A Cross Cultural Comparison
of the Contents of Codes of Ethics:
USA, Canada and Australia
ABSTRACT. This paper examines the contents of
the codes of ethics of 83 of the top 500 companies
operating in the private sector in Australia in an
attempt to discover whether there are national char-
acteristics that differentiate the codes used by com-
panies operating in Australia from codes used by
companies operating in the American and Canadian
systems. The studies that were used as a comparison
were Mathews (1987) for the United States of
America and Lefebvre and Singh (1992) for Canada.
The major conclusion is that, whilst Australian codes
do have some characteristics that differentiate them
from the other two groups, it appears that compa-
nies in all three cultures are driven by the same
motives to develop codes.
Introduction
Codes of ethics are one of the tangible ways to
examine whether organisations have recognised
the need for ethical behaviour and have estab-
lished a commitment to that need. The corpo-
ration should make a conscious decision to
pursue the goal of having a corporate code of
ethics. The document is one that needs to be
constructed based upon the values in business
Greg Wood is a Senior Lecturer in Management and
Marketing at Deakin University, Warrnambool,
Australia. He holds a Dip.T., B.Ed. (Sturt CAE),
M.Ed. (Deakin) and has just submitted his PhD in
Management Ethics for examination. He is also a Fellow
of the Australian Marketing Institute, a Member of the
Australian Institute of Management and a Certified
Practising Marketer. As well as academic experience he
spent from 1981-1990 working for Shell Australia or
its affiliates. In 1987 he was the inaugural Shell
Regional Manager, Northern Pacific, based on Guam,
USA.
Journal of Business Ethics 25: 287–298, 2000.
© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Greg Wood
that each organisation wishes to enunciate to its
employees and the public at large (Weber, 1981)
and it should be framed in respect to the partic-
ular business environment in which the organi-
sation finds itself (Murphy, 1989). This business
environment includes a consideration of not only
the industry in which it exists, but the culture
of the country or countries in which it conducts
its business. One should be able to investigate the
content of the codes to examine whether these
contents reflect the culture of the society in
which the organisations exist.
The purpose of this research was to examine
the content of codes of ethics of companies oper-
ating within Australia to see if there were
national characteristics evident amongst them
that may have differentiated them from codes that
exist in other, similar cultures. 1 The intent of
reading each code was to compare the contents,
specifically to that of previous studies in America
by Mathews (1987) and in Canada by Lefebvre
and Singh (1992).
Methodology
A questionnaire was sent to the top 500 compa-
nies operating in the private sector within
Australia. The basis of selection was the size in
$Australian of company turnover (De Biasi F. and
McBride B., 1993). The aim of the questionnaire
was to obtain from the participants a copy of
their code of ethics and for them to answer a set
of up to forty-six questions concerning the
methods used by their organisations to inculcate
an ethical ethos into the daily operating activi-
ties of the organisation and its employees.
The package sent to the companies contained
288 Greg Wood
a covering letter, the questionnaire and an
overview of the researcher’s background in both
business and academia. The package was sent to
the Public Relations Manager in each organisa-
tion rather than the CEO. This was done in the
hope that, as Public Relations professionals are
focussed on providing information in a positive
light in their every day jobs on behalf of the
organisation then, they may have been more
dedicated to the task than other company
functionaries. Each respondent was assured of
complete anonymity as the results were to be
aggregated. A month after the expiration of the
return date of the original survey a second
complete package was sent to the addressees that
had not responded.
The survey achieved a response rate of 68%.
Of the three hundred and forty companies that
replied, fifty-three refused to participate for a
variety of reasons that mainly focussed upon lack
of time and company policy not to participate.
Added to this figure were the responses of eight
companies that believed that they had sent in
a code of ethics but upon examination the
document was not one that could fit any concept
of a code. The responses of the remaining two
hundred and seventy-nine companies led to the
analysis of the content of the eighty-three codes
that were received.
The studies against which the comparison
was made
The study by Mathews (1987) looked at 485
manufacturing firms in the United States of
America in an attempt to examine the impact of
a code of ethics on the aspect of corporate crime
related to illegal behaviour that directly affected
consumers and the general public. Mathews had
a response rate of 71% to the survey document
with 202 useable codes available for analysis.
Mathew’s principal finding was that codes of
conduct and corporate violations did not have a
discernible relationship. Codes of conduct were
also not viewed by Mathews as being able to
enforce self-regulation by the corporation.
Lefebvre and Singh (1992) surveyed 461 com-
panies from the Financial Post 500 in Canada.
They had a response rate of 48.9%. The focus
of the survey was upon the content of the 75
codes of ethics that were forwarded to them.
They did not, as in the case of Mathews (1987),
attempt to link the content of the codes with any
other variable.
Mathews (1987) listed ten categories with
sixty-four smaller divisions from which the
analysis was made. The analysis criteria were
based upon the previous work of Cressey and
Moore (1983). The frequency of mention of the
items within the codes was analysed. The amount
of space devoted to each item was also analysed.
Lefebvre and Singh (1992) used the same
method of analysis as Mathews (1987). Lefebvre
and Singh used seven categories based on
Mathews’ original work. However, the number
of smaller divisions proposed by Lefebvre and
Singh was sixty-one. Whilst removing some
smaller divisions from Mathews’ Federal Agencies/
Commissions referred to, Lefebvre and Singh also
added more divisions in Conduct on Behalf of the
Firm, and in General Information. This study used
the Lefebvre and Singh framework for ease of
comparison across the three cultural groups.
The Australian survey departed from the
methodology of the other two analyses. The
frequency of mention was maintained within
each item but the amount of space or implied
relative importance of each item was not used.
The amount of space devoted to an item within
the code may not necessarily correlate with the
importance that the company attaches to it. The
space devoted to it could well be a feature of the
difficulty in expressing the concept. Some of
the most central concepts can be expressed easily
because we understand the importance of the
concept itself and it is integral to our culture.
Thus, the figures for the other two surveys
per item were then aggregated and compared
against the Australian figures for frequency of
mention.
Analysis of the results
The results are compiled into eight tables that
segment the various major areas. All figures stated
are percentage figures of actual mention of the
 A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Contents of Codes of Ethics 289

