An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics Research in Strategic Management Journal: 1996–2005 Christopher J. Robertson ABSTRACT. From a corporate governance perspective, one of the most important jobs of a firm�s top manage- ment team is to create and maintain a positive moral environment. Business ethics has long been considered a cornerstone in the field of strategic management and a number of scholars have called for more research in this area over the years. In this paper 658 articles that appeared in Strategic Management Journal over the 10-year period between 1996 and 2005 are reviewed for business ethics focus and content. The results reveal that while business ethics research in Strategic Management Journal is on the rise, the overall focus on this research stream has been limited. The most prominent ethics theme during the review period was environmentalism, accounting for 30% of all ethics articles. Author affiliations, future research directions, and implications are also discussed. KEY WORDS: social responsibility, ethics, strategy Introduction Business ethics is a controversial topic that hits home at all levels of an organization. The recent moral lapses that triggered the downfalls of firms such as Enron and WorldCom led to a new wave of government legislation, such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is geared toward holding Chief Financial Officers and other top management team members directly accountable for the actions of their col- leagues. New laws and a revamped focus on ethics in the boardroom have created new and interesting opportunities for research into issues such as cor- porate governance and organizational culture. While the symbiotic relationship between strategy and ethics has traditionally been a fact of life, it appears that the two domains are now beginning to truly coalesce. It has been just over 10 years since LaRue Tone Hosmer�s (1994) seminal article ‘‘Strategic Planning As If Ethics Mattered’’ appeared in Strategic Man- agement Journal (SMJ hereafter). Hosmer methodically made the case for the inclusion of more ethics research in the field of strategy and he asserted that (1994, p. 17), ‘‘Ethics and the moral obligations of management were an accepted component in the strategic planning process during the early develop- ment of Corporate Strategy as a field of study.’’ There is little doubt that earlier strategy scholars envisioned ethics as a core and vital area in the field. In his classic, groundbreaking, book Administra- tive Behavior, Simon (1947, p. 47) asserted that ‘‘administrative decisions in an organizational con- text always had an ethical as well as factual content.’’ In today�s business environment the pressure on CEOs and Board of Director members to establish and maintain a cogent and unambiguous moral environment is formidable. CEOs are now fully expected to incorporate a moral dimension into their definition of the firm�s strategic visi.

1. An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics
Research in Strategic Management Journal:
1996–2005 Christopher J. Robertson
ABSTRACT. From a corporate governance perspective,
one of the most important jobs of a firm�s top manage-
ment team is to create and maintain a positive moral
environment. Business ethics has long been considered a
cornerstone in the field of strategic management and a
number of scholars have called for more research in this
area over the years. In this paper 658 articles that appeared
in Strategic Management Journal over the 10-year period
between 1996 and 2005 are reviewed for business ethics
focus and content. The results reveal that while business
ethics research in Strategic Management Journal is on the
rise, the overall focus on this research stream has been
limited. The most prominent ethics theme during the
review period was environmentalism, accounting for 30%

2. of all ethics articles. Author affiliations, future research
directions, and implications are also discussed.
KEY WORDS: social responsibility, ethics, strategy
Introduction
Business ethics is a controversial topic that hits home
at all levels of an organization. The recent moral
lapses that triggered the downfalls of firms such
as Enron and WorldCom led to a new wave of
government legislation, such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
which is geared toward holding Chief Financial
Officers and other top management team members
directly accountable for the actions of their col-
leagues. New laws and a revamped focus on ethics in
the boardroom have created new and interesting
opportunities for research into issues such as cor-
porate governance and organizational culture. While
the symbiotic relationship between strategy and
ethics has traditionally been a fact of life, it appears

3. that the two domains are now beginning to truly
coalesce.
It has been just over 10 years since LaRue Tone
Hosmer�s (1994) seminal article ‘‘Strategic Planning
As If Ethics Mattered’’ appeared in Strategic Man-
agement Journal (SMJ hereafter). Hosmer methodically
made the case for the inclusion of more ethics
research in the field of strategy and he asserted that
(1994, p. 17), ‘‘Ethics and the moral obligations of
management were an accepted component in the
strategic planning process during the early develop-
ment of Corporate Strategy as a field of study.’’
There is little doubt that earlier strategy scholars
envisioned ethics as a core and vital area in the field.
In his classic, groundbreaking, book Administra-
tive Behavior, Simon (1947, p. 47) asserted that
‘‘administrative decisions in an organizational con-
text always had an ethical as well as factual content.’’

4. In today�s business environment the pressure on
CEOs and Board of Director members to establish
and maintain a cogent and unambiguous moral
environment is formidable. CEOs are now fully
expected to incorporate a moral dimension into their
definition of the firm�s strategic vision.
In 1994 Hosmer posed the question, ‘‘where do
we stand now?’’ In the 3 years prior to his article
only three research papers focused on business ethics
appeared in SMJ. Based on this dearth of ethics
research in SMJ, Hosmer issued a directive that we
must do more to incorporate ethics research into the
realm of strategic management. The purpose of this
article is to assess the progress of business ethics
research in SMJ over the past decade. An analysis of
the ethics articles over this period should accomplish
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 80:745–753 � Springer 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9466-5
three objectives: first, facilitate an understanding of

5. how well ethics research has been incorporated into
the field of strategy, second, develop an under-
standing of the primary topics within the strategy-
ethics dyad, and third help identify deficient, and
promising, areas for future research. From a broader
perspective, the ideas generated from this meta
analysis add to the overall domain of business ethics
by focusing on the significant themes that top
management team and corporate governance
researchers have studied. This top down approach to
business ethics is designed to facilitate research
question development from a theoretical perspective
that touches multiple functional areas.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next
section I will review literature that defines core areas
of strategy-ethics research. Next I will review the
methods and results of my analysis of ethics research
in SMJ over the 10-year period. The paper con-

6. cludes with a comprehensive assessment of the state
of strategy-ethics research and the identification of
promising areas for future research.
Strategy and ethics
The realm of strategic management has traditionally
been concerned with ethical principles and the
cultivation of a certain level of integrity within and
beyond the boundaries of the organization. What are
ethical principles? According to Hosmer (1994,
p. 20), ‘‘ethical principles are not subjective measures
that vary with cultural, social, and economic con-
ditions; they are objective statements that transcend
countries, religions, and times. They are the basic
rules or first principles that have been proposed to
ensure a �good� society.’’ Although Hosmer�s defi-
nition appears to dismiss many potential discrepan-
cies in values that lead to differences in ethical
principles it does raise the issue of normative ethics,

7. an issue that has resonated with the strategy field. In
the nascent years of strategy conceptualization it was
suggested that �the impact on the public good of
strategic alternatives� be considered (Learned et al.,
1965). Freeman and Gilbert (1988) recommended
that corporate strategy should be built on a foun-
dation of ethical reasoning. Schendel and Hofer
(1979) purported that strategy should relate to an
organization�s social and political environment in a
similar fashion to the strategy industry interface.
More recently a wave of research has focused on the
strategic and moral benefits of having a strong rep-
utation (Dollinger et al., 1997; Ferguson et al.,
2000; Roberts and Dowling, 2002). And the con-
cept of corporate social responsibility, with its focus
on externally oriented discretionary moral behavior,
has also found its way into strategy research (Kassinis
and Vafeas, 2002; McWilliams and Siegel, 2000;
Waddock and Graves, 1998).

