An Inquiry Into the Study of Corporate Codes of Ethics (Helin, Sandstrom)

7/29/2019 An Inquiry Into the Study of Corporate Codes of Ethics (Helin, Sandstrom)

1/19

An Inquiry into the Study

of Corporate Codes of Ethics

Sven Helin

Johan Sandstrom

ABSTRACT. This paper takes its point of departure in

an article by Stevens [Stevens, B.: 1994, Journal of Business

Ethics 54, 163171], in which she identified a lack of

knowledge regarding how corporate codes of ethics are

communicated and affect behavior in organizations.

Taking heed of this suggested gap, we review studies on

corporate codes of ethics with an empirical content,published since 1994. The conclusion of the review is that

we still lack knowledge on how codes work, how they

are communicated and how they are transformed inside

organizations. Stevens plea could even be extended,

arguing that the knowledge gap might be of even more

significance than in the mid-1990s. Some directions for

how this situation can be approached in future studies are

outlined in the paper.

KEY WORDS: code, empirical studies, ethics, literature

review

Introduction

Enron, Worldcom, Skandia, Parmalat and Elf are

examples of what the former Volvo and Skandia

director Pehr G Gyllenhammar (2003) calls a series

of sensational blunders in the international business

community. Top managers are appointed because

they know their organizations and if they do not

they should resign. But it seems in vain, he con-

tinues, to try to convert sinners to more ethicalbehavior through trust and ethics commissions, or

through implementing ethical rules or corporate

codes of ethics (CCEs). This, he concludes, is a

slippery slope.

Slippery or not, corporations worldwide are

developing and implementing CCEs, defined by

Schwartz (2001, p. 248) as a written, distinct and

formal document which consists of moral standards

used to guide employee or corporate behaviour.1

Kaptein (2004) also shows that of the two hundred

largest corporations in the world, 52.5% have some

sort of ethical code. Schwartz (2001, p. 248), takinga more sweeping turn at the field, simply states

codes are now prevalent, have come at some ex-

pense, and are used for a variety of reasons.

The idea of such a code, as well as the idea that

such a code could prevent and impede unethical

behavior (which is challenged by Gyllenhammar), is

not a new one. In an article published in 1924,

Graves concludes that: The code of ethics is not a

cure-all, and it possesses no magic powers by which

it can change moral darkness into light, but it is an

effective instrument which now contributes much,and which, with proper use, can be made to con-

tribute much more, to the cause of truth and honor

in business relationships (Graves, 1924, p. 59).

Almost eight decades later, the Enron corporation

confirmed the tensions in CCE work: while

continuing to use three different sets of accounts,

[the company] also gave its four page ethical codes

to all new employees to sign on their first day

(Hemingway and Maclagan, 2004, p. 35). Similar

circumstances were evident in a recent scandal in

Sven Helin is Assistant Professor in management accounting at

the Department of Business Studies (ESI), Orebro

University (Sweden). He holds a Ph.D. from Uppsala

University (Sweden). His main teaching and research focus ison management accounting and business ethics. Together with

Johan Sandstrom, he is since 2005 working on a project on

corportate codes of ethics in Swedish-based large corporations,

financed by the Swedish Council for Work Life and Social

Science.

Johan Sandstrom is Senior Lecturer in organization and man-

agement at the Department of Business Studies (ESI), Orebro

University (Sweden). He holds a Ph.D. from Umea School of

Business and Economics, Umea University (Sweden). His

main teaching and research focus is on leadership and organi-

zation, corporate sustainability and business ethics.

Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 75:253271 Springer 2007

DOI 10.1007/s10551-006-9251-x


2/19

Sweden involving the insurance company Skandia,

in which top management rewarded themselves

with additional bonuses worth more then 350 mil-

lion dollars (Nachemson-Ekwall and Carlsson,

2004).Unfortunately, Enron and Skandia are only two

out of many examples of unethical (in the former

case also criminal) activities in the business com-

munity. In other words, echoing Gyllenhammar as

well as several studies on this topic (c.f. Schwartz,

2000; Schwartz, 2001; Snell et al., 1999), placing too

much faith in the cause-and-effect relationship be-

tween the establishment of a code and more ethi-

cal behavior might be misleading. It might also

enforce more of a reductionist view of an imple-

mentation process that is highly complex. The eth-ical domain seems to be more multicolored than this.

Therefore, the question of how new or reworked

codes of ethics are related to the creation of more

ethical managers and co-workers, and in the end

more ethical companies, still seems to haunt

scholars in business ethics (Adams et al., 2001;

Cassell et al., 1997; Schwartz, 2001; Stevens, 1994,

2004).

A knowledge gap

More than a decade ago, Stevens (1994) set out to

address the question of whether we had learned what

we needed to know about CCEs. Albeit a rhetorical

question to some extent, Stevens reply was no. She

concluded that most studies were based on content

analyses and that previous research lacked informa-

tion on how the codes were communicated in the

organization. There was also a lack of solid evidence

on whether the codes were effective or not. Hence,

within this body of knowledge there was still an

evident knowledge gap on whether corporationsbehaved more ethically in terms of being socially

responsible, avoiding corruption, and so on, as a

result of implementing a code of ethics. In light of

what had been done until the early 1990s, Stevens

therefore took on the question of where do we go

from here?

In her paper she argued we need to explore the

more exegetic aspects of these texts and analyze their

messages more rhetorically rather than relying so

heavily on content analysis (Stevens, 1994, p. 68).

She also called for research focusing on the effects of

ethical codes in organizations in order to gain

knowledge on how codes are communicated and

how they work as transformational tools. With a bias

towards organizational communication, holdingcodes as messages, she claimed that: Studies focus-

ing on the effectiveness of codes are needed. Do

they work? Also, are the codes communicated in

meaningful ways? Are employees aware of their

organizations ethical code and accepting of its

guiding principles? (Stevens, 1994, p. 68).

In this paper we take heed of this gap identified by

Stevens more then a decade ago and set forth the

question of where are we now?. More specifically,

and firstly, the main question we set out to investi-

gate in this paper is whether the knowledge gap has beentargeted by scholars at all and if so, how? We explore this

question predominantly by carrying out a review of

empirically oriented studies on CCEs from the last

decade, mapping the knowledge interests and the

body of knowledge on how these codes work. In the

paper, we categorize the reviewed studies based on

their main orientation, that is, whether they are

content oriented (what is in the actual codes),

outputoriented (what effects on behavior they have)

ortransformation oriented (how the codes are coming

into practice or not in the organization). Following

Stevens, content studies would not be seen as fillingthe gap identified, whereas analyses of transforma-

tion processes would be related to filling the gap.

