Using a Corporate Code of Ethics to
Assess Students’ Ethicality: Implications for
Business Education
OBEUA PERSONS
RIDER UNIVERSITY
LAWRENCEVILLE, NEW JERSEY
ABSTRACT. The author used a corporate
code of ethics as a roadmap to create 18
scenarios for assessing business students’
ethicality as measured by their behavioral
intention. Using a logistic regression analy-
sis, the author also examined 8 factors that
could potentially influence students’ ethi-
cality. Results indicate 6 scenarios related
to 5 areas of the code that deserve special
attention and increasing course coverage.
These 5 areas of concern are (a) failure to
report unethical behavior, (b) improper use
of company assets, (c) conflict of interest,
(d) inaccurate accounting records by way of
channel stuffing (offering a deep discount
to customers to overbuy), and (e) trading
on inside information. Regression analysis
results suggest that female gender, account-
ing major, full-time work experience, and
the number of workplace ethics trainings
have a positive influence on students’ ethi-
cality. These results should help educators
and corporate ethics trainers direct more
attention to students or entry-level person-
nel with these characteristics.
Keywords: corporate code of ethics, ethics
courses, ethics training, students’ ethicality,
work experience
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
A ccounting debacles due to highly
unethical conduct by top execu-
tives of well-known corporations such
as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco have led
to the public outcry for better business
ethics. In response to this outcry, the
U.S. Congress and President George
W. Bush enacted into law the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 (2002), Section 406,
that requires publicly traded companies
to disclose whether they have adopted
a code of ethics that applies to front-
line employees and senior executives.
In compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, in 2003 the NYSE (2009)
and the NASDAQ (2009) issued new
corporate governance rules that require
their listed companies to adopt and dis-
close a code of business conduct and
ethics. These regulations also require
public companies to have enforcement
mechanisms for the code in place and
are updated annually.
Therefore, it is important that business
students are familiar with a corporate
code of ethics, because they will soon
enter the business world and become
our future business leaders. For business
schools to effectively expose students
to a corporate code of ethics, educators
need to be aware of business students’
behavioral intentions, which may be
in violation of such code. The present
study aimed to assess such students’
behavioral intention using a number of
scenarios directly linked to a corporate
code of ethics. In the present study,
the term behavioral intention refers to
whether the person would behave in a
certain ethical or unethical manner. I
used a dichotomous variable in the pres-
ent article because, from a corporation
viewpoint, an employee’s conduct is in
compliance with the code (being ethical)
or in violation of the code (being unethi-
cal). I focused on behavioral intention,
as opposed to ethical perception or judg-
ment (a personal conclusion about the
ethicality of an act), because intention
is more directly linked to an action that
students would likely take when facing
an ethical dilemma. In other words, the
capability of ethical perception does not
guarantee an ethical action.
In addition, the present study inves-
tigated eight factors that can potentially
affect such intention. These factors are
gender, accounting major, culture, full-
time work experience, part-time work
experience, accounting work experience,
the number of ethics courses taken, and
the number of workplace ethics train-
ings. Many prior studies have examined
the effects of gender, major, and cul-
ture on ethical judgment and behavior-
al intention. Only a handful of studies
have investigated the effects of work
experience, the number of ethics courses
taken, and the number of workplace eth-
ics trainings. In particular, Su (2006)
called for future studies to examine the
effects of work experience and education
on ethical decision-making. Prior studies
also examined each individual ethics-
influencing factor separately, whereas
the present study is the first to investi-
gate these factors simultaneously using a
logistic regression analysis.
July/August 2009 357
 The findings of the present study
should provide insight to educators
regarding specific areas of a corporate
code of ethics that deserve special atten-
tion and higher course coverage. The
findings should also help educators to
direct their attention to students with
specific traits or characteristics to effec-
tively improve students’ ethicality. In
line with educators, corporations could
use these findings to improve their eth-
ics-training program by placing more
emphasis on issues with a high percent-
age of students’ unethical responses.
Corporate Code of Ethics and
Questionnaire Development
No study has investigated students’
behavioral intention using a real-world
corporate code of ethics as a road map
for developing questions or scenarios.
Given the strong emphasis of the Sar-
banes-Oxley Act of 2002 (2002) on
improving corporate ethics disclosure
and enforcement, it is crucial to expose
business students to a corporate code of
ethic, and to use the code to help create
scenarios for assessing students’ ethi-
cality. A corporate code of ethics typi-
cally covers nine areas.1 These areas are
in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and the NYSE (2009) and
the NASDAQ (2009) ethics require-
ments.2 I present short ethics scenarios
that I created, each with a question
requiring a yes or no answer, for each
area of the code. These scenarios are
based on accounting issues presented
in textbooks, suggested by accounting
alumni who are CPAs or certified inter-
nal auditors, or adapted from real-world
articles published in business periodi-
cals (all of which are based on the Gen-
erally Accepted Accounting Principles).
There are a total of 18 scenarios for the
following 9 areas.
Accurate Accounting Records
All business records must be clear,
truthful, and accurate. This includes such
data as quality, safety, personnel, and all
financial records. Misrepresenting facts
or falsifying company records is a serious
offense. The following are scenarios:
Scenario 1: Will you honor your boss’s
request to sign and submit a company
purchase order for a computer game (cost,
$19.95) that he wants to give to his son?
358 Journal of Education for Business
Scenario 2: Will you honor your boss’s
request to sign and submit a company pur-
chase order for a computer (cost, $1,995)
that he wants to give to his son?
Scenario 3: You are the CEO of a firm that
uses free on-board shipping-point term for
all sales contracts. This means sales can
be properly recorded when products are
loaded onto delivery trucks. Total sales just
one day before the December 31 year-end
are 3% below the target sales. There are
two large customer orders which amount
to 5% of the target sales. These orders are
scheduled for shipment on January 2 next
year. Will you try to record sales of these
orders in the current year by asking the
warehouse manager to fulfill these orders
by December 31 (i.e., loading products per
these orders onto deliver trucks by mid-
night of December 31)?
Scenario 4: As the CEO of a company, you
are concerned that sales this year may be
much below the target sales. Will you offer
your wholesale customers an unusually
big discount to induce them to buy more
products than they can promptly resell?