8. There have been number of studies that identified
the potential positive outcomes of fostering a strong
moral environment within a firm. In 1988 Weigelt
and Camerer concluded that the reputation of a firm
could lead to elevated financial performance. This
finding was later dissected and its subthemes
re-examined with generally supportive results
(Dollinger et al., 1997; Shamshie, 2003). While
results related to the corporate social performance–
financial performance relationship have been
mixed (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Waddock and
Graves, 1998) and support has been conclusively
linked to the financial benefits of proactive envi-
ronmental strategies (King and Shaver, 2001), min-
imizing white collar crime (Schnatterly, 2003), and
maintaining ethics codes (Stevens et al., 2005).
Other scholars have gone as far to argue that business
ethics can be used as a motivating force within a firm

9. (Solomon, 1992).
Contemporary strategy scholars have focused on
ethics related topics as diverse as pollution preven-
tion (Marcus and Geffen, 1998), female CEOs (Daily
et al., 1999) and insider trading (Ahuja et al., 2005).
A broad mosaic of theoretical foundations has also
been intertwined with the strategy-ethics research
stream. Robertson and Crittenden (2003) injected
the notion of moral philosophy, and ethical
ideologies such as formalism, relativism, and utili-
tarianism, into the domain. Stevens et al. (2005)
incorporated the theory of planned behavior into
their analysis of ethics codes on financial executive�s
decisions. Stakeholder theory, the resource-based
view, control theory, and goal theory have all been
employed in analyses of strategic behavior and cor-
porate governance mechanisms (Branzie et al., 2004;
Hillman and Keim, 2001; Shamsie, 2003).
Hosmer (1994), based on his comprehensive

10. analysis of the historical links between strategy and
ethics, clearly articulated that the decision process of
746 Christopher J. Robertson
management should go beyond economic consid-
erations. Adding a moral dimension to decision-
making leads to trust, which facilitates higher
commitment and long-term performance (Hosmer,
1994; Stevens et al., 2005). Indeed there is a home
for business ethics research in the strategy literature
for competitive and strategic fit reasons ranging from
protecting shareholder wealth, developing gover-
nance systems, and sustaining environmental per-
formance. It is therefore important at this point in
time, due to the recent lack of ethical reasoning by a
number of high-level executives, to assess the state of
ethics research in strategic management. Moreover,
it has been 10 years since Hosmer�s (1994) clamor

11. for more ethics research and as we press forward as a
field it will be beneficial to know what has been
done, and which streams of research have emerged
within the area.
Method and results
The impact of Strategic Management Journal on the
field of strategic management since its inception has
been more than exceptional. SMJ has rated at or near
the top in every journal ranking in recent years. In
one study SMJ was ranked as the most cited journal
as a percentage of references in a study of 17 jour-
nals, and 1275 articles, with close to 11% of all ref-
erences over a 2-year period (Tahai and Meyer,
1999). SMJ, combined with the Academy of Man-
agement Journal and Journal of Applied Psychology,
accounted for 30% of all citations in Tahai and
Meyer�s (1999) study. Another analysis of journal
quality found that SMJ was one of seven top jour-
nals

12. 1
that accounted for over 60% of all citations in
28 journals over a 2-decade span (Podaskoff et al.,
2005). Moreover, SMJ remained in the top group of
journals for the entire 20-year period (Podaskoff
et al., 2005). The evidence from further research
reinforces the general conclusion that SMJ is the
premier journal in the field of strategy since its
inception in 1980 (MacMillan, 1991; Park and
Gordon, 1996; Podaskoff et al., 2005; Salancik,
1986; Tahai and Meyer, 1999; Trieschmann et al.,
2000). Therefore SMJ was selected as the outlet
for strategy-ethics research with the highest level
of impact. Certainly authors can publish their
research focused on the strategy-ethics link in other
important Management journals such as Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management Review,
Journal of Management and journals focused on busi-

13. ness ethics such as Journal of Business Ethics, Business
Ethics Quarterly and Business and Society. Neverthe-
less, to be consistent with Hosmer�s assessment of
strategy-ethics research at the highest level it was
concluded that focusing on SMJ alone would yield a
cogent, parsimonious, assessment of the state of
strategy-ethics research.
The time period of 1996–2005 was selected for the
analysis. In addition to the advantage of being recent,
I determined that this 10-year span would capture a
broad spectrum of strategy research which could not
be contained in a shorter period of time. Further,
over the 10 years selected a number of high-profile
scandals (i.e., Enron, Global Crossing) and anti-cor-
ruption legislation and agreements (i.e., Sabanes-
Oxley and the OECD anti-bribery agreement) took
place, which results in an era rich in salient topics.
Although the selection of only one journal for the
analysis has some disadvantages this approach is not

14. unprecedented (for example see Inkpen and Beam-
ish, 1994). Moreover, based on the general consensus
that there is only one premier or flagship journal in
the field of strategy, I concluded that focusing on
SMJ alone would be the most accurate technique for
assessing the impact of ethics on the field of strategic
management.
The baseline data collection technique employed
was adapted from the procedures used in earlier
studies by Inkpen and Beamish (1994) and Kumar
and Kundu (2004). Thus each article published in
SMJ over the review period was analyzed for ethics
content. Special issue introductions and editorial
commentaries were not counted. A running count
of the annual total of articles and the number of ethics
focused articles was maintained. Information was also
collected on the academic affiliations of authors. To
be consistent with prior methodology in cases of

