International Journal of Value-Based Management 16: 181195, 2003.
2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
181 Codes of Ethics: What Are They Really and What Should They Be? GREG WOOD & MALCOLM RIMMER Bowater School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia Abstract. Codes of ethics are prevalent in major corporations around the world. They are seen as the rst tangible commitment to being ethical. This paper examines codes of ethics and tries to establish what they are, how they are developed and their net utility. We then proffer the idea of codes as the rst part of a ve-stage process that leads to an overall corporate commitment to being ethical in ones business dealings. Keywords: codes of ethics, commitment 1. Introduction The development of a code of ethics is a tangible sign that a company is thinking about business ethics. However, that is about all that one can say for sure. Having a code does not reveal motives and or practices in place to facilitate a code being used to its maximum to enhance ethical behaviour in corporations. If it is an action prompted by a me-too attitude then the code may actually be counterproductive. Codes of ethics and codes of conduct are found everywhere from nonprots, to professional associations and to large conglomerates involved in international business dealings. These groups all appear to feel compelled to have one, but what are these codes of ethics and what purposes should they serve? 2. The history of codes of ethics It is difcult to pinpoint the original date of the rst code of ethics for a business. It has been suggested that U.S. retailer JCPenney had a code from as early as 1913 (Adams, Tashchian and Stone, 2001). Benson (1989) cites research by Thomson, in 1958, which analysed for the American Management Association, what Thomson termed credos of 103 corporations. Seventy-ve per cent of the credos reviewed by Thomson had been written since 1953, suggesting that they were part of a movement that existed since that time to formalise ethics in business. 182 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER Baumharts (1961) research suggested the need for better guidelines for executives to assist them in facing ethical dilemmas. Baumhart suggested the establishment of codes of ethics. To this end he quizzed executives about their views on codes of ethics. He found that only 10% of executives opposed the idea whilst 50% strongly favoured the establishment of a code of ethics for their industry. At that time in U.S. business history, (the early 1960s) some industries had codes of ethics. Cressey and Moore (1983) concentrated upon events in the mid-1970s as the cause for the adoption of codes by many U.S. companies. By November 1976, over 200 company codes of ethics had been placed in the Conference Boards John H. Watson Library in New York. Cressey and Moore depict this as an immediate consequence of the then recent publication of widespread corruption allegations. In 1977, the U.S. Government enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act designed to legislate against unconscionable practices by U.S. corporations dealing internationally. By 1979, there were 249 codes in the Watson collection suggesting that growth had slowed down. Cressey and Moore, therefore, believed that this movement was temporary. They contend that it passed nearly as quickly as it had been born. During the late 1980s one could argue that the movement was revived. A precipitating factor was the revelation of unethical and illegal practices of entrepreneurs in the 1980s. The actions of these individuals affected the community in a more direct way, than the corruption issues of the 1970s, because of the massive monetary losses sustained by nancial institutions and private investors due to unethical and illegal practices. Whatever the reason, codes of ethics enjoyed renewed popularity. Ac- cording to the Center for Business Ethics (1986) a survey of Fortune 1000 industrial and service companies, found that of the 28% of respondents 75% had corporate codes of ethics. This represented an increase in the vicinity of ve to 10% over the incidence reported in a similar study done in 1979 by the Ethics Resource Center, and a 40% increase against the ndings of the Con- ference Board study of the early 1960s. Similarly in Britain, Schlegelmilch and Houston (1990) concluded from their research of the top 200 compa- nies that 42% of the companies surveyed had introduced a code of ethics. By 1995, Berenbeim was reporting incidences of codes of ethics in over 84% of comparable U.S. companies, 66% of Canadian and 50% of European companies. In research undertaken in 1995 and 1996, Wood, McClaren and Callaghan (1999) were quoting a rate of 33% for codes of ethics in the top 500 companies operating in the private sector in Australia. To summarise, there have been codes of ethics in many companies in the U.S.A. since the early 1960s. In Europe and Australia, their development has occurred later in the last century, more as a response to the stock market CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 183 crashes of the late 1980s than anything else (Donaldson and Davis, 1990; Maclagan, 1992; Mahoney, 1990; Milton-Smith, 1995; Schelgelmilch, 1989; Small, 1993; Smith, 1993). This rise in popularity of codes appears to be in inverse proportion to the communitys perception of the ethical behaviour of business. As the communitys perception of unethical practices by business increases so then does business respond by introducing such codes. 