Conflict of Interest
Employees must make business deci-
sions and actions on the basis of the
best interests of the company and its
stakeholders and must not be motivated
by personal considerations or relation-
ships. For example, relationships with
prospective or existing suppliers, con-
tractors, customers, competitors, or
regulators must not affect employees’
independent and sound judgment. The
following is a scenario:
Scenario 1: You are the purchasing depart-
ment director who is supposed to get the
best deal for your company from different
suppliers. One of the suppliers would like
to take you out for a nice lunch. Will you
accept this supplier’s invitation?
Confidential Information
Except in connection with the per-
formance of their duties, employees
are prohibited from disclosing or using
confidential or proprietary information
outside the company, during or after
employment, without company authori-
zation. The following is a scenario:
Scenario 1: You are the manager of a local
UPS delivery office. Your sister just started
her whole-selling business in the local mar-
ket in which there is only one other com-
petitor. This competitor uses UPS services
for all deliveries to his customers. Will
you provide your sister with the name and
address of customers of her competitor?
Proper Use of Company Assets
Protecting company assets against
loss, theft, and misuse is every employ-
ee’s responsibility.
Company’s equipment, vehicles,
tools, and supplies are to be used for
conducting company business. They
may not be used for personal benefit.
The following are scenarios:
Scenario 1: After work hours or during
lunch break, will you use your employ-
er’s computer for personal purposes (e.g.,
sending personal e-mail or searching for
the best deal for your family vacation)?
Scenario 2: During work hours, will you
use your employer’s computer for per-
sonal purposes?
Scenario 3: Will you use your employer’s
copy machine to copy your personal items?
Scenario 4: Your company gave you a
corporate credit card to pay for business
lunch or dinner with the company’s cli-
ents. Will you use your company’s credit
card to pay for your family dinner?
Compliance With Laws
Employees must comply with laws
and regulations wherever a company
does business.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977)
prohibits U.S. firms and their workers
or agents from bribing foreign officials.
The following are scenarios:
Scenario 1: Your company relocated you
to a country where it is common to bribe a
policeman for just $10 to avoid the ticket
for a minor traffic law violation such as
speeding or running the light. The ticket
must be paid in person at a local police
station and the whole process can take
more than 1 hr. You are in a hurry to go
to a business meeting when a policeman
stops you for speeding. Will you make a
$10 bribery to the policeman?
Scenario 2: You are a partner to a joint
venture with a Chinese businessman. The
joint venture is about to be audited by the
Chinese tax authority and may have to
pay a few million dollar in tax underpay-
ment and penalty. Your Chinese business
partner suggests $1,000 bribery to the tax
auditor to avoid being audited. He states
 that it is not uncommon in China to bribe
a tax authority and that he used to do it in
his previous joint venture. Will you agree
to make the $1,000 bribery?
Competition and Fair Dealing
Employees must not use any illegal
or unethical methods to gather competi-
tive information.
The Federal Trade Commission Act
(1914) prohibits misrepresentations of
all sorts that are made in connection with
sales including false or misleading adver-
tisement. The following is a scenario:
Scenario 1: You are the CEO of a firm that
makes and sells dinnerware. The dinner-
ware is advertised as 100% lead free, and
this is the main selling feature of the prod-
uct. It recently came to your attention that
the most popular line of the dinnerware has
a small trace of lead (within the required
safety level). Will you recall the product?
Trading on Inside Information
Using inside material information,
which is not available to the public
for trading or tipping others to trade is
unethical and illegal. The following are
scenarios:
Scenario 1: You overhear your boss’s
phone conversation that your com-
pany will soon have to restate down-
ward earnings in the past 3 years. This
restatement will likely lead to a big
decline in the company’s stock price.
Will you immediately sell the company
stock that you own before a release of
this news to the public?
Scenario 2: Same situation as the afore-
mentioned except that you do not own
the company stock. Will you try to profit
from the imminent decline in stock price
by buying a put option on the stock before
a release of this news to the public?
Antinepotism Policy
To reduce favoritism or the appear-
ance of favoritism and to prevent fam-
ily conflict from affecting the work-
place, an employee’s relative is not
permitted to work as a supervisor or a
subordinate of the employee. The fol-
lowing is a scenario:
Scenario 1: Your niece (with a different
last name from yours) applied for an
internal auditor position. She has 5 years
of work experience in internal auditing.
The other candidate has 10 years of inter-
nal auditing experience and the same edu-
cation background as your niece. As the
director of the internal auditing depart-
ment, will you hire your niece instead of
the other candidate?
Reporting Illegal and Unethical
Behavior
Employees have a duty to promptly
report violations of a corporate code of
ethics by way of an anonymous phone
hotline or to an appropriate company
representative (e.g., chief compliance
officer or chairperson of an audit com-
mittee). In addition, a company usually
requires employees to certify that they
have complied with all areas of the
code. The following are scenarios:
Scenario 1: Your close friend and cowork-
er confided with you that it is the first
time that he used the company credit card
to pay for his family dinner because he
forgot his personal credit card. You are
the only one who knows this. Will you
report your friend to the company by way
of the anonymous phone hotline?
Scenario 2: Your close friend and cowork-
er confided with you that he has been
using the company credit card to pay for
his family dinner whenever they eat out.
You are the only one who knows this. Will
you report your friend to the company by
way of the anonymous phone hotline?
Interpretation of a Response
to Scenarios
According to a corporate code of
ethics, a no answer would be ethical
for all scenarios except for the com-
petition and fair dealing scenario, and
the reporting-illegal-and-unethical-
behavior scenarios, where a yes answer
would be ethical. A questionnaire also
included nine demographic questions
and one cultural-screening question.
The accounting department’s advisory
board members, who were corporate
executives or partners of public account-
ing firms, reviewed the questionnaire. I
have incorporated their comments into
the questionnaire.
Literature Review and
Hypothesis Development
The present study has nine hypoth-
eses. The first eight hypotheses are for
the eight factors potentially affecting
students’ behavioral intention toward
ethics issues covered by a corporate
code of ethics. The ninth hypothesis is
for testing a moral-intensity effect.
Gender
The gender socialization approach
(Kohlberg, 1984) assumed that men
and women have distinctively different
values and traits, thereby creating dif-
ferent moral orientations that result in
different decisions and practices. Gil-
ligan (1982) posited that women frame
moral questions as problems of care,
involving empathy and compassion,
whereas men frame moral questions as
problems of justice, rights, and fairness.