Output analyses would, simply put, be held as

somewhere in between.

Secondly, Stevens plea also invites the use of

different theoretical perspectives more open and

sensitive to qualitative and behavioral aspects of the

CCE processes. In this regard, the body of business

ethics literature has during the last decade offered

several alternative theoretical frameworks for the

study of ethics in organizations in order to encouragescholarly interaction with the issues raised by Stevens

(Argandona, 2004; Casell et al., 1997; Dillard and

Yuthas, 2002; Nicholson, 1994). Partly in extension

to Stevens, we therefore argue that it is also essential

to identify what kind of theoretical ideas or assumptions

have been used when conducting the empirical research.

Our focus on ideas or assumptions rather then ex-

plicit theory is motivated by the fact that a theo-

retical framework is not always explicit in the articles

on CCEs.

254 Sven Helin and Johan Sandstrom


3/19

Thirdly, and closely related to the issue of theo-

retical assumptions, several scholars (Nicholson,

1994; Schwartz, 2001; Stevens, 1994) have called for

a variety of research methods in order to more fully

understand how CCEs work in organizations. Wetherefore hold that it is also vital to identify the

methodologies relied upon in past empirical studies.

Methodology in this case includes the specific re-

search methods used when collecting the data (the

question of how). For example, do the authors rely

upon case studies based on unstructured in-depth

interviews or on surveys with multiple-choice

questionnaires? Methodology, in our analyses, also

addresses the issue of wherethe empirical material has

been collected for the specific study.

The structure of the paper

In delivering on these three purposes, the paper is

structured as follows. It begins by accounting for the

methodological aspects behind the paper. This is

followed by a review of studies on CCEs published

since 1994. In our discussion, we attempt to frame

the field of empirical CCE studies and their reliance

on theory and method. In the analysis, we single out

those articles relying upon content analysis and those

focusing on output and transformation. The papersummarizes the contributions of the content studies

as well as of the output and transformation studies,

respectively. In conclusion, the three purposes are

answered and some directions for future code studies

are outlined.

Research methodology

Our review consists of papers in relevant interna-

tional peer reviewed journals during the period of

1994 to mid-2005, i.e., the years following Stevens(1994) article. In order to search and select articles,

the search tool ABI/Inform was used. ABI/Inform

covers journals from the most well-known publish-

ers (Wiley & Sons, Emerald, Elsevier, Ideal, Kluwer,

Springer, Karger, Sage). The keywords used in our

database searches were code of ethics and code

of conduct (code AND ethics OR conduct). The

abstracts of the papers from our searches were then

scanned based on the following two criteria.

Only papers addressing CCEs in business organizations

were included

Studies exclusively dealing with codes for a specific

professional group or association (such as humanresource managers, information systems specialists,

accountants, etc.), public organizations, or NGOs,

were excluded, as well as explicit studies on mission

and value statements. For example, Chonko et al.s

(2003) study on ethics code familiarity and usefulness

has not been accounted for in this review as it targets

a code of ethics that was common to all companies

involved (p. 240). The code was a professional

association related code. The same goes for their

article on the impact of ethics code familiarity on

manager behavior (Wotruba et al., 2001). Anothercase is the article by Cleek and Leonard (1998) on

whether CCEs can influence behavior. This paper

was not included in the review as it had business

students as its empirical base. Most likely, some of

these students were working parallel to their studies

and some had professional experience before enter-

ing university studies, but these connections were

too weak for us to consider it an empirical investi-

gation into the reality and perception of CCEs in

business practice. However, Boo and Kohs (2001)

investigation of 400 MBA students in Singapore is

included in the review as most of these students wereemployed as middle managers. Further, we have not

included studies that have CCEs as merely one part,

or one factor, of their investigation. This is admit-

tedly a gray area. In some cases, CCEs are just

mentioned as a part of an ethics control package

(c.f. Weaver et al., 1999a, b, c), but not studied

explicitly. In other cases, the CCEs focus could

at most be considered weak (c.f. Alderson and

Kakabadse, 1994; Graafland et al., 2003). These

cases have not been subjected to the review.

Only papers containing empirical material have been

reviewed

This means that only studies relying upon materials

from employees or managers in companies, or from

companies statements and reports, were included.

Conceptual papers were not included in the review.

After the papers were subjected to the abstract

review, about 80 were held for a closer examination

Study of Corporate Codes of Ethics 255


4/19

and 38 survived to the final stage (see table in

appendix). Below we begin our review by account-

ing for the content studies and then proceed to the

other two categories.

Content-oriented studies

A particular emphasis on content analysis is evident

in the reviewed studies. Among these studies, a

handful of themes are identified. For example,

several studies focus on country-specific features in

the codes or international characteristics. Others

target industry-specific issues or specific issues like

bribery, liability prevention and global business

citizenship. It is also clear that, for example, survey-based methodology is more common than case

study methodology.

Among those studies focusing on country- or non-

country-specific features, codes in an explicit country

are mapped and in some studies also compared. In

several papers, Snell and colleagues analyze a study of

CCEs in Hong Kong before the transition to China

(Snell and Herndon, 2000, 2004; Snell et al., 1999).

As one part of the study, they analyze 41 companies

CCEs (Snell et al., 1999) and conclude that the

major themes in the codes were bribery, extortion,

conflict of interests and use of insider information. Inother words, mainly issues concerning the protec-

tion of the company and not any broader aspects of

corporate responsibility. The primary motive was

corporate self-defense. Also, no explicit theoretical

explanation was addressed.

In order to take structural measures of business

ethics in private corporations, Brytting (1997) con-

ducted a survey on 573 ethically active companies

in Sweden. Structural measures, according to Bryt-

ting, were based on the presence of a CCE, an

ethical committee, ethical officers and ethical train-ing. About 46% of the companies argued that they

have constructed such a moral support structure.

Based on institutional underpinnings, Brytting

indicates that the CCEs role in creating a positive

image, i.e., window-dressing, is a strong explanatory

factor behind the high rate of ethically active com-

panies in Sweden.

Several studies also compare codes in different

countries. Lefebvre and Singh (1996) compare the

content of Canadian and American corporate codes of

ethics. Their conclusions, based on an implicit insti-

tutional perspective, are that the codes are remarkably

similar and predominantly focus on conduct towards

the firm rather than on issues of social responsibility.