15. co-authorship the institutions of each author were
credited with an article (Kumar and Kundu, 2004).
While this technique resulted in double-counting
when an article was written by two scholars from the
same institution, this use of absolute counting has
been employed many times (i.e., Trieshmann et al.,
2000) and can be interpreted objectively since the
ranking of schools is relative. Nevertheless, strong
debate is always possible regarding which affiliation
An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics Research 747
counting technique to use; so to facilitate compari-
sons across methods a computation of article totals
adjusted for co-authorship was also performed.
What constitutes ethics focused research? This is
indeed a challenging question, especially since it is
certainly possible to ascertain ethical implications out of
almost any line of research. While an objective of

16. this article is to evaluate research that is primarily
focused on ethics and ethical decision-making, there
is some degree of subjectivity in the process because
one researcher�s definition of ethics focused may be
different than another�s. To better ground the
decision of whether or not research was ethics
focused reference to a definition of business ethics
was introduced along with the development of a list
of qualifying topics. The definition presented by
Ferrell et al.(2005, p. 6) is therefore employed,
‘‘Business ethics comprises the principles and stan-
dards that guide behavior in the workplace.’’
In Table I there is a list of qualifying topics for
ethics focused research. The top half of the table
contains topics that were deemed clearly ethics fo-
cused. Topics such as corporate social responsibility,
reputation management, codes of ethics, and envi-
ronmental degradation appear on this list. The lower
half of the list includes topics that were close but

17. were deemed not exclusively, and primarily, focused
on ethics. It should be noted that if a non-qualifying
topic was in fact conceptually or empirically linked
to an ethical issue, or a qualifying topic, in an article
then that article was included as an ethics focused
article. For example, a study of how CEO com-
pensation relates to stock market performance would
not be included, yet a study of the morality of the gap
between line worker pay and CEO pay would be
included as ethics focused.
Results
So how are we doing in the field of strategy with the
publication of business ethics research? In Table II a
summary of the articles that were deemed ethics
focused in SMJ between 1996 and 2005 is presented.
A total of 23 articles, or 2.3 per year, clearly
appeared to have an objective or purpose that was
primarily oriented toward a business ethics concept.

18. The 23 articles represent 3.5% of all SMJ articles
during the 10-year period. Interestingly, and as
TABLE I
Qualifying topics for ethics focused research
Qualifying topics
Corruption
Morality
Reputation management
Corporate social responsibility
Glass ceiling/gender equality
Ethical decision-making
White-collar crime
Insider trading
Environmental issues (natural environment)
Codes of ethics
Non-qualifying topics
Layoffs
Downsizing

19. CEO compensation
Anti-dumping legislation (financial dumping)
Organizational commitment
Business risk
Organizational slack
Patent litigation
Religion
Takeovers
Social capital
Corporate governance
Risk-taking
Firm survival
Bankruptcy
TABLE II
Summary of business ethics articles appearing in Strate-
gic Management Journal: 1996–2005
Year #Articles #Ethics Articles Percentage
1996 47 2 4.3

20. 1997 65 2 3.1
1998 70 1 1.4
1999 63 1 1.6
2000 69 2 2.9
2001 62 2 3.2
2002 71 2 2.8
2003 78 6 7.7
2004 68 2 2.9
2005 65 3 4.6
Total 658 23 3.5
748 Christopher J. Robertson
expected, the number of ethics focused articles has
increased since the widely publicized scandals of
Enron, Worldcom et al. in 2000. Between 1996 and
2000 only eight ethics focused articles appeared in
SMJ (2.5% of all articles during the period) com-
pared to 15 ethics focused articles between 2001 and

21. 2005 (4.4%). Although the overall number of articles
focused on ethics during the 10-year span is on the
low end, this near doubling of strategy-ethics articles
published in SMJ in the past 5 years is a very
positive trend. It is also noteworthy to point out that
the year 2003 was a very strong year with six ethics
articles, or 7.7% of all SMJ articles that year and 25%
of the 10 year total. The passing of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act in July of 2002, and the vast media attention to
ethics in 2000 and 2001 likely played a role in the
higher level of interest and quality research of ethical
topics published in SMJ in that year.
A content analysis of the 23 articles that appeared
in SMJ over the review period was performed to
look for commonalities across thematic areas.
2
A
deeper look at the articles published during the

22. period revealed six cogent themes that have emerged
in the strategy-ethics literature. Table III summarizes
the major thematic clusters. The most prominent
theme was clearly environmental research with a
total of seven articles. The environmental topics
varied and included such foci as pollution preven-
tion, environmental legislation, natural capital,
and proactive environmental strategies Russo, 2003;
Sharma and Henriques, 2005. Theoretical founda-
tions employed by SMJ�s environmental researchers
included stakeholder theory, distinctive competen-
cies, sustainability and board composition. Four of
the seven environmental articles focused on chiefly
on external stakeholder issues while the other three
articles incorporated implications for both internal
and external stakeholders.
The second classification of ethical themes was
labeled ‘‘ethical policies and planning.’’ The five
articles that fell into this group analyzed policy and

23. performance related ethical issues. Specific topics
included the link between corporate social perfor-
mance and financial performance, executive-level
gender discrimination, and the link between ethics
codes and financial executive decision-making. The
stakeholder focus of the articles in this category was
mixed with one article leaning toward external
stakeholders, two toward internal stakeholders and
T
A
B
L
E
II
I
S
u
m
m
ar
y
o

24. f
m
aj
o
r
b
u
si
n
e
ss
e
th
ic
s
th
e
m
e
s
ap
p
e
ar
in
g

25. in
S
M
J:
1
9
9
6
–
2
0
0
5
T
h
e
m
at
ic
ar
e
a
N
u
m
b
e
r

26. o
f
ar
ti
c
le
s
S
p
e
c
ifi
c
to
p
ic
s
w
it
h
in
ar
e
a
E
n
v

27. ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l
Is
su
e
s
7
P
o
ll
u
ti
o
n
p
re
v
e
n
ti
o
n

28. as
a
d
is
ti
n
c
ti
v
e
c
o
m
p
e
te
n
c
y
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e

29. n
ta
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
f
fo
re
ig
n
fi
rm
s
in
th
e
U
n
it
e
d

30. S
ta
te
sE
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l
li
ti
g
at
io
n
an
d
b
o
ar
d
c

31. o
m
p
o
si
ti
o
n
N
at
u
ra
l
c
ap
it
al
an
d
su
st
ai
n
ab
le
in

32. d
u
st
ri
e
sP
ro
ac
ti
v
e
e
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
ta
l
st
ra
te
g
ie