Betz, O’Connell, and Shepherd (1989)
posited that men are more concerned
with money and advancement, and
women are more interested in relation-
ships and helping people. The gender
socialization approach suggested that
men and women respond differently
to the same set of conditions (Kohl-
berg). Men tend to seek competitive
success and are more likely to break
rules. Women are more likely to adhere
to rules, because they are concerned
about doing tasks well and having har-
monious relationships. There have been
many studies on gender differences
regarding college students’ ethicality.
Although some studies have not detect-
ed any gender differences among stu-
dents (e.g., McCuddy & Peery, 1996;
Sikula & Costa, 1994; Stanga & Tur-
pen, 1991), the majority of studies have
shown that female students are more
ethical than are male students (e.g.,
Albaum & Peterson, 2006; Ameen,
Guffey, & McMillan, 1996; Betz et al.;
Cohen, Pant, & Sharp, 1998; Libby &
Agnello, 2000; Malinowski & Berger,
1996; Ruegger & King, 1992). This
gender difference is also documented
among students in foreign countries
such as Ukraine (Roxas & Stoneback,
2004), New Zealand (Okleshen &
Hoyt, 1996), and England (Whipple
& Swords, 1992). Therefore, I propose
the following hypothesis, which rep-
resents my review of the literature on
gender socialization:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Female students are
more ethical than male students.
July/August 2009 359
Major
Students may self-select into an aca-
demic major on the basis of their per-
sonality types. Accounting majors seem
to be more willing to adhere to rules and
have stronger desires to be accurate than
do other business majors. Manley, Rus-
sell, and Buckley (2001) suggested that
accounting majors may be more ethical
than other business majors because the
public and the regulators such as the SEC
demand that the accounting profession
abide by rules and standards, particular-
ly the Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, which are the backbone of
an accounting curriculum. Fulmer and
Cargile (1987) reported that accounting
majors had higher ethical perception
than did other business majors. Cohen et
al. (1998) found that accounting majors
were less likely to perform question-
able actions than were other majors.
Arlow and Ulrich (1983) attributed the
higher ethicality of accounting majors
to accounting majors receiving addi-
tional trainings in accounting ethics in
the accounting curriculum. Therefore, I
propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Accounting majors are more ethical
than other business majors.
Culture
Carroll (1996) stated that “ethics is
the set of moral principles that drive
behavior. . . . Values are the individu-
al’s concepts of the relative worth, util-
ity or importance of certain ideas. . . .
One’s values, therefore, shape one’s eth-
ics” (pp. 133–134). To the extent that
culture affects the individual’s values,
researchers might expect that differences
in actions and motivations in identical
settings would vary by the cultural back-
ground of the individual. Ahmed, Chung,
and Eichenseher (2003), Goodwin and
Goodwin (1999), Phau and Kea (2007),
and Su (2006) reported significant dif-
ferences in ethical beliefs and tolerances
for unethical behavior among their col-
lege-student participants with different
cultural backgrounds. However, there
is no conclusive evidence on whether
American students are always more or
less ethical than those from other cul-
tures. This discussion leads to the follow-
ing hypothesis:
360 Journal of Education for Business
H3: American students and international
students respond differently to the
same business ethics scenarios.
Full-Time Work Experience
Studies concerning a relation between
years of work experience and ethical
behavior reported mixed results. Callan
(1992), Dubinsky and Ingram (1984),
Reiss and Mitra (1998), and Serwinek
(1992) have found no significant rela-
tion between length of employment
and ethical behavior in an organiza-
tion. Alternatively, Kidwell, Stevens,
and Bethke (1987) reported a positive
relation between years of employment
and ethical beliefs. Ruegger and King
(1992) found through class discussion
that students who had worked for long
periods of time appeared to be more eth-
ical than those with limited work expe-
rience. Weeks, Moore, and Longnecker
(1999) found that practitioners in later
career stages displayed higher ethical
judgments than those in earlier careers
stages, which supports the positive rela-
tion between years of full-time work
experience and the individual’s ethical-
ity. In an absence of a negative relation,
I propose the following hypothesis:
H4: Students with more full-time work
experience are more ethical than those
with less full-time work experience.
Accounting Work Experience
In addition to a corporate code of
ethics, an accounting profession is gov-
erned by its own code of professional
ethics. The ethicality of the profession
has received more attention from the
public and regulators because of the
accounting failures at Enron and World-
Com. Therefore, I propose a hypothesis
similar to H4:
H5: Students with more accounting work
experience are more ethical than those
with less accounting experience.
Part-Time Work Experience
Virtually all college students now
have or once had part-time employment.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to exam-
ine a relation between part-time work
experience and students’ ethicality. In
an absence of a study that examines
such a relation, I propose the following
hypothesis, which is similar to H4:
H6: Students with more part-time work
experience are more ethical than those
with less part-time work experience.
College-Level Ethics Courses
Many critics have suggested that a
lack of ethical education in business cur-
ricula may be responsible for turning
out managers with little ethics values
and that education can be a powerful
tool in shaping students’ judgment about
what is right or wrong (Kohlberg, 1984;
Rest, 1988). In response, the American
Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Busi-
ness (AACSB) has suggested that ethics
be taught in business schools. Others
have argued that by the time an indi-
vidual reaches adolescence, his or her
ethicality has been formed and cannot be
changed by education (Rohatyn, 1988).
Arlow (1991), Borkowski and Ugras
(1992), Davis and Welton (1991), and
Martin (1981, 1982) have supported this
viewpoint that ethics education does
not significantly affect students’ abil-
ity to correctly assess ethical scenarios.
Alternatively, Luthar, DiBattista, and
Gautschi (1997), Rest (1988), Salmans
(1987), and Steven, Harris, and William-
son (1993) have documented a positive
influence of ethics education on students’
ethicality. In addition, Weber’s (1990)
literature review concluded that there
was an improvement in students’ ethi-
cal awareness and reasoning skills right
after taking an ethics course (Arlow &
Ulrich, 1983; Boyd, 1981, 1982; Stead
& Miller, 1988), but this improvement
disappeared when measured 4 years later
(Arlow & Ulrich, 1985). In an absence
of a finding that ethics education lowers
students’ ethicality, I propose the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H7: Students who took more college-level
ethics courses are more ethical than stu-
dents who took fewer ethics courses.