item in the codes of the companies that
responded.
Conduct on behalf of the firm
The first area of consideration is that of the
“Conduct on Behalf of the Firm”. This area is
concerned with the behaviour that is exhibited
by employees when representing the organisa-
tion. It looks at the dealings that employees have
with governments, competitors, customers, sup-
pliers, the community and fellow employees in
terms of health and safety.
The US codes focus predominantly on the
issues involved with governments, both internal
and foreign, competition, and political contri-
butions. These areas are ones that form the basis
of American business. The US system is predi-
cated on maintaining competition. Any actions
that diminish the level of competition fall under
the auspices of Anti-Trust and Competition laws.
There also is a sharper focus upon the dealings
with governments.
The focus in America (86.6%) and Canada
(58.7%) on “Relations with the home govern-
ment” is much greater than companies operating
within Australia (24.1%). There is an influence
from the United States presence here, in that
Australian subsidiaries of US corporations often
still maintain this home government focus. It
highlights that the interrelationship between
government and business in the American
system, in particular, is one that is more perva-
sive than in the Australian context.
The US focus on foreign governments
(73.3%), which is far in excess of the Australian
(10.8%) and Canadian positions (22.7%), is
indicative of the fact that many US enterprises
are now global corporations. The US for many
years has taken its business to the world whilst
in the Australian context the focus has only
recently been deemed to be outside of Australia.
For many years Australia ran protectionist policies
encompassing tariffs and quotas that enabled us
to focus inwards rather than outwards. Australian
codes, in respect to dealing with foreign
governments, reflect a different focus to the

TABLE I
A cross cultural comparison of code content (a)