33. sG
re
e
n
st
ra
te
g
ie
s
in
C
h
in
e
se
fi
rm
sS
ta
k
e
h
o
ld

34. e
r
in
fl
u
e
n
c
e
s
in
C
an
ad
ia
n
fo
re
st
p
ro
d
u
c
ts
E
th

35. ic
al
p
o
li
c
ie
s
an
d
p
la
n
n
in
g
5
C
o
rp
o
ra
te
so
c
ia

36. l
p
e
rf
o
rm
an
c
e
an
d
fi
n
an
c
ia
l
p
e
rf
o
rm
an
c
e
(2

37. )G
e
n
d
e
r
d
is
c
ri
m
in
at
io
n
in
th
e
b
o
ar
d
ro
o
m

38. S
o
c
ia
l
is
su
e
s
an
d
sh
ar
e
h
o
ld
e
r
v
al
u
e
E
th
ic

39. s
c
o
d
e
s
an
d
fi
n
an
c
ia
l
e
x
e
c
u
ti
v
e
s
d
e
c
is
io
n
s

40. R
e
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
m
an
ag
e
m
e
n
t
4
R
e
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
an
d

41. jo
in
t
v
e
n
tu
re
sR
e
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
an
d
p
e
rf
o
rm
an
c
e
R

42. e
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
an
d
st
ra
te
g
ic
g
ro
u
p
sR
e
p
u
ta
ti
o
n

43. an
d
m
ar
k
e
t
d
o
m
in
an
c
e
W
h
it
e
-c
o
ll
ar
c
ri
m
e

44. 3
F
ir
m
v
al
u
e
an
d
w
h
it
e
-c
o
ll
ar
c
ri
m
e
d
e
te
c
ti

45. o
n
an
d
p
re
v
e
n
ti
o
n
In
si
d
e
r
tr
ad
in
g
an
d
R
&
D
In

46. si
d
e
r
tr
ad
in
g
an
d
at
te
m
p
te
d
re
n
t
ap
p
ro
p
ri
at

47. io
n
C
o
rr
u
p
ti
o
n
an
d
in
te
rn
at
io
n
al
m
ar
k
e
t
an
al

48. y
si
s
2
M
o
ra
l
p
h
il
o
so
p
h
y
in
m
u
lt
in
at
io
n
al

49. fi
rm
sC
o
rr
u
p
ti
o
n
an
d
F
D
I
A
ss
e
ss
m
e
n
ts
o
f
b

50. u
si
n
e
ss
e
th
ic
s
re
se
ar
c
h
2
L
in
k
b
e
tw
e
e
n
g
o
o

51. d
e
th
ic
s
an
d
g
o
o
d
b
u
si
n
e
ss
(2
)
An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics Research 749
two mixed. The third thematic area clustered around
reputation management. A total of four articles fell
into this category and the common variable of rep-

52. utation was linked to joint ventures, performance,
strategic groups, and market dominance Schwab,
1996. All four of these articles emphasized the role of
reputation directed toward external organizational
stakeholders.
The fourth theme identified focused on white-
collar crimes such as insider trading. Two of the three
white-collar crime articles focused explicitly on in-
sider trading while the third looked at the relationship
between firm value and the detection and prevention
of white-collar crimes. All three white-collar crime
articles focused principally on management principles
directed toward internal stakeholders.
The fifth theme coalesced around the relationship
between ethics and internationalization, with an eye
toward foreign market analysis. Two articles assessed
corruption in international business from a market
analysis perspective. One of these articles empha-

53. sized the link between FDI and Corruption, an
external stakeholder focus, while the other assessed
moral philosophy�s role in international business
from a multi-stakeholder paradigm. The sixth and
final theme clustered around the idea of assessments
of business ethics research and contained two arti-
cles. One article, by Hosmer (1996), was essentially a
critique of the impact of business ethics on firm
performance while the other article was a cogent
response to Hosmer�s article.
A brief analysis of the affiliations that were most
represented in the 23 ethics focused articles pub-
lished in SMJ over the sampled time frame indicated
that a total of 49 scholars from 27 institutions were
represented. Based on absolute number of author
appearances 13 institutions had two or more articles
published by their faculty members with Indiana
University leading the way with a total of five arti-
cles. The University of Minnesota and Northeastern

54. University each had four author appearances
followed by Emory University and the University of
British Columbia with three.
Discussion
The themes identified in this analysis shine some
light on what the editorial board members of SMJ
believe is important business ethics research. Despite
the fact that a number of strategy researchers have
lobbied for more emphasis on ethics within the
strategy research agenda there appears to be a certain
level of ambivalence surrounding the value and
importance of the topic in the field. Has Hosmer�s
(1994) call more ethics research in the field of
strategy been answered? This is unclear. Yet the
progress has been impressive. As mentioned earlier
only three ethics focused articles, according to
Hosmer, appeared in SMJ in the 3 years prior to his
1994 piece. That is an average of 1.0 per year. After

55. a 1-year lag, to provide ample time for a response
from academia, the momentum appeared to begin.
With an average of 2.3 articles per year since 1996,
more than double the rate of the early 1990s there is
evidence that ethics has established a strong footing
in the field of strategy.
As a follow-up procedure, I decided to perform
an analysis of the citation impact of the 23 articles
identified as ethics focused to assess which articles
have had the greatest impact.
3
Leading the way was
the 1997 article about the corporate social perfor-
mance–financial performance link by Waddock and
Graves (1998) with 119 citations. Two additional
articles received above 50 citations: Hillman and
Keim�s (2001) ‘‘Shareholder value, stakeholder
management, and social issues: what�s the bottom
line’’ with 54 citations and Dollinger et al.�s (1997)
study of the impact of reputation on joint venture

56. decisions with 53 citations.
The notion of trust has consistently been deemed a
vital area for researchers of business ethics (Hosmer,
1994; Solomon, 1992). To what extent have strategy
researchers addressed the pivotal ethical issue of trust
in the past decade? Although trust was not directly
analyzed it is a theme that is certainly embedded in a
number of constructs. Of the five ethical themes
identified the trust implications are more than sali-
ent. It is probably not possible to build a (positive)
reputation without the trust of various stakeholders.
White-collar crimes and insider trading are viola-
tions of trust Coff and Lee 2003. Ethics codes, one
could argue, are pragmatic mechanisms that the top
management team or board of directors put in place
as insurance policies for when individuals with a
propensity for misconduct violate trust (Stevens
et al., 2005). The link between trust and environ-