3. Dening codes of ethics The previous section reviewed some evidence on the historical development of codes of ethics, but what exactly is a code of ethics? It is important to be clear on this denitional point. It is difcult to nd a universally acceptable denition of codes of ethics because of the complexity of the phenomenon and the differing perceptions of codes. Nevertheless, there are denitions. McDonald and Zepp (1989, p. 61) quote Hosmers denition of codes of ethics: Ethical codes are statements of the norms and beliefs of an organization . . . they are the ways that the senior people in the organization want others to think. This is not censorship. Instead, the intent is to encourage ways of thinking and patterns of attitudes that will lead towards the wanted behavior. This denition has several signicant elements that can be taken to be fundamental to any denition of a code of ethics. First, the ethical code is a statement. One may presume that in large businesses that this must be a formal written statement, although a verbal one may sufce in small business. Second, the code deals with norms and beliefs of the organisation presum- ably concerning what is good conduct. Third, the intent is to encourage ways of thinking and patterns of attitude thus targeting the beliefs of individuals. Fourth, this will lead towards wanted behaviour or actions. These four el- ements seem common to all denitions of codes of ethics. More debatable in Hosmers denition is the contention that senior managers are the ones who have the wisdom to determine code content. Whilst the initiative for a code of ethics should be supported by senior management, it can be argued that the construction of the code of ethics may be better accepted within an organisation if representatives of all of the employees have some input. Then, they may own the end product rather than have a code imposed upon them from above. A succinct form of words that not only describes a code of ethics, but differentiates it from a code of conduct or practice is one proffered by The St James Ethics Centre (1993, p. 4) which says that, 184 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER A Code of Ethics expresses fundamental principles that provide guid- ance in cases where no specic rule is in place or where matters are genuinely unclear. . . In comparison to a Code of Conduct, a Code of Ethics will tend to: be more general, contain fewer principles, be expressed in terms of ought or should (and not must), be directed to all persons affected (and not just to employees), and provide general guidance in those cases where a Code of Conduct is silent, ambiguous or unclear. Thus, the code of ethics enunciates the philosophical values of an or- ganisation, whilst the code of conduct contains the practical guidelines that enables the ethos of the code to come alive. One could suggest that the code of ethics should provide the guiding principles and the code of conduct should be the prescriptive rules. One interesting question raised by this distinction centres on the types of codes of ethics claimed to exist within organisations. The St James Ethics Centre (1993) believes that some organisations develop a document that is a combination of a code of ethics with a code of conduct. Other organisations have a code of ethics without a code of conduct, and vice versa, a code of conduct without a code of ethics. There is another school of thought that separates types of codes in a dif- ferent way. Vinten (1990) believes that there are three types of codes of ethics which he denes as regulatory, aspirational and educational. The regulatory code is similar to the Ten Commandments. There are no shades of grey and statements about ethical imperatives are not open to debate. The aspirational code provides a standard to which one can aspire. However, this type of code does not believe that one will attain full compliance, or at best, that one will rarely attain it. The last code is the educational code. It does not prescribe rules or standards. It contends that the individual needs to decide for ones self and that conscience ought to dictate ones actions. It encourages discussion, but then the individual must decide. These three types of codes exacerbate the difculty of distinguishing be- tween codes of ethics and codes of conduct. The U.S. experience tends to suggest that the term codes of ethics is a generic term. If one then examines the three types of codes distinguished by Vinten (1990), the rst two fall into the area of codes of conduct, according to The St James Ethics Centre (1993) denition, because they are prescriptive. The educational code ap- proximates more to the denition of a code of ethics denition because it CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 185 is based upon shaping individual values and actions. It is interesting to see that Vinten (1990, p. 11) says of the educational code that, the educational code model is recommended as being the least developed, but the one with the most potential and professional mileage. 