Workplace Ethics Training
Beu, Buckley, and Harvey (2003)
stated that training could be used to
increase cognitive moral development
and decrease inappropriate competitive
desire to win at any cost as a means
of enhancing self-worth feelings, with
attendant orientations of manipulation,
aggressiveness, and deceit of others.
Because of the enactment of the Sar-
banes-Oxley Act of 2002 (2002), most
corporations have provided ethics train-
ing to their employees. For example,
Raytheon (Waltham, MA) makes eth-
ics training a requirement for every
employee, even the CEO. Regardless
of the rapidly increasing popularity of
workplace ethics training, an assess-
ment of the effectiveness of workplace
ethics training has received only lim-
ited research attention, most of which
is descriptive and focuses on specific
case studies or anecdotes. Delaney and
Sockell’s (1992) exceptional large-
scale survey suggested that workplace
ethics training has a positive effect on
managers because the training edu-
cates managers on how to react when
confronted with workplace dilemmas.
Myers (2003) suggested that companies
schedule regular refresher ethics train-
ing courses for all employees, imply-
ing that ethics training is perishable
because people tend to forget and that
the positive effect is more evident when
a person has more frequent ethics train-
ing. This discussion leads to the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H8: Students with more workplace eth-
ics training are more ethical than
those with less training.
Moral Intensity
Jones (1991) suggested that charac-
teristics of the moral issue itself (moral
intensity) are important determinants of
ethical decision-making and behavior.
Moral intensity is increased if the con-
sequences of an action create greater
harm or greater benefit. Beu et al. (2003),
Singer and Singer (1997), and Morris
and McDonald (1995) found that moral
intensity of an ethics issue affects stu-
dents’ ethical perception. Scenarios such
as those about accurate accounting (Sce-
nario 1), proper use of company assets
(Scenario 1), compliance with laws (Sce-
nario 1), trading on inside information
(scenario 1), and reporting illegal and
unethical behavior (Scenario 1) reflect
low moral intensity, whereas scenarios
such as accurate accounting (Scenario 2),
proper use of company assets (Scenario
2), compliance with laws (Scenario 2),
trading on inside information (Scenario Procedures
2), and reporting illegal and unethical
An ethical response was coded as 1, and
behavior (Scenario 2) reflect high moral
an unethical response was coded as 0. For
intensity. The following hypothesis is
each student, I added coded responses to
useful for testing moral intensity:
the 18 questionnaire scenarios to determine
H9: Students respond more ethically to the students’ overall ethicality. Logistic
the high-moral-intensity questions regression is appropriate when the depen-
scenarios than to the low-moral- dent variable is a dichotomous or ordinal
intensity scenarios. variable (as in the present study). I tested
H1 thru H8 simultaneously using the fol-
METHOD lowing ordered-logistic regression model
with the eight explanatory variables:
Participants
ETHIC = a + b1GENDER + b2MAJOR
Participants were business students + b3CULTURE + b4FTWORK
at a private mid-Atlantic university. + b5ACCWRK + b6PTWORK +
Business students were the focus b7ETHICEDU + b8ETHICTRAIN.
because they would soon enter the
ETHIC refers to student’s overall
business world and collectively com-
ethicality (the total number of ethical
prise the future corporate leaders who
responses to the 18 scenarios). GEN-
regularly face a number of ethical
DER refers to 1 for female student and
dilemmas. Participants included day-
0 for male student. MAJOR refers to 1
time and evening students. Participants
for an accounting major and 0 other-
completed scenario questionnaires
wise. CULTURE refers to 0 if student
during regular class periods with a
was born in the United States or came
business professor in the classroom
to the United States before 10 years of
to provide instructions regarding their
age, and 0 otherwise. FTWORK refers
rights, which included completely
to years of full-time work experience.
voluntary participation and complete
ACCWRK refers to years of account-
anonymity. There were 244 student
ing work experience. PTWORK refers
participants who provided completed
to years of part-time work experience.
and usable questionnaires.
ETHICEDU refers to the number of
Of these 244 participants, 103 (42.2%)
college-level ethics courses taken. ETH-
were female students, and 141 (57.8%)
ICTRAIN refers to the number of work-
were male students. In all, 98 students
place ethics trainings.
(40.2%) were accounting majors, and
I expected all variables to have a
146 students (59.8%) were other busi-
positive coefficient except for CUL-
ness majors. An overwhelming majority
TURE, for which the present study had
of 214 students (87.7%) had an Ameri-
no expectation regarding the sign of its
can cultural background. Full-time work
coefficient. I also used a similar logistic
experience ranged from 0 to 30 years with
regression model to examine students’
a median of 0 years and a mean of 1.72
responses to each of the 18 scenarios. I
years. Part-time work experience ranged
tested H9 (moral intensity) by compar-
from 0 to 13 years with a median of 5
ing the percentage of ethical responses
years and a mean of 4.23 years. In all, 102
of a high-moral-intensity scenario with
students (41.8%) then or previously held
that of a low-moral-intensity scenario
full-time employment positions, and 225
for each of the five pairs of scenarios.
students (92.62%) then or previously held
part-time employment positions. Only 39
students (15.98%) then or previously had RESULTS
accounting work experience with a mean
of 0.32 year and a maximum of 16 years. Table 1 presents students’ responses
In all, 107 students (43.85%) took ethics to the 18 scenarios grouped by the
courses, with a mean of 0.74 course and a nine areas of corporate code of eth-
maximum of 6 courses. In all, 97 students ics. For accurate accounting records,
(39.75%) had workplace ethics trainings, an overwhelming majority of students
with a mean of 0.79 training and a maxi- (93.4%) would not honor a boss’s
mum of 10 trainings. request to sign and submit a purchase
July/August 2009 361
 TABLE 1. Students’ Responses to Ethics Scenarios From Areas of Corporate Codes of Ethics and Significant
Explanatory Variables for Each Scenario

Ethical Unethical
Area of corporate code of ethics
Response item n % n % Significant variables

Accurate accounting records

Will you honor your boss’s request of you to sign and 202 82.8 42.0 17.2 FTWORK*, GENDER†
submit a purchase order for his son’s $19.95 gift?
Will you honor your boss’s request of you to sign and 228 93.4 16.0 6.6 GENDER†, CULTURE†
submit a purchase order for his son’s $1,995 gift?
Will you try to record sales in the current year by 184 75.4 60.0 24.6 (PTWORK*), ETHICTRAIN*
asking the warehouse manager to promptly fulfill FTWORK†, ACCWRK†
next-year orders in order to meet this year’s target sales?
