehavior. Research
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9, 107130.
McDonald, G. M. and R. A. Zepp (1989). Business ethics: practical proposals. Journal of
Management Development (U.K.) 8 (1), 5566.
194 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER
Milton-Smith, J. (1995). Ethics as excellence: a strategic management perspective. Journal
of Business Ethics 14, 683693.
Murphy, P. E. (1988). Implementing business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 7, 907915.
Raiborn, C. A. and D. Payne (1990). Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and
continuum. Journal of Business Ethics 9, 879889.
Robin, D. P. and R. E. Reidenbach (1987). Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing
strategy: closing the gap between concept and application. Journal of Marketing 51,
4458.
Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1989). The ethics gap between Britain and the United States: a com-
parison of the state of business ethics in both countries. European Management Journal
7 (1), 5764.
Schlegelmilch, B. B. and J. E. Houston (1990). Corporate codes of ethics. Management
Decision (U.K.) 28 (7), 3843.
Sims, R. R. (1991). The institutionalization of organizational ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics 10, 493506.
Sims, R. R. (1992). The challenge of ethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business
Ethics 11, 505513.
Small, M. W. (1993). Ethics in business and administration: an international and historical
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 12, 293300.
Smith, G. (1993). Does ethics pay? Marketing September, 1415.
Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: a study of the
relationship between codes of conduct, employee behaviour and organizational values.
Journal of Business Ethics 30, 185195.
Stead, W. E., D. L. Worrell, and J. G. Stead (1990). An integrative model for understanding
and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 9,
233242.
The St James Ethics Centre (1993). Different codes. City Ethics Issue 11, Autumn 4.
Townley, P. (1992). Business ethics . . . an oxymoron. Canadian Business Review Spring,
3537.
Vinten, G. (1990), Business ethics: busybody or corporate conscience? Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal 11 (3), 411.
Weber, J. (1981). Institutionalizing ethics into the corporation. MSU Business Topics Spring,
4751.
Wood, G. W. (2000). A cross cultural comparison of the contents of codes of ethics: U.S.A.,
Canada and Australia. Journal of Business Ethics 25 (4), June, 287298.
Wood, G. W., N. McClaren, and M. B. Callaghan (1999). Corporate Australias commitment
to codes of ethics. Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference
Hobart.
CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 195
Appendix A
Figure 1. Indicators of corporate code commitment.