4. International research on codes of ethics: what are they, how are they developed and how do they work? There is an extensive body of research on codes of ethics, mainly in the U.S.A., examining their content, the way they are formed and their ad- vantages and disadvantages. In this section the research will be briey summarised to show the state of contemporary knowledge on codes of ethics. Turning rst to what codes are, what is contended in the research to be the common characteristics of codes of ethics? Davis (1988, p. 6) believes that all codes of ethics share at least three characteristics: 1. They ask more of employees than would otherwise be expected . . . 2. They generally govern activities, or those aspects of an activity, that cannot be supervised closely enough to assure compliance out of such motives as fear or ordinary self-interest, or the close supervi- sion of which would be too expensive or otherwise undesirable. 3. They can serve the long-term interests of a company only if ordinary employees generally go along without being closely supervised. Murphy (1988, p. 909) adopts a pragmatic approach to codes of ethics. He believes that a number of characteristics should be considered. The charac- teristics listed are: specicity; should be public documents; should be blunt and realistic about violations; should be revised periodically. Laczniak and Murphy (1991, p. 269) reinforced and added to Murphys criteria. The major change being the inclusion of the need for the document to be pertinent to the organisation. They say that, In our examinations of codes of ethics we are continually struck by how similar they are . . . The point is that each organization has certain areas that are particularly likely to encounter ethical abuse, and these concerns are ones on which the code should focus. One could argue that if the code of ethics of an organisation is to be ef- fective then it must be relevant to the personnel within the organisation who must use it as the guidelines for their decision-making. Hence, it should be 186 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER benecial to the organisation to tailor the code to its specic work environ- ment and not adopt a code based upon requirements of others either within or outside of their industry. A companys code of ethics should be just that, a code developed by the company for that company, taking into consideration the companys individual circumstances and culture. To do otherwise will only weaken the code as a viable and relevant document. It should be owned by the staff and used by them in situations that may confront them. To summarise, research focuses upon ve aspects of the content of codes of ethics: Moral content what are the prescribed actions and values? Procedural content how are codes enforced and violations dealt with? Public ownership how is the code publicised and amongst which stakeholders? Adaptation is the code a living document updated to meet changing conditions? Company specicity is the code tailored to the needs and culture of the organisation? The last two of these aspects concern the way codes of ethics are devel- oped and especially the relative role of insiders and outsiders, and the sensitivity of the code to specic company environmental conditions. Re- search has spawned a lively debate on this issue how are codes developed and which stakeholders do they serve? The research literature on the development of codes of ethics raises several issues. To begin, Weber (1981) believes that in the development process the company must be aware of the business environment within which it exists and of the culture of the organisation for which it is to be developed. A code cannot be developed in isolation. This pragmatic approach focuses the attention of the people developing the code upon the specic issues that the company has faced and hopefully ensures the relevance of the document to the companys business and cultural environment. Raiborn and Payne (1990, p. 882) have noted some problems that arise when designing and developing a corporate code. They list six areas of concern: CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 187 . . . codes are often viewed by workers as touting the way things should be as opposed to the way things are. . . . when management drafts a code of ethics, many employees feel that there is an implication that someone is doing something wrong. . . . another problem relating to the development of a code of ethics is that of determining who has violated it. . . . the code of ethics must make provisions for investigating a situa- tions facts before damage may be done to a reputation. . . . Determining the level of specicity of a code is also a problem. . . . The tone of a code must be appropriate. If the tone is negative rather than positive, it can create an attitude problem among em- ployees. Workers view many current codes as accusatory, threaten- ing, demeaning, unrealistic, and excessively legalistic. The concerns expressed by Raiborn and Payne were based, in most cases, upon procedural problems at the time of the development of a code. These procedural problems may rest upon the possibility that the code had been imposed by