57. mental issues is intuitive as well. In their article that
750 Christopher J. Robertson
assessed proactive environmental strategies Buysse
and Verbeke (2003) employ a stakeholder manage-
ment perspective to essentially identify a method for
firms to build trust, and thus reputation, via the
pursuit of a conscientious green agenda.
Limitations and future research directions
In any analysis of journal scope and content limita-
tions exits. As mentioned earlier the use of SMJ
alone as the outlet for strategy-ethics research can be
contested. While SMJ is considered the top strategy
journal, researchers have published strategy articles
with an ethics focus in other top journals. Since the
resulting set of ethics focused research only
amounted to 23 articles identifying deep common-
alities across themes was challenging. The summary

58. of affiliations is also of course limited due to the
narrow scope of this paper. Indeed many institutions
that did not make my list may very well have
scholars that consistently publish strategy-ethics re-
search, yet not in SMJ. A further limitation in the
current analysis is the protocol employed to deter-
mine what constitutes ethics focused research. Very
little precedent exists related to the determination of
topics that fall under the realm of strategy-ethics and
hopefully the list of qualifying topics developed for
this paper, albeit imperfect, will set the tone for
future work in this area.
What are the gaps in the literature? The research
body focused on business ethics has expanded
substantially over the past two decades and scholars
are continually integrating new theoretical bases
into the field of strategy. One suggestion would be
to draw more from peripheral areas, such as the

59. pervasiveness vs. arbitrariness framework employed
by Rodrı́guez et al. (2005), as a method for
broadening the strategy-ethics paradigm. Only five
ethics focused articles appearing in SMJ over the
past decade have had an international focus, vari-
able set, or sample. With the pace, rhythm and
scope of internationalization it appears that there is
room for more international research of business
ethics in the field of strategy. The link between
corporate governance, a centerpiece of the field of
strategy, and ethics has also been under-represented
in SMJ. Many scholars have argued (i.e., Robertson
and Watson, 2004; Stevens et al., 2005) that poor
governance procedures and mechanisms created
moral corporate climates in the late 1990s and early
into the new millennium in which unethical
behavior flourished. Less than five articles between
1996 and 2005 focused on the implications and

60. ramifications that poor corporate governance can
have on a firm�s moral performance.
Finally, it seems apropos to point out again that
due to the recent moral debacles in industry,
resulting from a lack of ethical reasoning in the
strategic decision processes of executives, the
integrity of financial markets and governance systems
has been extremely damaged (Stevens et al., 2005).
Top management team members of multinational
firms have been facing increasing pressure from
stakeholders with respect to social and ethical issues.
This heightened interest has led to an increase in the
level of scrutiny of business ethics in the global
economy by academic researchers (i.e., Cullen et al.,
2004; Husted, 1999). Business ethics scholars have
examined a multitude of influential factors includ-
ing, but not limited to, individual values, moral
intensity, situational factors, moral philosophies,
cultural values, political inclination, and economic

61. variables (Fritzsche and Becker, 1984; Jones, 1991;
Rest, 1986). Yet the assimilation of these themes
into the highest level of strategy research has
been limited. Hopefully in this article I have iden-
tified salient topics and gaps in the strategy literature
that will provide a roadmap, albeit incomplete,
which will set the tone for future business ethics
research.
Notes
1
The other six journals were Administrative Science
Quarterly,Academy of Management Review, Academy of
Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Person-
nel Psychology and Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes.
2
The 23 articles are listed in the reference section of
this paper and signified by an asterisk (*).
3

62. Citation analyses were performed using Google Scho-
lar advanced search. It should be noted as well that it
takes a few years, due to the review process, after an
article is published for other scholars to officially cite
that article.
An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics Research 751
References
*Designates one of the 23 articles deemed
ethics focused that appeared in SMJ
between 1996–2005
*Ahuja, G., R. Coff and P. Lee: 2005, �Managerial
Foresight and Attempted Rent Appropriation: Insider
Trading on Knowledge of Imminent Breakthroughs�,
Strategic Management Journal 26(9), 791–808.
*Branzei, O., T. Ursacki-Bryant, I. Vertinsky and W.
Zhang: 2004, �The Formation of Green Strategies in
Chinese Firms: Matching Corporate Environmental
Responses and Individual Principles�, Strategic Man-
agement Journal 25(11), 1075–1095.

63. *Buysse, K. and A. Verbeke: 2003, �Proactive Environ-
mental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Per-
spective�, Strategic Management Journal 24(5), 453–470.
*Coff, R. and P. Lee: 2003, �Insider Trading as a Vehicle
to Appropriate Rent from R&D�, Strategic Management
Journal 24(2), 183–190.
Cullen, J., K. Parboteeah and M. Hoegl: 2004, Cross-
National Differences in Manager�s Willingness to Jus-
tify Ethically Suspect Behaviors: A test of Institutional
Anomie Theory, Academy of Management Journal 47(3),
411–421.
*Daily, C., S. Certo and D. Dalton: 1999, �A Decade of
Corporate Women: Some Progress in the Boardroom,
None in the Executive Suite�, Strategic Management
Journal 20(1), 93–100.
*Dollinger, M., P. Golden and T. Saxton: 1997, �The
Effect of Reputation on the Decision to Joint Ven-
ture�, Strategic Management Journal 19(2), 127–140.
*Ferguson,T., D. Deephouse and W. Ferguson: 2000,
�Do strategic groups differ in reputation?�, Strategic
Management Journal 21(12), 1195–1214.
Ferrell, O. C., J. Fraedrich and L. Ferrell: 2005, Business
Ethics: Ethical Decision-Making and Cases (Houghton

64. Mifflin Company, Boston).
Freeman, R. and D. Gilbert: 1988, Corporate Strategy and
the Search for Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Enhlewood Cliffs,
NJ).
Fritzsche, D. and H. Becker: 1984, Linking Managerial
Behavior to Ethical Philosophy – An Empirical
Investigation, Academy of Management Journal 27,
166–175.
*Hillman, A. and G. Keim: 2001, �Shareholder Value,
Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What�s
the Bottom Line?�, Strategic Management Journal 22(2),
125–139.
Hosmer, L.: 1994, Strategic Planning as if Ethics Mat-
tered, Strategic Management Journal 15, 17–34.
*Hosmer, L.: 1996, �Response to �Do good ethics always
make for good business?’’, Strategic Management Journal
17(6), 501.
Husted, B.: 1999, Wealth, Culture, and Corruption,
Journal of International Business Studies 30(2), 339–360.
Inkpen, A. and P. Beamish: 1994, An Analysis of