Research study: M L&S Wood

Country: USA CAN AUS
Year: 1987 1992

Conduct on behalf of the firm

01. Relations with home gov’t 86.6 58.7 24.1

02. Relations with customers/suppliers 86.1 77.4 86.7
03. Relations with employees-health, safety 37.1 48.0 53.0
04. Relations with competitors 58.0 29.3 33.7
05. Relations with foreign gov’ts 73.3 22.7 10.8
06. Relations with investors 41.1 32.0 30.1
07. Civic and Community affairs 24.8 33.3 45.8
08. Relations with consumers 23.3 33.3 09.6
09. Environmental affairs 12.9 21.3 37.3
10. Product safety 09.0 12.0 14.5
11. Product quality 21.3 24.0 34.9
12. Payments or political contributions to gov’ts 84.7 62.7 41.0
or gov’t officials or employees
13. Acceptance of bribes, kickbacks, gifts/entertainment N/A 82.7 68.0
14. Giving of bribes, kickbacks, gifts/entertainment N/A 66.7 53.0
290 Greg Wood

Americans. This may be, as stated, because
Australian corporations have not had a foreign
focus for as long as the Americans. However, it
just may well be that the perception of Australian
corporations of the need to involve ourselves
with governments, both within the home
country and thus extended into one’s interna-
tional dealings, is perceived differently and is
thus, culturally specific.
Companies operating in Australia (9.6%) in the
area of “Relations with consumers” appear to
not focus upon this issue. The US (23.3%) and
Canadian (33.3%) involvement with the concept
of consumers is much more pronounced than the
Australian situation. The contention here is that
Australian companies are not any less considerate
of their relations with consumers but that the
word, consumer, is one that is not used in the
codes. Australian based organisations, it would
appear, tend not to differentiate between cus-
tomers and consumers.
Canadian companies (82.7%) are more
focussed upon bribes and kickbacks than in
Australia (68%). One point of interest here is
that in both Australian and Canadian codes,
employees are advised not to take bribes in
greater percentages than they are advised not to
give them.
The Australian codes highlight the areas of
community involvement, environmental issues
and product quality. The Australian codes high-
light, more than the American and Canadian
codes, both product safety and employee health
and safety. It would appear that in the area of
“Conduct on Behalf of the Firm” that Australian
companies are more focussed than their Canadian
or American counterparts on the social issues of
environment, community, product performance
and the well being of workers. This last point is
considered by Benson (1989, p. 309) when he
says,
It seems quite likely that those firms that do enun-
ciate their obligations to the employee in their
codes of ethics are more likely to inspire faith on
the part of the employees than those that neglect
this aspect of corporate responsibility.
This idea highlights the benefit of includ-
ing commitments to employees because the
employees may see the worth of the code in a
much more personal and relevant light.
Conduct against the firm
The focus in this category is to endeavour to
highlight those areas of action that could damage
the company itself.
The interesting point is that the Australian
situation, in this area, places Australian compa-
nies between the American and Canadian
positions for numbers 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21.

TABLE II
A cross cultural comparison of code content (b)