In the same vein, Farrel and Cobbin (1996a) exam-ined and compared codes in Australian and US

companies, noticing that codes in both Australia and

the US were predominantly inward-looking to the

enterprise and protective, which offers a low level of

precise ethical guidance. Based on the same sample,

Farrel and Cobbin (1996b) sent out a questionnaire to

those companies with CCEs in order to map the

mainstream of CCE practice. The study shows a

gap between managements intentions and expres-

sions of ethical culture and practice in terms of ethics

training, ethics committee, use of codes etc.In another Australian study, Wood (2000) com-

pares CCEs in Australian business companies to

CCEs in the US and Canada. He found that US

corporations influence codes in Australian firms, but

that there are also some differences. Australian CCEs

rely less on internal and external watchdogs, pri-

marily explained by the different business cultures in

the countries investigated. In a closely related study,

Singh et al. (2005) compare CCEs in Australia,

Canada and Sweden. Australian and Canadian CCEs

were similar, explained, in terms of Hofstedes

dimensions, as reflecting the similar culture andhistory. On the other hand, the codes in Swedish

corporations were in some areas very different from

corporate codes in Canada and Australia, which was

also explained in terms of cultural differences be-

tween the countries investigated. In their study of 75

multinational companies in Canada, Germany and

the U.K., Bondy et al. (2004) surveyed the

companies web pages in order to find the official

motives behind the code of conduct from a CSR-

perspective. Some differences between companies

from the different countries were observed, but theoverall conclusion was that codes may be used

primarily for self-regulation, and not necessarily for

CSR (p. 467).

Companies operating on the international market,

multinational or transnational corporations, also

seem to be of particular interest for CCE scholars.

Carasco and Singh (2003) examine CCEs in a sample

of the 50 largest transnational corporations in order

to find out in which direction global business ethics

is heading and which themes of ethics codification



5/19

are used in global business. Out of the collected 32

codes, the analysis shows that the codes are con-

cerned with conduct both on behalf of the firm and

towards the firm, but that the latter plays a larger role

in the codes. The codes also show a clear correlationbetween private and public rule-making. Following

the same line of reasoning, Kaptein (2004) con-

ducted a survey over the 200 largest companies in

the world and found that 52.5% have a formal

business code. Three types of codes were distin-

guished, the stakeholder statute, the values statement

and the code of conduct. Codes refer to general

norms and differ in terms of what is included and

excluded, i.e., they do not employ opposing norms.

The general picture of studies focusing on

country-specific or common CCEs is rather frag-mented. On one hand, CCEs in companies in dif-

ferent countries have a lot in common. CCEs are

similarly designed and basically carry the same

message. On the other hand, theoretical underpin-

nings are fragmented and seldom explicit. Results

from different studies are compared, but with rare

notice of what theoretical underpinning the

respective study was based on.

Another group of studies focus on specific indus-

tries. Emmelhainz and Adams (1999) take heed of

the growing concern from consumers over the ap-

parel industrys sweatshop labor in production andgoods. The study examines CCEs in companies in

the apparel industry and shows that the codes lack

uniformity and sub-control details, particularly in

terms of monitoring and enforcement. Codes seem

primarily to work as a tool for window-dressing

rather than operational direction. In a closely related

study, van Tulder and Kolk (2001) target CCEs in

the sporting goods industry. Thirteen CCEs were

collected from multinational firms as well as inter-

national organizations. The codes were analyzed

and compared to CCEs in previous studies withrespect to specificity and compliance mechanisms of

the codes. Regarding specificity, codes in the

sporting goods industry were substantially similar

and more specific than codes in general (stricter in

terms of qualification). This is understandable, the

authors argue, due to the focus on consumer goods.

On the other hand, there are differences between

countries that can be understood on the basis of

their home market. Regarding compliance, the

instructions in the codes are weak. The major

conclusions are normative and refer to the impor-

tance of international institutions. Both of these

studies point out the role of window dressing, i.e.,

CCEs in the actual companies are general and more

concerned about the consumer market than theproducers.

A couple of studies focus on codes in specific types

of organizations. Preble and Hoffman (1999) study the

extent to which codes of ethics in franchising

organizations reflect different aspects (issues), as well

as the relationships between franchisors and franch-

isees. A survey of 24 franchise organizations world-

wide was conducted (17 responded) and the major

finding is that the codes cover the relationship very

well. Primarily, the codes reflect a narrow set of

stakeholders in the network, i.e., the codes offer apractical approach for the members of the organi-

zations. Further, the content of the codes is aspira-

tional, but focuses more on regulatory than

educational aspects. But, there are also differences

between codes in different countries, which the

authors explain with cultural factors.

Gaumnitz and Lere (2002) ask if business profes-

sionals face common ethical problems. CCEs from

15 main business professional organizations in the

US were analyzed, indicating that there seem to be

common ethical themes in the codes. Issues such as

confidentiality, honesty, integrity, respect for themembers professions, and independence, were

found in at least 80% of the codes.

Different kind of ethical issues are emphasized in

another group of content studies. Blodgett and

Carlson (1997) study CCEs from a liability preven-

tion perspective. They collected CCEs from a small

industry-specific sample (37 corporations, 27 re-

sponded) and found that CCEs are vague in moti-

vating actors to act ethically. Further, the codes

rather work as signposts in order to prohibit viola-

tion of laws. The authors point out that if the codesdo not work in a proactive manner, companies run a

risk of future liability. Gordon and Miyake (2001)

conducted a study of how corporations fight bribery.

Two hundred and forty-six CCEs were collected

from firms in 24 OECD countries. The major

findings of the study show diversity in language and

concepts. On the other hand, codes against bribery

show a consensus on managerial approaches and

procedures in fighting bribery. Both studies offer

some normative managerial implications, but no



6/19

implicit theoretical explanations are discussed. That

is, the studies offer no explanation of how and why

CCEs impede unethical activities. Logsdon and

Wood (2005) analyze in what sense CCEs reflect the

theory and process of global business citizenship(GBC). Web-based codes from six global petroleum

companies were used to illustrate what GBC

language would look like in corporate codes of

ethics. Their (normative) conclusion is that [l]an-

guage is important in signaling the orientation,

implementation, and accountability of the com-

pany to employees and to other stakeholders. (pp.

6566).The CCE is just a first, but important, step in

establishing a company as a global business citizen.

In sum, there is a significant group of content-

oriented studies on CCEs published since 1994. Theoverall pattern shows that codes are common in

companies all over the world (cf. Kaptein, 2004) and

that they also carry some common features (cf.