management and had not been developed in a consultative and participatory manner as suggested by Stead, Worrell and Stead (1990). They contend that if a code is to achieve the maximum effect then it must be constructed, discussed and distributed in a manner that encourages employee involvement in all stages of the process. Many of Raiborn and Paynes (1990) concerns would be addressed if the participatory approach of Stead et al., (1990) was followed. From his research, Benson (1989, p. 317) has also developed a number of developmental guidelines for improving the usefulness of codes. He believes that, . . . codes rst should be written in a manner designed to give the reasons for each. . . . codes need beginnings and perhaps conclusions which try to secure support of the corporation or bureau team in a cooperative effort to keep the organizations actions strictly above board. . . . codes would be more welcome if they included provisions which recognize the responsibilities of management as well as the respon- sibilities of employees . . . Rights of stockholders and customers and citizens should also be recognized. . . . as codes become better means of ethical education, they should be publicized more, especially in areas near company factories 188 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER or administrative headquarters; the interested public will learn to appreciate the organization more. . . . the usefulness of the code depends on boards of directors and top management who want to keep their organizations ethical. If the board chairman or chief executive ofcer distributes the code with a note of strong endorsement, the results will be better. The prescriptions of all of these authors Weber, Raiborn and Payne, and Benson are founded in research that shows the development of codes to be problematic. Rather than uniting stakeholders around a shared set of ethical values, they may codify divisions in existing ethical positions, reecting only the political dominance of a particular stakeholder. Research by these authors shows the political aspects of code development to be important in shaping their acceptance and use. Third and nally, the research literature upon codes of ethics deals with the balance of advantages and disadvantages. What is their net utility to the corporation? McDonald and Zepp (1989, p. 61) believe that the advantages of codes of ethics to the organisations that adopt them are: to clarify managements thoughts of what constitutes ethical behaviour; to help employees to think about ethical issues before they are faced with the realities of the situa- tion; to provide employees with the opportunity for refusing compliance with an unethical action; to dene the limits of what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behaviour; to provide a mechanism for communicating the managerial philosophy in the realm of ethical behaviour, and to assist in the induction and training of employees. These ideas are comprehensive and seem to cover the major reasons why companies may implement a code of ethics. Whilst they all seem plausible, other writers argue, to the contrary, that codes of ethics also have disadvantages. Cressey and Moore (1983) claim that codes of ethics have not in them- selves curtailed unethical business practices. Dean (1992) agrees with the Cressey and Moore view. Dean suggests that even though the code of ethics in itself does establish within the organisation the expectation for behavior and can be used as a measure for evaluating the decisions made by employees, the codes do not necessarily guarantee that ethical behaviour will always be improved as a result. Cressey and Moore (1983, p. 63) also argue that codes of ethics may be couched in terms that may appear to be authoritarian and paternalistic. Employees may gain an impression from the codes that ones ethical expertise could be a direct result of the management position that one may occupy in the organisations hierarchy. Thus, codes may distort the culture or value system of an organisation or reinforce existing defects. CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 189 Benson (1989) also believes that codes of ethics are limited in their useful- ness. The situation that he considers involves nancial management. Ethical principles may be valuable, but if adherence to the code of ethics will force the bankruptcy of an organisation then one must ultimately reconsider the code. This issue is also discussed by Fraedrich (1992). What then is the utility of the code if it conicts with corporate goals? Research into the content of codes of ethics by Mathews (1987), Lefebvre and Singh (1992) and Wood (2000) in the U.S.A., Canada and Australia respectively, shows that codes of ethics are documents designed, it would appear, primarily to protect the organisation from harm. Wood (2000, p. 297) concluded that, Whilst culture plays a part in shaping the codes of the indi- vidual companies within each country, the overriding force and the paramount concern of organisations within the three cultures appears to be: the self preservation and protection of the organisation. The concern with this rev- elation is that many companies seemed to have missed the corporate social responsibility for having a code. One should