Research study: M L&S Wood

Country: USA CAN AUS
Year: 1987 1992

Conduct against the firm

15. Conflict of interest 75.3 93.3 72.3
16. Divulging trade secrets/proprietary information 45.1 81.3 67.5
17. Insider trading information 43.1 720. 56.6
18. Personal character matters 06.4 50.7 20.5
19. Other conduct against the firm 10.4 520. 30.1
20. Integrity of books and records 75.3 82.7 57.8
21. Legal responsibility 90.6 320. 79.5
22. Ethical responsibility 88.1 70.7 62.7
 A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Contents of Codes of Ethics
Australian companies seem comparatively to take
the middle ground in this area.
Testing the relationship between “conduct against the
firm” vs “conduct on behalf of the firm”
Lefebvre and Singh (1992) suggest that Canadian
companies flag “Conduct Against the Firm”
more frequently than “Conduct on Behalf of the
Firm”. Mathews (1987) also found that with the
American codes studied that the focus was also
more internal rather than external. This idea in
respect to American codes is also supported by
Chatov (1980), Cressey and Moore (1983) and
David (1988). One could speculate that this
focus shows a desire to use codes as inward
regulatory documents rather than outwardly
focussed documents. Chatov (1980, p. 29) encap-
sulates this ideal well when he contends that,
Most corporate attention is given to areas with a
potential for dramatic impact on the corporation.
That the corporation will be a transgressor or a
victim is of most concern.
An attempt was made to try and quantify this
contention. By adding up the frequencies of
mention for each point in codes across the US,
Canadian and Australian samples for “Conduct
on Behalf of the Firm” and “Conduct Against
the Firm” one could compare them. Table III
shows that “Conduct Against the Firm” is men-
tioned in codes much more frequently on average
than “Conduct on Behalf of the Firm”. The cal-
culation was based upon adding the frequency
of mention for each item in the two categories
and then dividing by the number of items in each
TABLE III
A cross cultural comparison of code content (c)
Research study:
Country:
Year:
a) Conduct on behalf of the firm
b) Conduct against the firm
b)/a)
291
category. The figures which were arrived at were
compared.
In the US codes the increase on average is
16.7% yet in the Canadian codes (54.9%) and the
Australian codes (44.2%) the concentration on
“Conduct Against the Firm” is decidedly higher
per point mentioned as compared to “Conduct
on Behalf of the Firm”. These figures would
support the contention of the trend amongst cor-
porations in the 3 societies to focus inwards
rather than outwards.
Hence, it could be suggested that the code of
ethics is a document established to protect the
organisation first and its publics second. This
obviously raises the issue of whether such intent
is ethically motivated based on the welfare of
stakeholders or is motivated by mercenary values
of self-preservation of the organisation. One can
not lay blame with organisations for wanting to
ensure survival, as it is a basic human instinct,
but it would appear that companies may mask the
true intent of their codes. They may use the
facade that the codes are there to protect all
stakeholders when in actual fact, the focus is self-
protection and preservation. Many codes are not
designed as codes of ethics or codes of conduct
but as codes of company continuance.
Laws cited
This category examines the frequency of
mention in each code of the particular laws of
each country.
The Competition laws are the ones most
mentioned in US (33.2%), Canadian (44%)
and Australian (32.5%) codes. Australian codes
M L&S Wood
USA CAN AUS
1987 1992
46.5%0 43.15% 38.75%
54.29% 66.84% 55.88%
1.167 1.549 1.442
292 Greg Wood

TABLE IV
A cross cultural comparison of code content (d)

Research study: M L&S Wood

Country: USA CAN AUS
Year: 1987 1992

Laws cited (in references to)

23. Competition act/Anti-trust/TPA* 33.2 440. 32.5

24. Securities 14.4 240. 15.7
25. Environment 00.5 09.3 13.3
26. Food and drug 00.5 000. 01.2
27. Product safety & quality 010. 000. 060.
28. Worker health/safety 04.5 09.3 15.7
29. Bribes or payments to gov’ts or officials 18.8 14.7 14.5
30. False advertising 08.4 02.7 02.4
31. Other laws 080. 120. 43.4

* Australian equivalent: TPA = Trade Practices Act.

contain more mentions than US or Canadian
codes in the areas of “Environmental Laws” and
“Worker Health and Safety Laws”. This obser-
vation fits with the earlier point in Table I that
noted that Australian codes mentioned these areas
more than the US and Canadian codes.
The Australian codes (43.4%) in respect to
“Other laws” are far in excess of the US (8%)
and Canadian (12%) situations. The major law
cited is that of Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) involvement in respect to employment
and harassment legislation. The mention of
EEO in Australian codes is 48.2%. This could
be seen to be a feature of the fact that 47% of
these codes were established since 1991 (Wood,
1997). In Australia, there has been a concerted
push and recognition of the need for EEO prac-
tices. It is a legal requirement of business in
Australia. Obviously, it is an issue that companies
feel needs to be at the forefront of the minds of
employees.
Governmental agencies/commissions referred to
Table V examines the incidence of where codes
refer to specific Government agencies. These
figures show that basically there is a minimal
mention of these Government agencies in the
Australian and Canadian codes.