Gordon and Miyake, 2001). Most codes are general

in form and several authors argue that window-

dressing rather then operational direction is the main

purpose of a code (cf. Brytting, 1997; Emmelhainz

and Adams, 1999; van Tulder and Kolk, 2001). On

the other hand, the picture could also be seen as

fragmented. The results in the studies are to some

extent related, but mostly without any explicit dis-

cussions on theoretical underpinnings. Most studiesrely on surveys or collections of CCEs from a

number of corporations.

Output-oriented studies

Among the papers categorized in the output cate-

gory, most seem to lean on quantitative methodol-

ogies. They also seem to share a focus on the

connections to behavior and the effectiveness of codes in

influencing behavior, as well as in key factors thatmight explain such potential influence. We start off

with those studies which to some extent show evi-

dence of positive correlations between CCEs and

more ethical behavior (codes are effective), and

then move on to those more on the skeptical side

(also the dominant side it seems).

Boo and Koh (2001), with a survey of 400 MBA

students in Singapore (response rate 59%), employed

as top or middle managers, study the effectiveness of

CCEs in promoting ethical behavior. Their theo-

retical assumptions hold that the CCEs together with

code-supporting variables and organizational ethics

lead to more effectiveness in code influence on

behavior, and they verify their assumptions in the

conclusions as having significant and positiveincremental influence on organizational ethical

behavior (p. 367). Harrington (1996) examines how

the CCE and the professional code of ethics for

information systems employees, as well as the per-

sonal denial of responsibility, affect judgments and

intentions related to computer abuse. A questionnaire

was given to 219 employees in 9 companies in the

US, and in regard to CCEs, the CCEs only influ-

enced the employees that tended to deny responsi-

bility. That is, codes of ethics do have an effect, but

they are related to only certain abuses (p. 272).Pierce and Henry (1996) survey 2551 information

system professionals (response rate 14%) on how the

personal, workplaceand formalcompany codes of ethics

influence ethical decisions. Noting a difference in

what people say is the important code and what code

they would actually use (the personal code), the

presence of a formal code does have an impact on

individual ethical decisions (p. 434).

In order to investigate if, how and why ethical

codes influence employee behavior, Valentine and

Barnett (2002) conducted a survey of 3000 (12.7%

response rate) sales professionals in organizationswith and without ethical codes. Their theoretical

point of departure was that CCEs contribute to

ethical behavior by influencing the perceptions

employees have about the ethical values of the

organizations. The result of the survey found that

sales professionals in organizations with a CCE

perceive their contexts as more supportive to ethical

behavior than those in organizations without CCEs.

This is explained as an effect of the ethical codes in

the organizations. Ethical codes, the authors argue,

aim at improving the perceptions of ethical values asan important business success factor. The codes, they

continue, work as tools for socializing the employees

into internalizing the values of the corporation.

Stohs and Brannick (1999) conducted structured

interviews with more than 300 managers in Irish-

owned corporations. They focused on the percep-

tions of the degree of wrongness related to a handful

of ethical problems, such as unfair price, delay pay-

ments, unsafe products, etc. They found that when

managers confront issues directly affecting the firms



7/19

conduct, a code partially guides managerial thinking

about ethical wrongdoing (p. 322). The codes seem

to be important for setting the tone and in influ-

encing how managers rate wrongness. The authors

also stress the idea that corporations without formalethical codes will make decisions that are ethically

inconsistent and arbitrary. Further, they also argue

for the influence of unions. In industries where the

influence of unions is pervasive, the perceptions of

ethical issues are more vital. Crucial ethical issues,

the authors claim, seem to be shaped by people or

organizations in the context of the firm (bottom-up)

rather than top-management (top-down), that is,

CCEs have to correspond to general values in the

organizational field in order to affect behavior.

Kaptein and Wempe (1998) to some extent makea similar argument. They show, via their case of the

Dutch Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, that when a

code is crafted and implemented with respect to the

organizations moral code, to the practices devel-

oped within the organization (p. 855), it stands a

good chance of being successful in being effective in

regard to ethical behavior.

Addressing the issue of self-regulation, Kolk and

van Tulder (2002) pose the question of how effective

corporate codes of conduct, as the most common

means to express and implement social responsibility

(p. 260), are in dealing with child labor. Analyzing thecodes of six international garment companies, in

combination with a survey of a focus group made up

of both company and stakeholder representatives, the

authors conclude that self-regulation indeed is con-

sidered as effective in promoting social responsibility,

but that there also are dilemmas attached to this. These

codes need to be strictly implemented and moni-

tored, combined with alternative arrangements for

under-age workers (p. 270).

Adams et al. (2001) seem more skeptical. Based

on the assumption that the interaction of individualand organizational context may better explain ethical

lapses than either factor alone (p. 200), they

investigate the effectiveness of codes on perception

and behavior among companies with and without a

code. Through structured interviews with 766

company employees (of whom 465 in companies

with a code), their conclusion is that the mere

presence of a code of ethics is more important than

the content of the code per se and that most

respondents could not recall specific features of their

companys ethics code (p. 208). This means, in

their view, that a code often plays a symbolic role.

McKendall et al. (2002) use CCEs as one out of

four factors in (possibly) reducing illegality in cor-

porations. Hence, one of their hypotheses is:Companies which have well developed ethical

codes will have fewer legal violations (p. 373).

Basing their analysis on a survey sent to 315 com-

panies in the US (response rate 34%), they basically

fail to confirm the hypothesis on CCEs, and even

raise the possibility of companies using ethical

compliance programs as window dressing.

Farrell et al. (2002) survey of 35 managers and

545 employees in 8 large Australian companies tar-

gets whether behavioral patterns are influenced by a

code. They conclude that the strongest ethicalculture affecting behaviour in these corporations

came from an external, shared environment

(p. 488) and they also argue that there is a weak

relation between ethical codes and behavior. Kitson

(1996) focuses on how the ethical code at a British

bank influences the managers behavior. Based on

interviews with 17 managers (asking hypothetical

questions) and a general discussion on factors influ-

encing managerial behavior, he concludes within

the complex and rapidly changing internal organi-

sation of the Bank, it is difficult to establish the

precise influences which the Policy has on mana-gerial behaviour (p. 1030).

Nwachukwu and Vitell (1997, p. 757) target the

extent of the influence of organizational codes of

ethics on the ethical evaluation of advertisements.

With a total sample of 3000 marketing and adver-

tising practitioners (response rate 15%), their analysis

shows that there were no significant differences in

the ethical evaluation of the ads between practitio-

ners in organizations with a formal code of ethics

and those in organizations without a formal code

of ethics except in one experimental condition(p. 765). Based on a survey of 700 business alumni

in the US (28.9% response rate), Peterson (2002)

examines if there are differences in the ethical cli-

mate in organizations with and without a code of

ethics. The conclusion regarding the CCEs is that

the effects of such a code on the ethical climate

however, does not appear to explain why the rela-

tionship between ethical climate and ethical behav-

ior is stronger in organizations without a code of

ethics (p. 325).