have a code that is designed to protect all equally. To bias ones ethical concerns towards ones self-interest devalues the intentions of operating in an ethical manner in business. A further criticism is that codes of ethics are not brought to life by or- ganisations but become a legislative dead letter. Benet can only be derived if codes of ethics are brought to life by organisations that genuinely wish to pursue a better ethical culture Davis (1988, p. 4). Townley (1992, p. 37) further explores this evolutionary process and responds to these criticisms when he says that codes, But codes . . . are only the beginning of a systematic program. They are clearly no panacea for companies. They will not totally halt unethical behavior. These statements do put people in organisations on notice that their company has a value system. While codes will clearly not make unethical be- havior extinct, they will surely make employees at all levels more responsible and more accountable for their actions. Adams et al (2001) found in the U.S. that just having a code was important in having an impact on ethical behaviour exhibited by employees in organisations. As a consequence, many business leaders believe that codes, properly disseminated and properly understood, will reduce the probability of unethical behavior. Fraedrich and Ferrell (1992, p. 249) also respond to the criticisms of codes listed above. If personnel are not given ethical guidance in decision making, the organization could expect a wide variation in ethical behavior. An or- ganization that leaves ethics to chance, hoping for uniformity in moral philosophies of employees, is decentralizing ethical decision making on a random basis. 190 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER Clearly the utility of codes may be low if they are not socially supported, and may only be signicant where steps are taken to build them into an organisations culture. Self preservation as the main focus of a code is in- herently unethical, as one should act at all times in the marketplace for the general good and not to protect ones own rights. Such a stance heightens cynicism amongst staff and others in the marketplace who do not need to be exceedingly astute to work out the primary motivations of such organisations. To summarise, the review of the research literature raises three issues concerning the content of codes of ethics, their development and their net utility. Research on all three of these issues tends to return to the same themes. A relatively low priority is given to the actual moral content of codes. Rather researchers have focussed on procedural aspects of codes (how are they formed, and reinforced) and the attendant socialisation processes (how are stakeholders informed, trained, or brought towards acceptance of codes). 5. Are ethical codes possible, and if they are, how should rms be committed to them? In previous sections, the growing use of codes of ethics was noted. A def- inition of codes of ethics, which possessed four key elements concerning: statement, good conduct, beliefs, and actions that may be shaped by the code, was also examined. A code of ethics is a statement of beliefs about good conduct that inuences actions. Two sets of questions arise in relation to the role that codes of ethics may perform. The rst set of questions is theoretical. They relate to whether or not codes of business ethics are meaningful. It may be that there is no logical possibility for the meaningful existence of codes of ethics in business. The denition proposed in a previous section reveals the problem. A code of ethics must have certain elements. Each of these elements raises questions about the possibility of ethical codes. First, a code must be a statement of norms and beliefs concerning good conduct. This begs the question whether a company in a competitive market can hold any norms and beliefs about good conduct which lead to actions which differ from protable conduct. To the extent that good and prof- itable conduct differ, competitive markets demand the latter. Does this make codes of ethics subservient to the prot-making imperative, and do they then become meaningless? Second, a code must state norms and beliefs of the organisation and so inuence the beliefs of individuals who make up the organisation. However, the ethical ideas of individuals may be fundamen- tally independent of corporate ideas, thus voiding this part of the concept of business ethics? Third, these beliefs must guide actions for the code to be meaningful, but is this a relevant way of looking at organisations? Do CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 191 hierarchical organisational business structures have scope for individuals to choose morally independent actions? What is suggested here is that the notion of individual moral choice and action may be inappropriate in a business world characterised by competition and hierarchy. Were this mismatch to be signicant, there may be no possi- bility of a code of ethics in any meaningful sense. However, this view is not only a pessimistic one, but it denies the fact that many companies do value their codes of ethics and ascribe organisational importance to them (Adams et al., 2001; Somers, 2001). The issue revolves around dening