TABLE V
A cross cultural comparison of code content (e)

Research study: M L&S Wood

Country: USA CAN AUS
Year: 1987 1992

Governmental agencies/commissions referred to

32. Competition tribunal/TPA N/A 1.3 0.0

33. Other agencies N/A 0.0 7.2
 A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Contents of Codes of Ethics 293

The six companies (7.2%) in Australia that
mentioned other agencies were all organisations
with an American parent.
Types of compliance/enforcement procedures
Table VI examines the types of compliance and
enforcement procedures that are stated in the
codes. The areas mentioned can be grouped into
internal oversight, internal personal integrity,
and external. Each area focuses on a different
perspective of the same issue. Internal oversight
measures are those individuals and committees
inside the company that are charged by the
organisation with maintaining a vigilance con-
cerning the behaviour of other employees.
Internal personal integrity matters are concerned
with individuals or committees within the organ-
isation to whom individuals may go if they are
concerned with ethical matters that relate to
their own actions or those of others within the
organisation. The external group is comprised of
outside individuals or agencies that are also used
to monitor the ethical performance, and in some
cases legal performance, of employees.

TABLE VI
A cross cultural comparison of code content (f)

Research study: M L&S Wood

Country: USA CAN AUS
Year: 1987 1992

Types of compliance/enforcement procedures

Internal – oversight

34. Supervisor surveillance 41.1 45.3 21.7

35. Internal watchdog committee 18.3 09.3 08.4
36. Internal audits 22.9 34.7 120.
37. Read and understand affidavit 060. 45.3 20.5
38. Routine financial budgetary review 02.5 01.3 01.2
39. Legal department review 36.1 09.3 07.2
40. Other oversight procedures 25.8 18.7 09.6

Internal – personal integrity

(For questions repolicy or reporting
misconduct of self or others to:)

41. Supervisor 34.1 69.3 49.4

42. Internal watchdog committee 12.4 000. 060.
43. Corporation’s legal counsel 600. 440. 32.5
44. Other (in firm) 530. 46.7 25.3
45. Compliance affidavits 44.6 34.7 120.
46. Employee integrity 49.5 440. 43.4
47. Senior management role models 04.5 6.7 8.4

External

48. Independent auditors 17.3 13.3 01.2

49. Law enforcement 01.0 01.3 000.
50. Other external 00.5 01.3 03.6
51. Codes mentioning enforcement or compliance proced. 79.7 70.7 51.8
294 Greg Wood
Australian companies have less internal over-
sight provisions formally stated in their codes
than American and Canadian organisations.
Supervisor surveillance (21.7%) is the major area
of internal oversight of companies operating
in Australia followed closely by read and under-
stand affidavit (20.5%). Supervisor surveillance in
Australia is much lower than the US (41.1%) and
Canadian (45.3%) incidences. Australian compa-
nies also mention in their codes, at a far lesser
rate than the Americans or the Canadians, the
procedures of internal watchdog committee,
internal audits, legal department review and other
oversight procedures. Australian codes appear to
have less formal mechanisms for the monitoring
of staff than the US and Canadian organisations.
One could speculate that this phenomenon could
be linked with the original supposition that
Australian codes are less legalistic and more social
than the other two sets of codes. Therefore, this
social focus may also translate into a reduced
rate of enforcement watchdogs due to a social
belief in trusting individuals. Perhaps it also is a
manifestation of the “don’t dob on your mates”
mentality in Australia. This concept revolves
around maintaining the unspoken code of the
group which is firmly entrenched in the cultural
more not to inform on friends and/or colleagues.
When an employee within an Australian
organisation needs to confront the possibility
of their own unethical behaviour, or that of
others, then nearly 50% of companies nominate
the supervisor as the person to whom inquiries
should be directed. This line of reporting can
be a problem because often it is the supervisor
who is a part of the problem and not the solu-
tion (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner and Molander,
1977).
Companies operating within Australia (12%)
do not use compliance affidavits to the same
extent as American (44.6%) and Canadian
(34.7%) organisations. By using compliance affi-
davits one can ensure that employees must at least
take some time to assess their performance in the
area of ethics. This idea has merit in that it forces
individuals to face their own performance over
a given period of time. Also one can see again
the marked difference between the involvement
of legal counsel between companies operating in
the United States (60%) and companies operating
in Australia (32.5%). Of the companies operating
in Australia, who mentioned the use of the
corporation’s legal counsel, 78% were companies
with a US parent. Only three Australian owned
companies used this approach.
Employee integrity is basically similar in all
three code groups and is integral to the process.
This area of employee integrity is basically a nom
de plume for the expectation of companies that
individuals will engage in whistleblowing. The
ways in which this process is framed in Australian
codes is that one should inform one’s supervi-
sors of either one’s concerns with one’s own
actions or with the actions of other members of
the organisation. Hence, individual employees
become an internal oversight mechanism. The
request is made of the strength of character of
employees to question that which they see as
being of concern. Not only should they question
these situations but they are requested, as a part
of their corporate duty, to pursue any concerns
or irregularities with more senior authority
figures within the organisation. Companies oper-
ating in Australia (8.4%) do tend to use senior
managers as role models more than US (4.5%)
and Canadian (6.7%) organisations.
The use of external monitors for unethical
behaviour appears to be an anathema to
Australian companies. Only 1 company men-
tioned the use of an independent auditor. Also
Australian codes (51.8%) mention the fact of
having enforcement and or compliance proce-
dures in comparison with their US (79.7%)
or Canadian (70.7%) counterparts. Companies
operating within Australia seem to focus less
on the use of external measures than either
American or Canadian organisations. Lefebvre
and Singh (1992) contend that companies do not
use external agencies to monitor company prac-
tices because of the possibility of the external
organisation revealing to the general public the
infraction. Hence, internal surveillance and
vigilance is preferable to external monitoring
because of the potential downside of poor pub-
licity in case one transgresses and it becomes
public knowledge.
 A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Contents of Codes of Ethics 295