8/19

Snell and colleagues (Snell and Herndon, 2000,

2004; Snell et al., 1999), as noted in the section on

Content oriented studies, report several papers on

the implementation of CCEs in Hong Kong. Their

case of Hong Kong companies working with CCEs,based on surveys, content analyses and interviews,

also has a clear output dimension in terms of effects

on behavior. In the Snell et al. (1999) study, they

conclude that: Respondents in the longitudinal

study tended not to agree that conduct had im-

proved over a seven month period which began

some time after code adoption (p. 306). There

were also reflections on the moral development in

the companies. Both Snell et al. (1999, p. 307) and

Snell and Herndon (2000, p. 512) suggested that

moral development even declined in the CCEadoption process.

Stevens (2004), with an interest in whether ethical

codes have been successful in deterring unscrupu-

lous behaviour (p. 168), relies upon the Gallup Polls

survey of Americans perceptions of US business

executives. The study basically asks if codes prevent

unethical behaviour and her answer is that they are

important symbolic artefacts (p. 168), but that they

have not done much to belay the perception that the

US business executive is not very ethical (p. 163).

Schwartz (2001; see also Schwartz, 2004) inves-

tigates the relationship between CCEs and thebehavior of employees and managers in four large

Canadian companies. He positions his article in re-

gard to the observation that research remains

inconclusive regarding the impact of codes on

behaviour (p. 249) and subsequently poses the

question of whether codes actually are effective in

influencing behavior. Relying on 57 interviews,

Schwartz argues few respondents were able to

provide specific examples of where they acted dif-

ferently as a result of the codes (p. 253). The codes

are common sense, the respondents could themselvesdecide between right and wrong. This, and the lack

of ethical dilemmas constitute the reasons behind this

as identified by Schwartz. The codes were not en-

tirely useless, though. Some of the respondents did

provide examples of modified behavior. In his

analysis, Schwartz points at the potential of the codes

lying in those areas of activity, which are grey and

not black and white, (p. 253). He also lists some of

the reasons for code compliance and non-compli-

ance. The individuals personal values were the main

reason for compliance and self-interest headed the

non-compliance category. He also discusses future

research directions, arguing that corporate codes of

ethics must be studied more fully and one sugges-

tion is to add a longitudinal component whenlooking at decision-making prior, during and after

the introduction of a code (p. 259).

In sum, the main question here is: are codes

effective? In responding to this, the studies seek to

measure the effectiveness of codes in influencing

behavior, and there is a clear bias towards the use of

surveys and snapshot research. Together, however,

these studies contribute to our knowledge about

CCEs, even though they represent a mixed image of

the effectiveness of CCEs. That is, there still seems

to be some uncertainty about whether CCEs lead tomore ethical behavior.

Transformation-oriented studies

In this category, we have listed those studies that

somehow focus on the adoption, or implementation,

of codes. That is, studies that take an interest in what

is in between the actual code and the output it seems

to have on the behavior of employees and managers.

As will be evident, these articles, categorized as

having a transformation-orientation, direct their re-search interest to what to overcome when imple-

menting a CCE.

Kaptein and Wempe (1998) merge their output

focus with the question of what has to be solved

when developing an organizational code of ethics.

Basing their discussion on their own experiences

from consulting in a variety of sectors, they outline

12 Gordian knots, focusing on the process by which

to come to a code (knot 1), the content of the code

(knots 29) and the introduction and maintenance of

the code (knots 1012). The knots are not all thereare, though. Behind them lie the assumptions of the

organizations ethics management. Kaptein and

Wempe derive eight assumptions and then apply

these on the (earlier mentioned) case study of the

Schiphol Airport. The knots and the assumptions

target the crafting and implementation of a code and

the authors clearly emphasize the actual coding and

not the code itself.

Montoya and Richard (1994) compare the work

with CCEs in large health care facilities and oil



9/19

companies in the US. Five out of 10 oil companies

had a formal CCE and three out of 10 health care

organizations had a code of ethics. Basing their

analysis on informal group and individual interviews,

they come to the conclusion that the adoption ofsuch codes is rarely accompanied by either a thor-

ough development process or a system for assuring

that the codes are known and used (p. 717). They

even found that the health care organizations were

lagging the oil companies in terms of effectively

implementing an ethics code.

Somers (2001) surveys 613 management accoun-

tants in the US (response rate 20%) and compares

those working in organizations with and without a

code, respectively. Drawing on a theoretical dis-

cussion in which contextual factors are seen asinfluencing individual perceptions, he concludes that

communication and reinforcement of corporate

codes of ethics badly lags their adoption (p. 192)

and that organizations that promote ethical

behavior reap several important benefits including

less wrongdoing and higher levels of employee

commitment (p. 194). Further, Wood and Calla-

ghan (2003) conduct two surveys of the top 500

Australian companies, one in 1995 (response rate

53%) and one follow-up in 2001 (response rate

22%). Their main question is if the companies are

implementing their codes and the answer is basicallya negative, specifically missing out on education, and

support to employees: Companies make employees

aware of the existence of codes of ethics yet, in

general it would appear that although the intent is

there, the procedures to facilitate the practice of

business ethics in organizations operating in the

Australian private sector are no better developed

today than they were in 1995 (pp. 218219).

In one of their papers by Snell and Herndon

(2004), following the Hong Kong study cited earlier

(Snell and Herndon, 2000; Snell et al., 1999), theyexplicitly take up the question why, trying to sort

out why the companies did not use best practice in

the adoption process. Based on their analysis they

suggest 21 hypotheses, or possible reasons for non-

implementation of best practice recommendations

(Snell and Herndon, 2004, p. 81). Among them are,

for example, that the code should be based on true

consultation with employees at all levels, cover rel-

evant potential problems and issues, and be internally

consistent regarding core values.

In his 2004 article on CCEs in four large Cana-

dian companies, Schwartz places more emphasis on

the crafting and implementation of the code. Still

with a focus on code effectiveness, he argues that

the views of actual users of codes of ethics help toshed light on which elements of code content, cre-

ation, implementation, and administration are

deemed important in relation to potential code

effectiveness (p. 338).