Will you offer your wholesale customers an unusually big 128 52.5 116.0 47.5 MAJOR*, FTWORK†
discount to induce them to buy more products than they
can promptly resell?
Conflict of interest
As a purchasing department director, will 96 39.3 148.0 60.7 MAJOR**, GENDER**
you accept a supplier’s lunch invitation? (PTWORK*), FTWORK†,
ETHICEDU†
Confidential information
Will you provide your sister with the name and 198 81.1 46.0 18.9 MAJOR**, (ETHICEDU*)
address of customers of her competitor? ETHICTRAIN*
Proper use of company assets
After work hours or during lunch break, will you use 77 31.6 167.0 68.4 FTWORK*, (ETHICEDU**)
your employer’s computer for personal purposes?
During work hours, will you use your employer’s 145 59.4 99.0 40.6 GENDER*, (ETHICEDU†)
computer for personal purposes?
Will you use your employer’s copy machine to copy 124 50.8 120.0 49.2 GENDER**
your personal items?
Will you use your company’s credit card to pay for 238 97.5 6.0 2.5 (PTWORK†)
your family dinner?
Compliance with laws
Will you make $10 bribery to the policeman in a foreign 140 57.4 104.0 42.6 PTWORK†
country where bribing a policeman is very common?
Will you agree to make the $1,000 bribery to the Chinese tax 204 83.6 40.0 16.4 GENDER†
authority to avoid being audited per your business partner’s advice?
Competition and fair dealing
Will you recall the most popular product, which was 195 79.9 49.0 20.1 CULTURE**, (PTWORK*)
advertised as 100% lead free, but has a small trace MAJOR*, GENDER*
of lead within the required safety level?
Trading on inside information
Will you sell your company’s stock that you own before a 134 54.9 110.0 45.1 ACCWRK†
release to the public of the negative news about the company?
Will you try to profit from the imminent decline in stock 197 80.7 47.0 19.3 ACCWRK**,
price by buying a put option on the stock before a public GENDER*, CULTURE†
release of this news?
Antinepotism policy
Will you hire your niece instead of the other candidate? 155 63.5 89.0 36.5 MAJOR**, GENDER*,
ETHICTRAIN*, FTWORK†
Reporting illegal and unethical behavior
Will you report to the company your close friend who used 34 13.9 210.0 86.1 ETHICTRAIN*
the company credit card to pay for his family dinner for (ETHICEDU†)
the first time?
Will you report to the company your close friend who has 159 65.2 85.0 34.8 GENDER**,
been using the company credit card to pay for his family MAJOR†
dinner whenever he eats out?

Note. Significant variables are presented in the order of their significance levels. Logistical regression analysis was used. Variables in parentheses
have a negative estimated coefficient. GENDER = 1 for female, 0 for male; MAJOR = 1 for an accounting major, 0 otherwise; CULTURE = 1
if student was born in United States or came to United States before 10 years of age, 0 otherwise; FTWORK = the number of years of full-time
work experience; ACCWRK = the number of years of accounting work experience; PTWORK = the number of years of part-time work experi-
ence; ETHICEDU = the number of college-level ethics courses taken; ETHICTRAIN = the number of work-place ethics trainings.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

362 Journal of Education for Business

order for a $1,995 gift for his or her
son. This is larger than the 82.8%
ethical responses to the request with
a lower gift value of $19.95. There-
fore, this pair of scenarios supports
the moral-intensity hypothesis. For
the other two scenarios, which are
about trying to meet target sales using
questionable tactics, 75.4% of stu-
dents provided an ethical response of
not recording next-year orders as this-
year sales, and 52.5% of students pro-
vided an ethical response of not using
channel stuffing or providing a deep
discount to customers to overbuy.
The scenario about channel stuffing
is based on the SEC’s investigation of
Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) chan-
nel stuffing in the 1990s. In the end,
BMS restated its earnings downward
for several periods, resulting in a sub-
stantial decline in its stock price and a
large corporate downsizing. That only
52.5% of students responded ethical-
ly to this channel-stuffing scenario
should concern educators and cor-
porate ethics trainers, because if the
other 47.5% of students who respond-
ed unethically should become future
corporate leaders who condone chan-
nel stuffing, they and their companies
will be in trouble with regulators and
face many adverse consequences.
Conflict of interest is an even big-
ger concern because the majority of
students (60.7%) responded unethically
to the scenario. These students seemed
to think that as a purchasing department
director, accepting a nice lunch from
a supplier would not create any con-
flict of interest (i.e., a bias in favor of
the supplier). They were not aware that
most companies prohibit their purchas-
ing personnel from accepting gifts of
any forms from any suppliers, including
a lunch invitation.
For confidential information, a
majority of students (81.1%) responded
ethically. Proper use of company assets
also posed some concern, especially
for the first three scenarios. In par-
ticular, 68.4% of students would use an
employer’s computer for personal pur-
poses after work hours or during lunch
break, and 40.6% of students would do
that during work hours. Students were
not aware that many companies monitor
their employees’ computer use because
companies consider using computers
for personal purposes as an improper
use of company assets, which violates
a corporate code of ethics. That more
students provided ethical responses
to high intensity than to low intensity
supports the moral intensity hypoth-
esis. Proper use of an employer’s copy
machine resulted in a split vote (i.e.,
50.8% would not use vs. 49.2% would
use an employer’s copy machine for
personal purposes). Alternatively, good
news was that an overwhelming majori-
ty (97.5%) of students would not use the
company’s credit card to pay for a fam-
ily dinner. Perhaps students considered
such conduct as an outright stealing of a
company’s fund.
A $10 bribery to a policeman in a for-
eign country also resulted in a roughly
split vote (i.e., 57.4% would not make
vs. 42.6% would make a $10 bribery
to a policeman in a foreign country).
Bribery to a foreign official, regardless
of a dollar amount, is in violation of not
only a corporate code of ethics but also
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of
1977. Alternatively, for the high-moral-
intensity scenario, the $1,000 bribery to
the Chinese tax authority received ethi-
cal responses of 83.6%, which is much
higher than the 57.4% of the ethical
responses for the low-moral-intensity
scenario. This higher percentage of ethi-
cal responses to the high-moral-inten-
sity scenario may be attributable to the
larger dollar amount and a perceived
more powerful tax authority compared
with a traffic policeman, thereby sup-
porting the moral-intensity hypothesis.