this ideal of commitment to codes. The concept of commitment to codes is not a simple idea that can be translated into a solitary quantitative measure. Rather it is a complex idea that can be approached from a number of different directions. The suggestion in this nal section of the paper is that organisations can examine their commitment to codes of ethics by considering ve major areas. Each one acts as a part of the whole measure of commitment to codes of ethics. Figure 1 (Appendix A) highlights these issues that appear to be critical to ensuring commitment to codes. The rst level of commitment can be signied at a threshold level by having a code, but is having a code enough? Is it important or marginal? Having a code is not enough to ensure commitment to the code. It must be intertwined into the daily life of the organisation. It should not be an ornament of the organisation, but the catalyst for an entire program of business ethics within organisations that engenders better practices in the marketplace. The second level is to examine the ways in which organisations develop their codes. Who developed these codes and why? This issue is aimed at seeing which groups or individuals had contributed to the code and from whence the document had originated. Had companies adopted another com- panys code, modied another companys code or developed their own code? Also, which individuals developed the code? Had organisations used a wide group of individuals or restricted input to only a few select individuals? (Stead et al., 1990). Broad based involvement and customisation are taken to be more indicative of higher corporate commitment than a code that is imposed or borrowed (Townley, 1992). A third question concerns the measures in place within organisations to assist implementation. A range of measures should be in place including the education given to new employees at the time of induction (McDonald and Zepp, 1989); use in strategic planning (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987); use in staff performance appraisal (Fraedrich, 1992; Harrington, 1991; Laczniak and Murphy, 1991); and the protection of whistleblowers (Grace and Cohen, 1998). These activities include the provision of ethics education committees 192 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER (Center for Business Ethics, 1986; McDonald and Zepp, 1989; Sims, 1991; Weber, 1981), ethics audits (Center for Business Ethics, 1986), an ombuds- man and the provision of ongoing ethics education for staff (Browning and Zabriskie, 1983; Center for Business Ethics, 1986; Dean, 1992; Harrington, 1991; Laczniak and Murphy, 1991; Maclagan, 1992; McDonald and Zepp, 1989; Murphy, 1988; and Sims, 1992). By exploring supporting mecha- nisms it ought to be possible to distinguish whether rms with a code have high commitment to it. The fourth area concerns communication. High commitment to the code is taken to be signied by communication to both internal stakeholders (man- agers and employees) and external stakeholders (customers, shareholders and other interested and/or effected stakeholders) (Benson, 1989; Fraedrich, 1992; Stead et al., 1990; Townley, 1992). Where a code is communicated solely to external stakeholders its purpose might be to improve public rela- tions rather than ethical conduct. Where it is only communicated internally it may be an attempt at behavioural control rather than ethical guidance. Where it is not publicised at all it may have no role. Obviously, to communicate it to all stakeholders is the desired method and shows a higher commitment to the ideals of being ethical. The fth issue concerns the perceived value of codes of ethics. When com- panies consider a code of ethics adds to protability, helps with the resolution of ethical problems, or assists in some other fashion, it is considered that the company will be more committed to the code than if it is held irrelevant to these outcomes. However, it should be noted that a sole focus on protabil- ity as the end might well engender the wrong message about the reasons or the means for pursuing ethical business practices. Companies should consider that protability is a result of having the code not the aim of having the code. For such a focus on protability being the motive is a sinister manipulation of the concept of business ethics. 6. Conclusion Codes of ethics have proliferated because senior managers in corporations see them as a tangible means of appearing ethical. Codes can be valuable starting points on a companys path to achieving ethical behaviour in the marketplace, however, the code is only the rst step in creating an ethical culture. It is an artefact of the process and not the delineator of the existence of an ethical organisational culture. They are not stand-alone documents, but a starting point for an integrated ethics program: a program that should be targeted at improving ethical behaviour in organisations and between organisations. A code in isolation is only a veneer for being ethical and in essence is mislead- CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 193 ing to all that come in contact with the company that purports to possess one. A code needs to be one part of an entire program aimed at increasing business ethics. The program should