In sum, the studies that address the adoption or

implementation process give us ideas on what to

think about in the work with CCEs. They ask us

to take into consideration how things are actually

done in the organization and to couple the code

with a coding process. One question is, however,

how these recommendations have been con-structed. First, explicit theoretical discussions are

rare. Second, there is either a lack of transparency

regarding how the results and recommendations

have been empirically generated or a strong reli-

ance on standardized surveys in capturing the

process. Third, there is, it seems, a lack of studies

taking an interest in the CCE-work over time

(longitudinal studies) and we see no explicit

attention to the transformation process. With the

exception of Snell and colleagues, and to some

extent Wood and Callaghan, process orientation in

the research approaches seems to be rare.

Discussion

Based on our review, a lot of the studies published

since 1994 still target the content of CCEs. The

content studies carried out during the last decade

focus on mapping the content of CCEs especially in

terms of country- or non-country-specific charac-

teristics. We learn from those studies that CCEs in

different countries are more or less the same, but thatthere also are some country-specific issues. A second

reflection is the exploratory, rather than explanatory,

focus in the studies. The explicit use of theory,

except for a few studies, is rare. To map the content

more than to explain it seems to be the main con-

cern. Thus, the content studies reviewed do not fill

the gap as they target content and not output or

transformation, and as they tend to offer a frag-

mented and highly implicit approach to theory in

their studies.



10/19

Turning to those studies placed in the output

category, they predominantly seem to focus on how

the codes affect the behavior of managers and

employees, and we obtain several views on how

CCEs influence behavior. The studies are alsomostly based on highly structured and standardized

methodologies. That is, sensitivity towards the ob-

jects of study seems to be low. In light of the

argument made in this paper, all these studies pro-

vide us with valuable insights within the output-

oriented research interests. A closer examination of

these studies, however, still points at an evident lack

of insights into how CCEs influence behavior in

organizations. Behavior related to CCEs seems to be

a question of perception, not action.

For example, Valentine and Barnett (2002) arguefor increased sensitivity to ethical issues as a fruit of

ethical codes. Output in terms of perception is pre-

sented, which means that actions related to the codes

are merely indirectly investigated. Awareness about

ethical issues seems to be greater in some organiza-

tions, but we do not obtain any empirically based

insight into how this attention is created. Stohs and

Brannick (1999) emphasize the importance of the

organizational context (influential stakeholders)

regarding what kind of ethical codes will affect

behavior. They show us that CCEs cannot be viewed

as just top-management-initiated rules affectingbehavior in the organization. Codes are embedded in,

and will be related to, the context of the organization.

However, although Stohs and Brannick acknowledge

the (usually) top-management-initiated process of

how codes are transformed, embedded or rejected by

the members in the organization, they do not

explicitly attend to this in their paper.

Our interpretation is that there is still a gap in

how both the codes and the behavior are trans-

formed. We are rather given more interesting input

on the output of CCEs. What we learn from suchstudies is that influence on behavior by ethical codes

cannot be taken for granted. There are always con-

textual factors inside or outside the corporation to

take into consideration. But what is still lacking is

how this process of contextualization is carried out.

What kinds of problems arise? Which actors translate

the CCEs? How is their behavior altered? What

kinds of transformations take place? Not even the

studies categorized as having a transformation-

interest can be said to target these questions.

It might in fact be Schwartz (2001, 2004) that

comes closest, predominantly through his reflections

on CCE-research. His articles also take on an

important task as it studies how the CCEs are

influencing the behavior of those supposedly tar-geted by them. In his studies he aims to find out

what kind of problems CCEs are related to and he

points out that in order to fully understand how they

work in organizations, longitudinal studies have to

be carried out. Schwartz (2001, p. 251) also claims

that frameworks that single codes out as influencing

behavior still lack process orientation. However, his

research interest is still output-oriented in terms of

his interest in how behavior is modified. We learn

less about the transformation or the process of the

CCEs and the behavior of the employees. The codesare also to a large extent taken for granted in the

sense that we do not get an insight into how they are

molded in the hands of different agents. This, of

course, is only an objection if we assume that the

codes are not static and that they take on different

shapes when traveling in the organization, that they

indeed are path-dependent.

There are also few papers in which theory or

theoretical framework is made explicit in the study

of CCEs. In other words, there seems to be a weak

explicit interest in theory. In their study of corpo-

rations formal ethics programs, Weaver et al.(1999a, p. 53) also argue that empirical studies have

been limited to atheoretical surveys. Our review

could be considered to echo this observation.

However, explorative studies based on quantitative

methods have a tradition of, in a sense, being less

explicit on theory, as the purpose of such studies

often is to generate hypotheses for theory building

and testing. But, theory is necessary for the study of

CCEs if we are to approach the knowledge gap

identified by Stevens and others (including this pa-

per). By this we do not necessarily imply theory witha capital T, but rather theories that are less gran-

diose and prescriptive in their approaches to CCEs,

and more open to how such codes are transformed

in organizations (cf. Cassell et al., 1997; Dillard and

Yuthas, 2002; Nicholson, 1994).

Also, surveys rather than case studies are still

mainstream methodology in the field of CCE re-

search. Questionnaires and/or the collection of

formal CCEs are the predominant data collection

method. Some studies (Kitson, 1996; Schwartz,



11/19

2001; Snell et al., 1999) give credit to the usefulness

of case studies and even in-depth interviews in the

research approaches. Schwartz (2001) for example,

shows the richness in data that could be achieved by

using other methods than surveys in studies ofCCEs. In sum, though, if the knowledge gap in

CCEs is to be targeted, a greater reliance on methods

more sensitive to action and process in organization

seems to be needed.

Conclusion

To conclude, we still know little about the processes

and transformations of CCEs. Most studies are about

the content, diffusion and output of codes. How-ever, one part of Stevens call was about the output

gap and in our review it seems as if this gap, to some

extent, has been targeted. Simply put, based on the

selection criteria relied upon in this article, it seems

as if the interest in output is as great as, or even

greater than the interest in content. The call for

output-oriented studies has only been partly heard,

though no generic answers can be claimed. This is

also one of our points. There is still a great deal of

uncertainty around whether CCEs are effective in

influencing the ethical climate in organizations and

this uncertainty might not be effectively dealt withunless we pay more interest to how these processes

take shape in organizations.

In our view, this enforces the need for transfor-

mation-oriented studies. How are codes communi-

cated and how are they translated into daily action?

Little research has been conducted on why and how

ethical codes become what they become over time.

Based on this we ponder the question of whether it

might be necessary for students of CCEs to venture

outside the theoretical assumptions underlying the

analyses so far. Alternative theoretical frameworks, asnoted earlier, have been developed in order to

encourage scholarly interaction with issues such as

those raised by Stevens and Schwartz, but it seems as

if these contributions have not made an impact on

the empirical approaches to the field.