Penalties for illegal behaviour considered a fine as an option. Again, this is a

This category examines the mechanisms that
companies foreshadow as penalties for those indi-
viduals who breach the intent of the code.
The internal penalties applied by the organi-
sations of the three countries are of similar fre-
quencies in most areas. Companies operating
in Australia however, do not appear to favour
demotion with only one company mentioning
it as an option. This could well be a cultural
situation. Australian companies tend not to
demote, but to release the employee, and, in
some cases, source outplacement services for
that individual. Demotion, by its very nature, is
debilitating to the reputation and, one assumes,
the motivation of the individual concerned.
It can also have a negative effect on other
employees. If the breach is sufficient to warrant
demotion then the person concerned would find
it potentially difficult to obtain the trust of new
subordinates or to regain the confidence of peers
and supervisors. Hence, the individual and the
organisation are in a no win situation.
The concept of a fine for individuals is one
that is not seriously entertained in the Australian
context. As in demotion, only one company
reflection of the Australian culture. It is a concept
that is neither readily accepted by Australians nor
practised in Australian business.
The use of “Other internal penalty” is of
interest. Most companies in the Australian
context, that consider this issue, discuss the
ultimate penalties of “Dismissal” and or “Legal
prosecution” in some detail. In concert with this
discussion is invariably the open ended statement
that allows the implementation of a continuum
approach to sanctions, in respect to breaches of
the codes. Usually the companies have an over-
riding statement that ties the penalty to the
degree of perceived infraction. Hence, it makes
the code less prescriptive and introduces flexi-
bility. It provides the ability to judge each situ-
ation on its merits.
Companies operating in Australia (24.1%) are
extremely similar to the United States (26.2%)
companies in respect to pursuing legal prosecu-
tion of wrongdoing against the company. The
Canadian figure of 14.7% is lower.