Competition and fair dealing did not
seem to prompt much concern because
approximately 80% of students would
recall the product, which does not con-
form to what was advertised. Selling
company’s stock before a public release
of the negative news also resulted in a
roughly split vote with 54.9% of students
answering no to the selling versus 45.1%
answering yes. Such a split vote should
greatly concern educators and corporate
ethics trainers because it implies that
students are not aware that trading on
inside information is not only unethi-
cal but also illegal. Some students may
be aware of this fact but perceive that
they are entitled to protecting themselves
from the financial loss and that they will
not get caught. Alternatively, the high-
moral-intensity scenario involves mak-
ing a profit from the inside information,
which is deemed to be more unethical.
Therefore, 80.7% of students would not
try to make the profit. This higher per-
centage of ethical responses to the high-
moral-intensity scenario supported the
moral-intensity hypothesis.
Although only 36.5% of students
responded unethically to the antinepo-
tism policy scenario (i.e., they would
hire their niece instead of the other
candidate), students should be aware
that their actions could create unfair
favoritism, which may result in morale
problems among employees who are
not the boss’s relatives.
For reporting illegal and unethical
behavior, it is not surprising that only
13.9% of students would report their close
friend who uses the company credit card
to pay for his family dinner for the first
time, whereas 65.2% of students would
report the friend who has been using
the company credit card to pay for his
family dinner whenever he eats out. This
higher percentage of ethical responses
to the high-moral-intensity scenario
supports the moral-intensity hypothesis.
However, that a large percentage (86.1%)
of students would not report the friend in
the low-moral-intensity scenario should
concern educators and corporate ethics
trainers because this first-time stealing
of money from the company by a credit
card may escalate into more frequent
stealing as in the high-moral-intensity
scenario for which 34.8% of students
would continue to not report the friend.
Educators and corporate ethics trainers
should thoroughly discuss appropriate
actions concerning any friendship-
sensitive issues with students or entry-
level personnel.
Table 1 also reports significant explan-
atory variables from logistic regression
analysis for each scenario.3 GENDER
is positively significant in 10 of 18 sce-
narios and significant for all nine areas
of a corporate code of ethics except
for confidential information. MAJOR
is positively significant in six scenarios
and for all but three areas (proper use
of company assets, compliance with
laws, trading on inside information).
FTWORK is also positively significant
in six scenarios but significant for only
July/August 2009 363
four of nine areas: accurate accounting
records, conflict of interest, proper use
of company assets, and antinepotism
policy. Although PTWORK is signifi-
cant in five scenarios from five different
areas, it has a negative coefficient in
four of five significant areas or sce-
narios. This means that part-time work
experience does not seem to contribute
positively to students’ ethicality. A plau-
sible explanation is that not all compa-
nies provide ethics training to their part-
time employees. Similarly, ETHICEDU
is significant in five scenarios from four
ethics areas, with a negative coefficient
in four of five significant scenarios.
These four scenarios, which deserve
more attention and coverage from edu-
cators and corporate ethics trainers, are
whether to provide confidential infor-
mation on a customer list to a rela-
tive, to use an employer’s computer for
personal purposes during or after work
hours, and to report a friend who used a
company credit card to pay for a family
dinner for the first time. Although ETH-
ICTRAIN was positively significant in
only four scenarios from four differ-
ent areas, it is the only variable with
a significantly positive influence over
students’ ethical responses to reporting
a friend who used a company credit
card to pay for a family dinner for the
first time, which had the lowest ethical
response rate. This implies that work-
place ethics training likely emphasizes
reporting illegal or unethical behavior.
CULTURE was positively significant
in three scenarios from three differ-
ent areas, with particularly high sig-
nificance level in the whether-to-recall-
product scenario. This is consistent with
the U.S. culture of greater emphasis on
product safety and consumer protection
than many other cultures have, especial-
ly those of developing countries where
most international student participants
were from. ACCWRK was positively
significant in only three scenarios from
two different areas: accurate accounting
records and trading on inside informa-
tion. In all, consistent with prior stud-
ies, GENDER was the most frequently
significant variable.
Table 2 presents ordered-logisti-
cal regression results on the students’
overall ethicality, ETHIC, which has
the minimum value of 4, the mean and
364 Journal of Education for Business
TABLE 2. Ordered-Logistical Regression Results of Explanatory
Variables on the Students’ Overall Ethicality (N = 244)
Expected Estimated Probability
Variable sign coefficient SE Z >Z
GENDER + 0.6483 0.2989 2.17 0.015*
MAJOR + 0.6268 0.3100 2.02 0.022*
CULTURE N/A –0.3993 0.4396 –0.91 0.364
FTWORK + 0.0451 0.0308 1.46 0.072†
ACCWRK + 0.0144 0.1658 0.09 0.466
PTWORK + 0.0168 0.0698 0.24 0.405
ETHICEDU + –0.1152 0.1285 –0.90 0.185
ETHICTRAIN + 0.1961 0.1111 1.77 0.039*
Note. GENDER = 1 for female, 0 for male; MAJOR = 1 for an accounting major,
0 otherwise; CULTURE = 1 if student was born in United States or came to United
States before 10 years old, 0 otherwise; FTWORK = the number of years of full-time
work experience; ACCWRK = the number of years of accounting work experience;
PTWORK = the number of years of part-time work experience; ETHICEDU = the num-
ber of college-level ethics courses taken; ETHICTRAIN = the number of work-place
ethics trainings. Wald χ2(235, N = 244) = 26.06, p < .001.