We therefore conclude that in order to develop

the body of knowledge on CCEs, we need to study

these processes empirically on different levels in the

organizations and be sensitive to how managers and

employees translate the codes in practice. The

senders of the codes (usually top management),

along with the written codes themselves, are often

the main targets of analysis. To a large extent, thisneglects the receivers of codes (usually the employ-

ees) and the translation processes that take place once

a code begins to travel. In those instances that

employees are accounted for, it is predominantly

through standardized questionnaires. Although this is

part of established research methods, it is also widely

known and acknowledged that qualitative method-

ologies, such as in-depth interviews and participant

observation, can contribute to new, or at least

alternative, insights (cf. Bryman, 1988). Alternative

understandings of CCEs, we believe, would also behelpful for companies and policy-makers. Showing

the path-dependency and the often-messy reality of

CCEs might lead managers, employees and their

representatives, and policy-makers toward better

grounded decisions on working with CCEs, and

even perhaps to the formulation of more realistic

expectations on such codes.

Ending our review, we therefore do not share

Pehr G Gyllenhammars claim that codes of ethics

are a slippery slope. This is not because we think the

opposite. The reason is rather that we cannot really

say whether codes are slippery or not as we have toolittle knowledge about these processes. Hopefully,

this paper has contributed to how this knowledge

gap can be targeted, as well as to why it might be of

importance.

Some limitations to the study

There are specifically two matters relating to this

studys limitations that we would like to address.

First, the selection of papers is never a clear-cut case.

Whether we have found all, or the right, studies

seems to be a question that continually slipped out of

our hands. The way we have approached this issue is

to describe the way we searched for and then re-

viewed the articles showing up in our searches. As

such, our selection would at least be fairly trans-

parent. Our selection has also opened up for future

studies. For example, in our view, similar studies on



12/19


13/19


14/19


15/19


16/19


17/19

professional and association codes would fill gaps in

the field of business ethics.

Second, what about the categories we have used,

do they do justice to the papers? Some papers might

have been unjustly treated due to perhaps our roughuse of categories. The way we have approached this

matter is that although our categories might be

blunt, we have tried to dedicate some lines to each

study reviewed and not merely reference them into a

category. This way, our categorization is to some

extent transparent. There is therefore, we hope,

more room for the reader to disagree.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the

Nordic Academy of Management Conference in Arhus,

Denmark, August 1820, 2005. Both authors would

like to thank the Swedish Council for Working Life

and Social Research for creating the financial space for

this research.

Note

1 This definition is also close to the description of a

CCE used by Stevens (1994) and Kaptein (2004). Thisdefinition, as in Kaptein (2004), sometimes also includes

the concept of Corporate Codes of Conduct (CCC).

References

Adams, J. S., A. Tashchian and T. H. Shore: 2001, Codes

of Ethics as Signals for Ethical Behavior, Journal of

Business Ethics 29, 199211.

Alderson, S. and A. Kakabadse: 1994, Business Ethics and

Irish Management: A Cross-cultural Study, European

Management Journal 12(4), 432441.

Argandona, A.: 2004, Economic Ethics and Institutional

Change, Journal of Business Ethics 53, 191201.

Blodgett, M. S. and P. J. Carlson: 1997, Corporate Ethics

Codes: A Practical Application of Liability Preven-

tion, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 13631369.

Bondy, K., D. Matten and J. Moon: 2004, The Adoption

of Voluntary Codes of Conduct in MNCs: A Three-

Country Comparative Study, Business and Society

Review109(4), 449477.

Boo, E. H. Y. and H. C. Koh: 2001, The influence of

organizational and code-supporting variables on the

effectiveness of a code of ethics, Teaching Business

Ethics 5, 357373.

Bryman, A.: 1988, Quantity and Quality in Social Research(Taylor and Francis, London).

Brytting, T.: 1997, Moral Support Structures in Private

Industry The Swedish Case, Journal of Business Ethics

16(7), 663697.

Carasco, E. F. and J. B. Singh: 2003, The Content and

Focus of the Codes of Ethics of the Worlds Largest

Transnational Corporations, Business and Society

Review108(1), 7194.

Cassell, C., P. Johnson and K. Smith: 1997, Opening the

Black Box: Corporate Codes of Ethics in Their

Organizational Context, Journal of Business Ethics

16(10), 10771093.

Chonko, L. B., T. R. Wotruba and T. W. Loe: 2003,

Ethics Code Familiarity and Usefulness: Views on

Idealist and Relativist Managers Under Varying Con-

ditions of Turbulence, Journal of Business Ethics 42,

237252.

Cleek, M. A. and S. L. Leonard: 1998, Can Corporate

Codes of Ethics Influence Behavior?, Journal of

Business Ethics 17(6), 619630.

Dillard, J. F. and K. Yuthas: 2002, Ethical Audit Deci-

sions, Journal of Business Ethics 36, 4964.

Emmelhainz, M. A. and R. J. Adams: 1999, The Apparel

Industry Response to Sweatshop Concerns: A

Review and Analysis of Codes of Conduct, Journalof Supply Chain Management 35(3), 5157.

Farrell, B. J. and D. M. Cobbin: 1996a, A Content

Analysis of Codes of Ethics in Australian Enterprises,

Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(1), 3755.

Farrell, B. J. and D. M. Cobbin: 1996b, Mainstreaming

Ethics in Australian Enterprises, Journal of Management

Development15(1), 3750.

Farrell, B. J., D. M. Cobbin and H. M. Farrell: 2002, Can

Codes of Ethics Really Produce Consistent Behav-

iours?, Journal of Managerial Psychology 17(6), 468490.

Gaumnitz, B. R. and J. C. Lere: 2002, Contents of

Codes of Ethics of Professional Business Organizations

in the United States, Journal of Business Ethics 35(1),

3549.

Gordon, K. and M. Miyake: 2001, Business Approaches

to Combatting Bribery: A Study of Codes of Con-

duct, Journal of Business Ethics 34, 161173.

Graafland, J., B. van de Ven and N. Stoffele: 2003,

Strategies and Instruments for Organizing CSR by

Small and Large Business in the Netherlands, Journal

of Business Ethics 47, 4560.



18/19

Graves, W. B.: 1924, Codes of Ethics for Business

and Commercial Organization, International Journal

of Ethics 35(1), 4159.