TABLE VII
A cross cultural comparison of code content (g)

Research study: M L&S Wood

Country: USA CAN AUS
Year: 1987 1992

Penalties for illegal cehaviour

Internal

52. Reprimand 060. 080. 09.6

53. Fine 000. 02.7 01.2
54. Demotion 070. 05.3 01.2
55. Dismissal/firing 37.7 46.7 39.8
56. Other internal penalty 25.8 26.7 34.9

External

57. Legal prosecution 26.2 14.7 24.1

58. Other external penalty 01.5 040. 03.6
296 Greg Wood
General information
The information in this section examines general
information that explores a number of dissimilar
concepts that whilst not directly related can
provide more insights in to the intent of the
codes of ethics that are being analysed.
A significant point in this final section is that
companies that operate in Australia (62.7%) are
more likely to have in their code the insistence
that one protects the corporation’s good reputa-
tion than American codes (46.1%) and Canadian
codes (50.7%). The protection of reputation is
viewed as extremely important in the Australian
context. The only reason that can be offered is
purely speculative. The fact that companies
operating in Australia tend to focus more upon
the social issues in respect to their actions may
lead them to place a higher value than others
upon the social interaction of themselves with
the community. Hence, a lack of protection of
company reputation leads to a tarnished public
image and the resultant impact on the perception
of the corporation in the market place.
Just on 50% of companies operating in
Australia included, with their codes, a letter
from the Chief Executive Officer or another
senior functionary recommending the code to
TABLE VIII
A cross cultural comparison of code content (h)
Research study:
Country:
Year:
General information
59. Need to maintain corporation’s good reputation
60. Letter/introductory remarks from
the president/CEO/chairperson of the board
61. Code specific to which country
i.e., Home Country
World/general
Others
Added:
62. EEO
the employees of the organisation. This is an
excellent move because it not only personalises
the code for the workers but it highlights the
commitment of senior staff to pragmatic action
rather than platitudes (Serpa, 1985; Stoner, 1989;
Gellerman, 1989; Sims, 1991; Laczniak and
Murphy, 1991).
The major focus mentioned in the codes of
companies operating within Australia was an
international focus. A home country focus was
only stated by six companies. This international
focus could be as a direct result of the fact that
the group, who had codes and mentioned other
than home country, were often Australian sub-
sidiaries of international organisations or select
Australian companies that had expanded inter-
nationally. Each group obviously realised the
importance of focussing on the international
dimensions of their business practices.
The researcher also added one other category
to the original categories of Lefebvre and Singh
(1992). The extra item was Equal Employment
Opportunity. The reason for adding this category
was related to the frequency of this topic that
kept arising when one read the codes. It was
mentioned by just under 50% of companies.
Therefore, the author believed that this signifi-
cant factor could not be ignored. Equal
M L&S Wood
USA CAN AUS
1987 1992
46.1 50.7 62.7
N/A 42.7 50.6
50.7 07.2
37.3 43.4
120. N/A
48.2
 A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Contents of Codes of Ethics
Employment Opportunity would fit into the
section on “Conduct On Behalf of the Firm”.
Conclusion
Companies operating within the private sector of
Australian business have developed codes that are
not distinctly Australian when compared to
American and Canadian codes but which have
elements that differentiate them in some matters.
Australian codes are not dramatically different in
construction and content. They do tend to focus
upon a more social view of corporate relations.
This social focus could well be societal based, but
it could also be in some part due to the fact that
the studies against which they were compared
were from 1987 and 1992 respectively. The dif-
ference may just reflect a social progression and
evolution in values over those periods of time.
The Australian codes are profoundly less
reliant on internal and external watchdogs and
the use of the organisation’s legal representatives
for guidance. This difference, one contends, is
due to the different role of litigation in the
business culture of the respective countries.
American business, through its raft of Com-
petition, Anti-Trust and Foreign Corrupt
Practice acts, appears to be more heavily regu-