†
p < .10. *p < .05.
the median values of 12, and the maxi- nificant result of college-level ethics
mum value of 18. It is good news that courses (ETHICEDU) was in line with
7 students (6 female students, 1 male Arlow and Ulrich’s (1985) findings
student) had a perfect ethicality score that college-level ethics courses had
(18 of 18). The mean and median val- no long-term positive influence on
ues of 12 of 18 also suggest that the students’ ethicality.
majority of students are more ethical
than not. Regression results in Table DISCUSSION
2 are for testing H1 through H8. Four
variables have a significantly positive The present study used a corporate
coefficient, and are listed in the order code of ethics as a road map to cre-
of their statistical significance: GEN- ate 18 scenarios for assessing busi-
DER, MAJOR, ETHICTRAIN, and ness students’ ethicality as measured
FTWORK. These significant results by behavioral intention. The main
support H1, H2, H4, and H8. In other motivation of the present study was
words, female students, accounting to make educators become aware of
majors, students with more workplace students’ behavioral intention, which
ethics training, and students with more may violate the code. Such aware-
full-time work experience are more ness should help educators effectively
ethical than male students, other busi- expose students to the corporate code
ness majors, students with less work- of ethics by placing special empha-
place ethics training, and those with sis on problem areas that the pres-
less full-time work experience. The ent study documented. In addition to
other four hypotheses are not support- tabulating students’ responses to these
ed, suggesting that culture, account- scenarios, which corresponded to nine
ing work experience, part-time work areas of a corporate code of ethics,
experience, and college-level ethics the study also used a logistic regres-
courses do not significantly influence sion analysis to investigate an influ-
students’ overall ethicality. The insig- ence of eight variables on students’
ethicality. These variables were gen-
der, accounting major, culture, full-
time work experience, part-time work
experience, accounting work experi-
ence, the number of ethics courses
taken, and the number of workplace
ethics trainings. I performed the logis-
tic regression analysis for each of the
18 scenarios and for the overall ethi-
cality, which was the sum of ethical
responses to the 18 scenarios.
Results of students’ responses to
the 18 scenarios indicated six problem
areas in which the majority or close to
50% of students had unethical intention:
(a) not reporting unethical behavior of
a close friend who did it for the first
time; (b) using a company computer
for personal purposes; (c) accepting a
lunch invitation from a supplier who
may want a special favor; (d) using
a company copy machine for person-
al purposes; (e) channel stuffing (i.e.,
using a big discount to induce custom-
ers to buy more than they can promptly
resell to reach the target sales); and (f)
selling an employer’s stock on the basis
of inside information. Educators and
corporate ethics trainers need to place
more emphasis on these six problem
areas to make students more aware of
the potentially negative consequences
of unethical behavior.
The regression analysis for each of
the 18 scenarios indicated that gender is
the leading variable with a significant-
ly positive effect on students’ behav-
ioral intention, preceding accounting
major, length of full-time work expe-
rience, and the number of workplace
ethics trainings. The regression analy-
sis on the students’ overall ethicality
also indicated these four variables as
having a significantly positive effect
on students’ ethicality. That is, female
students, accounting majors, students
with more workplace ethics training,
and students with more full-time work
experience are more ethical than male
students, other business majors, and
students with less workplace ethics
training or less full-time work experi-
ence. These findings suggest that edu-
cators and corporate ethics trainers may
want to allocate special attention to
men, nonaccounting majors, and those
with less full-time work experience or
less workplace ethics training.
The present study had some limita-
tions on generalizability, including a
nonlarge sample from only one univer-
sity. In addition, I did not consider the
effects of other demographic factors,
such as the student age. However, the
age may be proxied by full-time work
experience, which was examined. In all,
the present study serves as a starting
point for future researchers who may
want to further explore an individual’s
ethicality using a corporate code of eth-
ics as a road map for designing a survey
instrument. Future studies may try dif-
ferent scenarios related to the nine com-
mon areas of a corporate code of ethics
because behavioral intention tends to
be specific to the scenario. Culture was
not a significant variable in the present
study, most likely because only 12.3%
of the present study’s participants had
non-U.S. cultural backgrounds. There-
fore, future researchers may want to
increase the sample size of international
students or administer a questionnaire
that is based on another country’s cor-
porate code of ethics to students from
that foreign country.
NOTES
1. The explanation of each of nine areas came
from a corporate code of ethics of a real-world
company.
2. A publicly traded company has three options
to make its code of ethics publicly available: (a)
filing a copy of the code as part of the Securities
and Exchange Commission Form 10-K or 20-F,
(b) posting the code on the firm’s Web site and
stating in the annual report and Form 10-K or 20-
F that the code of ethics is available on the Web
site, and (c) stating in the annual report and Form
10-K or 20-F that a free copy of the code would
be provided to any person on request.
3. The present study also examined correla-
tions of the eight explanatory variables before
conducting the regression analysis because high
correlations could create a multicollinearity prob-
lem, which likely makes estimated coefficients
of highly correlated variables differ substantially
from their true values. The strongest correlations
were .31 between PTWORK and CULTURE, and
ACCWRK and FTWORK. These correlations are
not high enough to create a multicollinearity prob-
lem in the regression analysis.
Obeua Persons is an associate professor of
accounting with 18 years of teaching experi-
ence in financial, managerial, and international
accounting at undergraduate and graduate levels.
Her research interests include business ethics,
corporate governance, executive compensation,
financial reporting, and international dimensions
of accounting.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Obeua Persons, Rider Univer-
sity, 2083 Lawrenceville Road, Lawrenceville, NJ
08648-3099, USA.
E-mail: persons@rider.edu
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M. M., Chung, K. Y., & Eichenseher, J.
W. (2003). Business students’ perception of eth-
ics and moral judgment: A cross-cultural study.
Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 89–102.
Albaum, G., & Peterson, R. A. (2006). Ethical
attitudes of future business leaders: Do they
vary by gender and religiosity? Business and
Society, 45, 300–321.
Ameen, E., Guffey, D., & McMillan, J. (1996).
Gender differences in determining the ethical
sensitivity of future accounting professionals.
Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 591–597.
Arlow, P. (1991). Characteristics in college stu-
dents’ evaluations of business ethics and corpo-
rate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,
10, 63–69.
Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1983, Spring). Can
ethics be taught to business students? College
Forum, 14, 17.
Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. A. (1985, Spring). Busi-
ness ethics and business school graduates: A
longitudinal study. Akron Business and Eco-
nomic Review, 16, 13–17.
Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepherd, J. (1989).
Gender differences in proclivity for unethi-
cal behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8,
321–324.
Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G.
(2003). Ethical decision-making: A multidi-
mensional construct. Business Ethics: A Euro-
pean Review, 12, 88–107.
Borkowski, S. C., & Ugras, Y. J. (1992). The
ethical attitudes of students as a function of
age, sex, and experience. Journal of Business
Ethics, 11, 63–69.
Boyd, D. P. (1981). Improving ethical awareness
through the business and society course. Busi-
ness and Society, 20(2), 27–31.
Boyd, D. P. (1982). Improving ethical awareness
through the business and society course. Busi-
ness and Society, 21(1), 27–31.