65. Twenty-five Years of Research in the Journal of
International Business Studies, Journal of International
Business Studies 4, 703–713.
Jones, T.: 1991, Ethical Decision Making by Individuals
in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model, Acad-
emy of Management Review 16(2), 366–395.
*Kassinis, G. and N. Vafeas: 2002, �Corporate Boards and
Outside Stakeholders as Determinants of Environ-
mental Litigation�, Strategic Management Journal 23(5),
399–415.
*King, A. and J. M. Shaver: 2001, �Are Aliens Green?
Assessing Foreign Establishments Environmental
Conduct in the United States�, Strategic Management
Journal 22(11), 1069–1085.
Kumar, V. and S. Kundu: 2004, Ranking the Interna-
tional Business Schools: Faculty Publication as the
Measure, Management International Review 44(2), 213–
228.
Learned, E., C. R. Christensen, K. R. Andrews and W.
D. Guth: 1965, Business Policy: Text and Cases (Rich-

66. ard D Irwin, Homewood, IL).
MacMillan, I.: 1991, The Emerging Forum for Business
Policy Scholars, Strategic Management Journal 12(2),
161–165.
*Marcus, A. and D. Geffen: 1998, �The Dialectics of
Competency Acquisition: Pollution Prevention in
Electric Generation�, Strategic Management Journal
12(19), 1145–1168.
*McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2000, �Corporate Social
responsibility and financial performance: correlation or
misspecification�, Strategic Management Journal 5(21),
603–609.
Park, S. and M. Gordon: 1996, Publication Records and
Tenure Decisions in the Field of Strategic Manage-
ment, Strategic Management Journal 17(2), 109–128.
Podsakoff, P., S. MacKenzie, D. Bachrach and N. Pod-
sakoff: 2005, The Influence of Management Journals
in the 1980s and 1990s, Strategic Management Journal
26(4), 473–488.
Rest, J.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research and

67. Theory (Praeger, New York).
*Roberts, P. and G. Dowling: 2002, �Corporate
Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Perfor-
mance�, Strategic Management Journal 23(12), 1077–
1093.
752 Christopher J. Robertson
*Robertson, C. and W. Crittenden: 2003, �Mapping
Moral Philosophies: Strategic Implications for Multi-
national Firms�, Strategic Management Journal 24, 385–
392.
*Robertson, C. and A. Watson: 2004, �Corruption and
Change: The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment�,
Strategic Management Journal 25(4), 385–396.
Rodrı́guez, P., K. Uhlenbruck and L. Eden: 2005,
Government Corruption and the Entry Strategies of
Multinationals, Academy of Management Review 30(2),
383–396.
*Russo, M.: 2003, �The Emergence of Sustainable
Industries: Building on Natural Capital�, Strategic
Management Journal 24(4), 317–331.
Salancik, G.: 1986, An Index of Subgroup Influence in

68. Dependency Networks, Administrative Sciences Quar-
terly 31(2), 194–211.
Schendel, D. and C. Hofer: 1979, Strategic Management: A
New View of Business Policy and Planning (Little, Brown,
Boston, MA).
*Schnatterly, K.: 2003, �Increasing Firm Value through
Detection and Prevention of White-collar Crime�,
Strategic Management Journal 24(7), 587–614.
*Schwab, B.: 1996, �A Note on Ethics and Strategy: Do
Good Ethics always Make for Good Business�, Strategic
Management Journal 17(6), 499–500.
*Shamsie, J.: 2003, �The Context of Dominance: An
Industry-driven Framework for Exploiting Reputa-
tion�, Strategic Management Journal 24(3), 199–215.
*Sharma, S. and I. Henriques: 2005, �Stakeholder Influ-
ences on Sustainability Practices in the Canadian
Forest Products Industry�, Strategic Management Journal
26(2), 159–180.
Simon, H.: 1947, Administrative Behavior (Free Press, New
York).
Solomon, R. C.: 1992, Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation

69. and Integrity (Oxford University Press, New York).
*Stevens, J., H. Steensma, D. Harrison and P. Cochran:
2005, �Symbolic or Substantive Document? The
Influence of Ethics Codes on Financial Executives
Decisions�, Strategic Management Journal 26(2), 181–195.
Tahai, A. and M. Meyer: 1999, A Revealed Preference
Study of Management Journals Direct Influences,
Strategic Management Journal 20(3), 279–296.
Trieschmann, J., A. Dennis, G. Northcraft and A. Niemi:
2000, Serving Multiple Constituencies in Business
Schools: M.B.A. Program versus Research Performance,
Academy of Management Journal 43(6), 1130–1141.
*Waddock, S. and S. Graves: 1998, �The Corporate
Social Performance-Financial Performance Link�,
Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319.
International Business, College of Business
Administration,
Northeastern University,
313 Hayden Hall, Boston, MA, 02115, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
An Analysis of 10 years of Business Ethics Research 753

70. 730
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005. 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford,
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK
CORGCorporate Governance: An International
Review0964-8410Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005
November 2005136730738Original Articles
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS ETHICS
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
*An earlier version of this

71. paper was presented at the
2004 Australian and New
Zealand Academy of Manage-
ment Conference, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
**Address for correspondence:
Graduate School of Manage-
ment, Griffith University, PMB
50 Gold Coast Mail Centre,
Queensland 9726, Australia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Corporate Governance and Business
Ethics: insights from the strategic
planning experience
*
Ingrid Bonn** and Josie Fisher
In this paper we develop an integrated approach towards
corporate governance and business
ethics. Our central argument is that organisations can learn from
the development of strategic
planning in the 1970s and 1980s. We identify three weaknesses
– a bureaucratic and formalised
approach, lack of implementation and lack of integration
throughout the organisation – which
were prevalent in strategic planning in the past and which are
potentially just as problematic
for an integrated corporate governance approach to business
ethics. We suggest ways these
weaknesses might be avoided and provide questions for boards

72. of directors to consider when
integrating ethical concerns into their organisations’ corporate
governance structures.
Keywords: Corporate governance, business ethics, strategic
planning
Introduction
orporate governance is concerned with
the processes by which organisations are
directed, controlled and held accountable
(Australian Standard AS8000, 2003). It deals
with the rights and responsibilities of an
organisation’s board, its management, share-
holders and other stakeholders (OECD, 2004)
and requires balancing their interests with the
economic goals of the organisation as well as
the interests of society as a whole. Sir Adrian
Cadbury (2000) made this point very clear:
Corporate Governance is concerned with hold-
ing the balance between economic and social
goals and between individual and communal
goals. The corporate governance framework is
there to encourage the efficient use of resources
and equally to require accountability for the
stewardship of those resources. The aim is to
align as nearly as possible the interests of indi-
viduals, corporations and society.