lated than Australian business. The reliance on
litigation in the United States is not something
that is practised as frequently in Australia. Whilst
Australian business is governed by competition
laws they are not as pervasive in the culture as
the same laws appear to be in the United States
of America.
It is a positive outcome that the executives of
companies operating within Australia tend to
take a proprietary interest in the codes, in that
they commend the contents to the company’s
employees. This is an excellent development in
that it highlights the commitment of the top
management of the organisation to the ethical
values that it wishes to portray in the market
place.
Codes of ethics used within Australia have
been developed with an Australian focus in
mind. However, the influence of US corpora-
tions is obvious. Many Australian organisations
297
are subsidiaries of US corporations and the codes
that they use are consequently influenced by the
parent company. Whilst culture plays a part in
shaping the codes of the individual companies
within each country, the overriding force and the
paramount concern of organisations within the
three cultures appears to be: the self preserva-
tion and protection of the organisation.
Note
1
An analysis of Hofstede’s work (1980) and (1983),
on cross cultural differences based on his study of
160,000 workers in 60 countries of one multinational
corporation, was made in Robbins et al. (1994).
Australia was compared with like countries on
Hofstede’s 4 variables and the USA and Canada
had remarkable similarities to Australia on all vari-
ables. Due to the passage of time and the influence
on Australia from North America since the
early eighties, via increased telecommunications and
company involvement in Australia, one could expect
these scores to become more convergent rather than
divergent.
References
Baumhart R. C.: 1961, ‘How Ethical Are Business-
men?’, Harvard Business Review (July–August),
6–12, 16, 19, 156–166.
Benson G. C. S.: 1989, ‘Codes of Ethics’, Journal of
Business Ethics 8, 305–319.
Brenner S. N. and E. A. Molander: 1977, ‘Is the
Ethics of Business Changing?’, Harvard Business
Review (January–February), 57–71.
Chatov R.: 1980, ‘What Corporate Ethics Statements
Say’, California Management Review 22 (Summer),
20–29.
Cressey D. R. and C. A. Moore: 1983, ‘Managerial
Values and Corporate Codes of Ethics’, California
Management Review 25(4) (Summer), 73–80.
David F. R.: 1988, ‘An Empirical Study of Codes
of Business Ethics: A Strategic Perspective’, 48th
Annual Academy of Management Conference Anaheim
California (August), 144–148.
De Biasi F. and B. McBride (eds.): 1993, Australia’s
Top 500 Companies 1993–94 (Riddell Information
Services, Australia).
Gellerman S. W.: 1989, ‘Managing Ethics from the
298 Greg Wood
Top Down’, Sloan Management Review (Winter),
73–79.
Hofstede G.: 1980, Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage Publications,
California).
Hofstede G.: 1983, ‘The Cultural Relativity of
Organizational Practices and Theories’, Journal of
International Business Studies (Fall), 75–89.
Laczniak G. R. and P. E. Murphy: 1991, ‘Fostering
Ethical Marketing Decisions’, Journal of Business
Ethics 10, 259–271.
Lefebvre M. and J. B. Singh: 1992, ‘The Content and
Focus of Canadian Corporate Codes of Ethics’,
Journal of Business Ethics 11, 799–808.
Mathews M. C.: 1987, ‘Codes of Ethics: Organiza-
tional Behavior and Misbehavior’, Research in
Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9, 107–130.
Murphy P. E.: 1989, ‘Creating Ethical Corporate
Structures’, Sloan Management Review (Winter),
81–87.
Robbins S. P., T. Waters-Marsh, R. Cacioppe and B.
Millett: 1994, Organisational Behaviour Australia and
New Zealand (Prentice Hall, Sydney).
Serpa R.: 1985, ‘Creating a Candid Corporate
Culture’, Journal of Business Ethics 4, 425–430.
Sims R. R.: 1991, ‘The Institutionalization of
Organizational Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 10,
493–506.
Stoner C. R.: 1989, ‘The Foundations of Business
Ethics: Exploring the Relationship Between
Organization Culture, Moral Values, and Actions’,
SAM Advanced Management Journal (Summer),
38–43.
Weber J.: 1981, ‘Institutionalizing Ethics into the
Corporation’, MSU Business Topics (Spring), 47–
51.
Wood G. W.: 1997, Codes of Ethics in Large
Private Sector Australian Businesses, Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis (Deakin University, Warrnambool,
Australia).
Bowater School of Management and Marketing,
Deakin University,
Po Box 423,
Warrnambool,
Victoria, 3280,
Australia
e-mail: gwood@deakin.edu.au