Callan, V. J. (1992). Predicting ethical values and
training needs in ethics. Journal of Business
Ethics, 11, 761–769.
Carroll, A. B. (1996). Business and society (3rd
ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.
Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1998).
The effect of gender and academic discipline
diversity on the ethical evaluations, ethical
intentions, and ethical orientation of potential
public accounting recruits. Accounting Hori-
zon, 12, 250–270.
Davis, J., & Welton, R. (1991). Professional eth-
ics: Business students’ perceptions. Journal of
Business Ethics, 10, 451–463.
Delaney, J. T., & Sockell, D. (1992). Do company
ethics training programs make a difference? An
empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics,
11, 719–727.
Dubinsky, A. J., & Ingram, T. N. (1984). Cor-
relates of salespeople’s ethical conflict: An
exploratory investigation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 3, 343–353.
Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, Pub. L.
No. 15, U.S.C. § 41-58, as amended.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977: Anti-Brib-
ery and Books & Records Provisions, Pub. L.
No. 105-366, § 15, Chapter 2B.
Fulmer, W. E., & Cargile, B. R. (1987). Ethi-
cal perceptions of accounting students: Does
exposure to a code of professional ethics help?
Issues in Accounting Education, 2, 207–219.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goodwin, J., & Goodwin, D. (1999). Ethical judg-
July/August 2009 365
 ment across cultures: A comparison between
business students from Malaysia and New Zea-
land. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 267–281.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by
individuals in organizations: An issue-contin-
gent model. Academy of Management Review,
16, 366–395.
Kidwell, J. M., Stevens, R. E., & Bethke, A. L.
(1987). Difference in the ethical perception
between male and female managers: Myth or
reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 489–493.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral
development: The nature and validity of moral
stages. In Essays on moral development (Vol.
2). San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Libby, B., & Agnello, V. (2000). Ethical decision
making and the law. Journal of Business Ethics,
21, 223–232.
Luthar, H., DiBattista, R., & Gautschi, T. (1997).
Perception of what ethical climate is and what
it should be. Journal of Business Ethics, 16,
205–217.
Malinowski, C., & Berger, K. (1996). Under-
graduate attitude about hypothetical market-
ing dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 15,
525–535.
Manley, G., Russell, C., & Buckley, M. R. (2001).
Self-enhancement in perception of unethical
behavior. Journal of Education for Business,
77, 21–28.
Martin, T. R. (1981). Do courses in ethics improve
the ethical judgment of students? Business and
Society, 20(2), 17–26.
Martin, T. R. (1982). Do courses in ethics improve
the ethical judgment of students? Business and
Society, 21(1), 17–26.
McCuddy, M. K., & Peery, B. (1996). Selected
individual differences and collegians’ ethi-
cal beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 15,
261–272.
Morris, S. A., & McDonald, R. A. (1995). The
role of moral intensity in moral judgments: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 14, 715–726.
Myers, R. (2003). Ensuring ethical effectiveness.
366 Journal of Education for Business
Journal of Accountancy, 195, 28–33.
NASDAQ. (2009). IM-5610. Code of conduct. New
York: Author. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQTools/Plat-
formViewer.asp?searched=1&selectednode=chp
%5F1%5F1%5F4%5F2%5F8%5F13&CiRestri
ction=code+of+conduct&manual=%2Fnasdaq%
2Fmain%2Fnasdaq%2Dequityrules%2F
NYSE. (2009). 303A.00 Corporate governance
standards. New York: Author. Retrieved May 6,
2009, from http://www.nyse.com/Frameset.html
?nyseref=&displayPage=/lcm/1078416930909.
html?archive=no
Okleshen, M., & Hoyt, R. (1996). A cross-cultural
comparison of ethical perspectives and deci-
sions approaches of business students: United
States of America versus New Zealand. Journal
of Business Ethics, 15, 537–549.
Phau, I., & Kea, G. (2007). Attitudes of univer-
sity students toward business ethics: A cross-
national investigation of Australia, Singapore,
and Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics,
72, 61–75.
Reiss, M. C., & Mitra, K. (1998). The effect of
individual difference factors on the acceptabil-
ity of ethical and unethical workplace behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1581–1593.
Rest, J. R. (1988). Can ethics be taught in pro-
fession schools? The psychology research. In
Ethics: Easier said than done (pp. 22–26).
Marina del Ray, CA: Joseph & Edna Josephson
Institute of Ethics.
Rohatyn, F. G. (1988). Ethics in America’s money
culture. In E. Sullivan, Ethics in American busi-
ness: A special report (pp. 25–34). New York:
Touch Ross.
Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The
importance of gender across cultures in ethical
decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics,
50, 149–165.
Ruegger, D., & King, E. W. (1992). A study of the
effect of age and gender upon student business
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 179–186.
Salmans, S. (1987, August 2). Suddenly busi-
ness schools tackle ethics. New York Times,
pp. 64–69.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
204, § 116 Stat. 745 (2002).
Serwinek, P. J. (1992). Demographic and related
differences in ethical views among small busi-
nesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 555–
566.
Sikula, A., & Costa, A. (1994). Are women more
ethical than men? Journal of Business Ethics
13, 859–871.
Singer, M. S., & Singer, A. E. (1997). Observer
judgments about moral agents’ ethical deci-
sions: The role of scope of justice and moral
intensity. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 473–
484.
Stanga, K., & Turpen, R. (1991). Ethical judg-
ments on selected accounting issues: An
empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics,
10, 739–747.
Stead, B. A., & Miller, J. J. (1988). Can social
awareness be increased through business school
curricula? Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 553–
560.
Steven, R. E., Harris, O. J., & Williamson, S.
(1993). A comparison of ethical evaluations
of business school faculty and students: A
pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 12,
611–619.
Su, S. (2006). Cultural differences in determining
the ethical perception and decision-making of
future accounting professionals: A comparison
between accounting students from Taiwan and
the United States. Journal of American Acad-
emy of Business, 9, 147–158.
Weber, J. (1990). Measuring the impact of teach-
ing ethics to future managers: A review, assess-
ment, and recommendations. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 9, 183–190.
Weeks, W., Moore, C., & Longnecker, J. (1999).
The effect of gender and career stage on ethi-
cal judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 20,
301–313.
Whipple, T. W., & Swords, D. F. (1992). Business
ethics judgments: A cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 671–678.