73. Cadbury’s definition suggests that corporate
governance is an overarching concept with
implications for an organisation’s approach to
C
corporate social responsibility and business
ethics in addition to ensuring that regulatory
responsibilities are fulfilled.
Over the past decade, there has been an
increased interest in corporate governance.
This can partly be attributed to a rising num-
ber of corporate crises and failures. Events
such as the
Exxon Valdez
disaster, where an
entire ecosystem was threatened, or the
Ford Pinto scandal (where the organisation
decided to put profit ahead of human safety
by not recalling cars despite their known
defects) have sparked discussions about the
role of large corporations in society and
raised questions about their ethical stan-
dards, management decisions and corporate
governance practices (Kiel and Nicholson,
2003). Corporate failures such as Enron and
WorldCom in the United States and HIH
Insurance, Ansett and Pan Pharmaceuticals in
Australia have raised concerns over the effec-
tiveness of corporate governance and corpo-

74. rate accountability.
The above examples of corporate failures
and managerial misconduct highlight the
need for organisations to pay more attention
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS ETHICS
731
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
to corporate governance practices. In this
paper we focus on how organisations can
address concerns about corporate social
responsibility and, particularly, business
ethics in their corporate governance struc-
tures, and how they can encourage high
standards of ethical behaviour throughout
their organisations. We first discuss the
relationship between corporate social respon-
sibility, business ethics and corporate gover-
nance. We then draw an analogy between the
approach towards strategic planning in the
1970s and early 1980s and the approach
towards corporate governance and business
ethics at present. We argue that there are les-

75. sons to be learnt from the development of stra-
tegic planning that can be used to provide
guidance for an integrated corporate gover-
nance approach that incorporates principles
relating to ethical conduct. We identify three
areas of potential weakness in incorporating
business ethics into corporate governance that
were also evident in the development of stra-
tegic planning, namely (1) a bureaucratic and
formalised approach, (2) lack of implementa-
tion and (3) lack of integration throughout the
organisation. We discuss the ways strategic
planning has overcome these areas of weak-
ness and suggest how corporate governance
can deal with them. We then provide a number
of questions that can guide boards of directors
when integrating ethical concerns into their
organisation’s corporate governance structure
and evaluating their success in doing so.
Corporate social responsibility,
business ethics and corporate
governance
It is widely claimed that businesses have obli-
gations that go beyond profit maximisation
and that businesses should make a positive
contribution to society (see for example,
Boatright, 2003; Carroll, 1999; Fisher, 2004;
Robbins
et al.

76. , 2003; Shaw and Barry, 2004).
Corporate social responsibility, according to
Epstein, “relates primarily to achieving out-
comes from organizational decisions concern-
ing specific issues or problems which (by some
normative standard) have beneficial rather
than adverse effects upon pertinent corporate
stakeholders” (1987, p. 104). It involves
“bringing corporate behavior up to a level
where it is congruent with the prevailing
social norms, values, and expectations” (Sethi
quoted in Boatright, 2003, p. 374). Corporate
social responsibility encompasses those expec-
tations society has of organisations at a given
point in time. They are “the behaviors and
norms that society expects business to follow”
(Carroll, 1999, p. 283). Society expects busi-
nesses to make a profit and obey the law and,
in addition, to behave in certain ways and
conform to the ethical norms of society.
These behaviours and practices go beyond
the requirements of the law, and seem to be
constantly expanding (Carroll, 1999).
The relationship between corporate social
responsibility and business ethics can be char-
acterised in various ways. Carroll’s “Pyramid
of Corporate Social Responsibility” (1991, p.
42), one of the most widely cited approaches,
identifies four dimensions of corporate social
responsibility: economic, legal, ethical and
philanthropic (or discretionary). More re-
cently, Schwartz and Carroll (2003) pro-
posed a three domain account of corporate

77. social responsibility. These domains are con-
sistent with the earlier model except that
philanthropy is no longer a discrete category.
The domains are represented by a Venn dia-
gram with the overlapping circles represent-
ing economic, legal and ethical responsibilities
resulting in seven combinations. In both
models, ethics is one aspect of the corporate
social responsibilities of business.
As pointed out above, corporate governance
is concerned with the processes by which
organisations are directed, controlled and held
accountable and requires balancing the inter-
ests of various stakeholders and society as a
whole with the economic goals of the organ-
isation. While corporate governance is con-
cerned with all of the dimensions of corporate
social responsibility identified above, it is the
way that ethics is dealt with at the governance
level that is the focus of this paper. In other
words, we focus on organisational approaches
to ethics at the level of corporate governance.
Corporate governance principles and
business ethics
The need for organisations to make explicit the
behaviour expected from board members is
widely recognised. For example, the Austra-
lian Stock Exchange (ASX) Corporate Gover-
nance Council advises organisations to
“clarify the standards of ethical behaviour
required of company directors and key

78. executives . . . and encourage the observance
of those standards” (2003, p. 25). The ASX rec-
ommends establishing a code of conduct that
identifies practices for directors, the CEO and
other key executives necessary to preserve the
ethical reputation and integrity of the com-
pany and that outlines the responsibility of
individuals to report unethical practices. The
732
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
ASX also suggests a number of areas with
which a code of conduct should deal: conflicts
of interest, corporate opportunities, confi-
dentiality, fair dealing, protection of and
proper use of the organisation’s assets, com-
pliance with laws and regulations, and en-
couraging the reporting of unlawful/unethical
behaviour (ASX, 2003).
Similar guidelines for corporate governance
have also been developed by the OECD, the
Higgs report in the United Kingdom, the New

79. York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Council
of Standards Australia. The Higgs report, for
example, states that “[t]he board should set
the company’s values and standards and
ensure that its obligations to its shareholders
and others are understood and met” (2003, p.
21). The report further outlines the personal
attributes that should be possessed by non-
executive directors: “First and foremost, integ-
rity, probity and high ethical standards are a
prerequisite for all directors” (p. 29).
In addition to making board expectations
explicit, there is also a recognised need for
companies to provide information relating to
expected behaviour to all employees. The
Investment and Financial Services Association
Limited (IFSA) Guideline 17 (2003, p. 36), for
example, recommends the adoption of a com-
pany code of ethics. The NYSE Rule 10 states:
“Listed companies must adopt and disclose a
code of business conduct and ethics for direc-
tors, officers and employees . . .” (2003, p. 15).
The ASX (2003) identifies ten corporate gover-
nance principles, two of which are of interest
here because they clearly refer to ethics – Prin-
ciple 3: Promote ethical and responsible
decision-making and Principle 10: Recognise
the legitimate interests of stakeholders. One
obvious way for a board to respond to these
principles is to introduce a code of conduct/
ethics for all employees in addition to a code
that focuses on the board and top executives.
The above recommendations suggest that
an organisation’s approach to ethics must