Gyllenhammar, P. G.: 2003, Svenskt dravel om etiska

regler, Dagens Nyheter 30 December.Harrington, S. J.: 1996, The Effect of Codes of Ethics

and Personal Denial of Responsibility on Computer

Abuse Judgments and Intentions, MIS Quarterly Sep-

tember, 257278.

Hemingway, C. A. and P. W. Maclagan: 2004, Managers

Personal Values as Drivers for Corporate Social

Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics 50(1), 3344.

Kaptein, M.: 2004, Business Codes of Multinational

Firms: What Do They Say?, Journal of Business Ethics

50(1), 1331.

Kaptein, M. and J. Wempe: 1998, Twelve Gordian

Knots When Developing an Organizational Code of

Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 853869.

Kitson, A.: 1996, Taking the Pulse: Ethics and the British

Cooperative Bank, Journal of Business Ethics 15(9),

10211031.

Kolk, A. and R. van Tulder : 2002, The Effectiveness of

Self-regulation: Corporate Codes of Conduct and

Child Labour, European Management Journal 20(3),

260271.

Lefebvre, M. and J. B. Singh: 1996, A Comparison of the

Contents and Foci of Canadian and American

Corporate Codes of Ethics, International Journal of

Management13(2), 156170.

Logsdon, J. M. and D. J. Wood: 2005, Global BusinessCitizenship and Voluntary Codes of Ethical Conduct,

Journal of Business Ethics 59, 5567.

McKendall, M., B. DeMarr and C. Jones-Rikkers: 2002,

Ethical Compliance Programs and Corporate Illegal-

ity: Testing the Assumptions of the Corporate

Sentencing Guidelines, Journal of Business Ethics 37(4),

367383.

Montoya, I. D. and A. J. Richard: 1994, A Comparative

Study of Codes of Ethics in Health Care Facilities and

Energy Companies, Journal of Business Ethics 13(9),

713717.

Nachemson-Ekwall, S. and B. Carlsson: 2004, Guldregn:

Sagan om Skandia (Bonnier, Stockholm)..

Nicholson, N.: 1994, Ethics in Organizations: A

Framework for Theory and Research, Journal of

Business Ethics 13(8), 581596.

Nwachukwu, S. L. S. and S. J. Vitell, Jr.: 1997, The

Influence of Corporate Culture on Managerial Ethical

Judgments, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 757776.

Peterson, D. K.: 2002, The Relationship between

Unethical Behavior and the Dimensions of the Ethical

Climate Questionnaire, Journal of Business Ethics 41,

313326.

Preble, J. F. and R. C. Hoffman: 1999, The Nature of

Ethics Codes in Franchise Associations Around the

Globe, Journal of Business Ethics 18, 239253.

Pierce, M. A. and J. W. Henry: 1996, Computer Ethics:

The Role of Personal, Informal, and Formal Codes,

Journal of Business Ethics 15(4), 425437.

Schwartz, M.: 2000, Why Ethical Codes Constitute an

Unconscionable Regression, Journal of Business Ethics

23(2), 173184.

Schwartz, M. S.: 2001, The Nature of the Relationship

between Corporate Codes of Ethics and Behaviour,


Schwartz, M. S.: 2004, Effective Corporate Codes of

Ethics: Perceptions of Code Users, Journal of Business

Ethics 55, 323343.

Singh, J., E. Carasco, G. Svensson, G. Wood and

M. Callaghan: 2005, A Comparative Study of the Con-

tents of Corporate Codes of Ethics in Australia, Canada

and Sweden, Journal of World Business 40, 91109.

Snell, R. S. and N. C. Herndon, Jr.: 2000, An Evaluation

of Hong Kongs Corporate Code of Ethics Initiative,

Asia Pacific Journal of Management17, 493518.

Snell, R. S. and N. C. Herndon, Jr.: 2004, Hong Kongs

Code of Ethics Initiative: Some Differences between

Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Ethics 51(1),

7589.

Snell, R. S., A. M. K. Chak and J. W. H. Chu: 1999,

Codes of Ethics in Hong Kong: Their Adoption and

Impact in the Run-up to the 1997 Transition of

Sovereignty to China, Journal of Business Ethics 22(4),281309.

Somers, M. J.: 2001, Ethical Codes of Conduct and

Organizational Context: A Study of the Relationship

between Codes of Conduct, Employee Behavior and

Organizational Values, Journal of Business Ethics 30(2),

185195.

Stevens, B.: 1994, An Analysis of Corporate Ethical

Code Studies: Where Do We Go from Here?, Journal

of Business Ethics 13(1), 6369.

Stevens, B.: 2004, The Ethics of the US Business

Executive: A Study of Perceptions, Journal of Business

Ethics 54, 163171.

Stohs, J. H. and T. Brannick: 1999, Codes and Conduct:

Predictors of Irish Managers Ethical Reasoning,


van Tulder, R. and A. Kolk: 2001, Multinationality and

Corporate Ethics: Codes of Conduct in the Sporting

Goods Industry, Journal of International Business Studies

32(2), 267283.

Valentine, S. and T. Barnett: 2002, Ethics Codes and

Sales Professionals Perceptions of Their Organizations

Ethical Values, Journal of Business Ethics 40(3),

191200.



19/19

Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran: 1999a,

Corporate Ethics Practice in the Mid-1990s: An

Empirical Study of the Fortune 1000, Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 18(3), 283294.

Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran: 1999b,Corporate Ethics Programs as Control Systems:

Influences of Executive Commitment and Environ-

mental Factors, Academy of Management Journal 42(1),

4157.

Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran: 1999c,

Integrated and Decoupled Corporate Social Perfor-

mance: Management Commitments, External

Pressures, and Corporate Ethics Practices, Academy of

Management Journal 42(5), 539552.

Wood, G.: 2000, A Cross Cultural Comparison of the

Contents of Codes of Ethics: USA, Canada and

Australia, Journal of Business Ethics 25(4), 287298.

Wood, G. and M. Callaghan: 2003, Communicating the

Ethos of Codes of Ethics in Corporate Australia, 1995

2001: Whose Rights, Whose Responsibilities?,

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 15(4), 209

221.Wotruba, T. R., L. B. Chonko and T. W. Loe: 2001,

The Impact of Ethics Code Familiarity on Manager

Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics 33(1), 5969.

Sven Helin and Johan Sandstrom

Department of Business Studies (ESI),Orebro University,

Orebro, SE-701 82,

Sweden,

E-mail: [email protected]

E-mail: [email protected]


Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	angelwingsbonded
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

An Inquiry Into the Study of Corporate Codes of Ethics (Helin, Sandstrom)

Documents