be based on the commitment to actually being ethical and not just appearing to be ethical. It is this level of commitment upon which corporations should be and will be judged. References Adams, J. S., A. Tashchian, and T. H. Stone (2001). Codes of ethics as signals for ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 29, 199211. Baumhart, R. C. (1961). How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review July August, 612, 16, 19, 156166. Benson, G. C. S. (1989). Codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 8, 305319. Berenbeim, R. (1995). Transforming employees into moral legislators. Executive-Speeches 9 (6), 1315. Browning, J. and N. B. Zabriskie (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers? Industrial Marketing Management 12, 219224. Center for Business Ethics (1986). Are corporations institutionalizing ethics? Journal of Business Ethics 5, 8591. Cressey, D. R. and C. A. Moore (1983). Managerial values and corporate codes of ethics. California Management Review 25 (4), Summer, 7380. Davis, M. (1988). Working with your companys code of ethics. Management Solutions, June, 410. Dean, P. J. (1992). Making codes of ethics real. Journal of Business Ethics 11, 285290. Donaldson, J. and P. Davis (1990). Business ethics? Yes, but what can it do for the bottom line? Management Decision (U.K.) 28 (6), 2933. Fraedrich, J. P. (1992). Signs and signals of unethical behavior. Business Forum Spring, 1317. Fraedrich, J. P. and O. C. Ferrell (1992). Cognitive consistency of marketing managers in ethical situations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20 (3), 245252. Grace, D. and S. Cohen (1998). Business ethics: Australian problems and cases, 2nd edn., Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Harrington, S. J. (1991). What corporate America is teaching about ethics. Academy of Management Executive 5 (1), 2130. Laczniak, G. R. and P. E. Murphy (1991). Fostering ethical marketing decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 259271. Lefebvre, M. and J. B. Singh (1992). The content and focus of Canadian corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 11, 799808. Maclagan, P. W. (1983). The concept of responsibility: Some implications for organizational behaviour and development. Journal of Management Studies 20 (4), 411423. Mahoney, J. (1990). An international look at business ethics: Britain. Journal of Business Ethics 9, 545550. Mathews, M. C. (1987). Codes of ethics: organizational behavior and misbehavior. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9, 107130. McDonald, G. M. and R. A. Zepp (1989). Business ethics: practical proposals. Journal of Management Development (U.K.) 8 (1), 5566. 194 GREG WOOD AND MALCOLM RIMMER Milton-Smith, J. (1995). Ethics as excellence: a strategic management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 14, 683693. Murphy, P. E. (1988). Implementing business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 7, 907915. Raiborn, C. A. and D. Payne (1990). Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and continuum. Journal of Business Ethics 9, 879889. Robin, D. P. and R. E. Reidenbach (1987). Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: closing the gap between concept and application. Journal of Marketing 51, 4458. Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1989). The ethics gap between Britain and the United States: a com- parison of the state of business ethics in both countries. European Management Journal 7 (1), 5764. Schlegelmilch, B. B. and J. E. Houston (1990). Corporate codes of ethics. Management Decision (U.K.) 28 (7), 3843. Sims, R. R. (1991). The institutionalization of organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 10, 493506. Sims, R. R. (1992). The challenge of ethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 11, 505513. Small, M. W. (1993). Ethics in business and administration: an international and historical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 12, 293300. Smith, G. (1993). Does ethics pay? Marketing September, 1415. Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: a study of the relationship between codes of conduct, employee behaviour and organizational values. Journal of Business Ethics 30, 185195. Stead, W. E., D. L. Worrell, and J. G. Stead (1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 9, 233242. The St James Ethics Centre (1993). Different codes. City Ethics Issue 11, Autumn 4. Townley, P. (1992). Business ethics . . . an oxymoron. Canadian Business Review Spring, 3537. Vinten, G. (1990), Business ethics: busybody or corporate conscience? Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 11 (3), 411. Weber, J. (1981). Institutionalizing ethics into the corporation. MSU Business Topics Spring, 4751. Wood, G. W. (2000). A cross cultural comparison of the contents of codes of ethics: U.S.A., Canada and Australia. Journal of Business Ethics 25 (4), June, 287298. Wood, G. W., N. McClaren, and M. B. Callaghan (1999). Corporate Australias commitment to codes of ethics. Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference Hobart. CODES OF ETHICS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AND WHAT SHOULD THEY BE? 195 Appendix A Figure 1. Indicators of corporate code commitment.