80. have its foundation in its corporate gover-
nance framework. However, we argue that
this is just the first step. Pan Pharmaceuticals
Limited, an Australian publicly listed com-
pany, is an example of an organisation that
despite meeting its corporate governance
requirements was forced into receivership
because of its unethical behaviour. Pan
Pharmaceuticals was Australia’s largest con-
tract manufacturer of complementary medi-
cines such as herbal, vitamin, mineral and
nutritional supplements. They also manufac-
tured some over-the-counter medicines, in-
cluding pain relievers and cold and flu
preparations. In its 2002 annual report, Pan
Pharmaceuticals stated that the board “accepts
and observes the recommendations of the Cor-
porate Governance Council of the Australian
Stock Exchange Limited”. However, in April
2003 the Australian medicines watchdog, the
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA),
suspended the licence held by Pan Pharma-
ceuticals to manufacture medicines after TGA
inspectors found serious deficiencies and fail-
ures in the company’s manufacturing and
quality control procedures, including the sys-
tematic and deliberate manipulation of quality
control test data, substitution of ingredients
and substandard manufacturing processes.
The Expert Advisory Committee which re-
viewed the audit reports advised the TGA
that the failures in manufacturing practices
were so bad that they created immediate risks
of death, serious injury or serious illness and
that no confidence could be placed in the

81. quality of any products manufactured by Pan
Pharmaceuticals. This led to the biggest pro-
duct recall in Australia’s history and the com-
pany went into liquidation in September 2003
(Australian Consumers’ Association, 2003;
Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2003).
As the example of Pan Pharmaceuticals
demonstrates, accepting and observing the
recommendations of the Corporate Gover-
nance Council is not enough to ensure ethical
behaviour throughout the organisation. In the
next sections we discuss what organisations
can do to move beyond mere compliance with
corporate governance principles in order to
develop an integrated approach towards cor-
porate governance and business ethics that
encourages high standards of ethical be-
haviour throughout the organisation. We
approach this task by drawing an analogy
between the approach towards strategic
planning in the 1970s and 1980s and business
ethics at present. We believe it is appropriate
to draw such an analogy for three main rea-
sons. First, strategic planning can be regarded
as an on-going process by which senior man-
agers identify objectives and choose a set of
strategies for the organisation. This process
requires input from middle managers as well
as employees at the operating level (Floyd and
Wooldridge, 2000). Similarly, a commitment to
business ethics involves establishing policies
and processes that identify and support the
ethical objectives of the organisation. This pro-
cess also requires continuous input from all
levels within the organisation (Ferrell

82. et al.
,
2000; Schermerhorn, 2002).
Second, strategic planning is goal-oriented
and encourages a medium- to long-term per-
spective of what an organisation wants to
achieve (Hill
et al.
, 2004). Likewise, the identi-
fication and adoption of ethical principles has
the purpose of encouraging certain kinds of
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS ETHICS
733
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005

83. behaviours and outcomes, is regarded as posi-
tive for business in the long-term (Grace and
Cohen, 2005) and, together with other corpo-
rate governance principles, can drive business
performance (KPMG, 2003). Third, strategic
planning requires cross-sectional communica-
tion and cooperation and serves an important
integrative function within the organisation
(Viljoen and Dann, 2000). In exactly the same
way, a commitment to business ethics requires
the engagement of everyone in the organisa-
tion (Grace and Cohen, 2005) and involves
identifying shared values and objectives
towards which the entire organisation works.
Building upon these similarities, we argue
that there are lessons to be learnt from the
development of strategic planning that can be
used to provide guidance for an integrated
corporate governance approach that incorpo-
rates principles relating to ethical conduct.
Strategic planning and
business ethics
When the concept of strategic planning was
developed around 1965, many large organisa-
tions embraced it as a formal technique and
established elaborate strategic planning sys-
tems. The notion of strategic planning, accord-
ing to Mintzberg (1994a), became a virtual
obsession within a decade. However, by the
early 1980s there was widespread disenchant-
ment with the planning activities from the

84. previous decade. The main problems with
strategic planning were: (1) a bureaucratic and
formalised approach, (2) lack of implementa-
tion and (3) lack of integration throughout the
organisation (Bonn and Christodoulou, 1996).
In the following three sections we discuss
these problems in relation to strategic plan-
ning and how they were overcome. We also
identify similar problems with implementing
corporate governance principles relating to
ethical conduct and suggest ways to deal with
them.
Bureaucratic and formalised approach
Strategic planning processes in the 1970s and
early 1980s were characterised by a high
degree of formalisation and regulation. The
planners relied extensively on planning tech-
niques and analytical methodologies and car-
ried out a series of mechanical steps with the
result that the form had become more impor-
tant than the content. Managers described the
strategic planning process as a “repetitive
bureaucratic nightmare” which had “devel-
oped a life on its own” (Bonn and Christo-
doulou, 1996, p. 545). The strong emphasis
on analysis and formalisation left little room
for flexibility, creativity and strategic insight
(Mintzberg, 1994b).
During the past two decades organisations

85. have tried to improve the flexibility of their
planning systems and to rely less on rules
and regulations. Wilson (1994) argued that
strategic planning has moved towards an
executive-driven activity, which balances
“hard” quantitative and “soft” judgemental
tools and approaches. Bonn and Christo-
doulou (1996) found that greater flexibility
in the planning system was reflected in the
changing role of informal planning. Informal
planning discussions were seen as impor-
tant for improving the quality of strategic
thinking in the organisation and helped the
participants in strategy meetings to focus on
issues of strategic importance.
There is a similar risk that the current focus
on compliance with corporate governance
guidelines could lead organisations to focus
on formalisation and “box ticking”, replicating
the experience with strategic planning. The
various corporate governance guidelines that
have been developed suggest that organisa-
tions actively set boundaries for business
activities and clarify the expected standards of
behaviour for their boards of directors, senior
managers and employees. Such policies “pro-
vide guidance to personnel to help them
recognize and deal with ethical issues, pro-
vide mechanisms to report unethical conduct,
and help to foster a culture of honesty and
accountability” (NYSE, 2003, p. 15). One re-
sponse is to design and implement a code of
ethical conduct (sometimes referred to as a
code of conduct or a code of ethics), which is
described as a rational, top-down approach

86. (Johnson and Smith, 2002).
However, as the experience with strategic
planning has shown, a strategic plan that was
developed through a formalised and bureau-
cratic approach did not necessarily produce
the desired behaviour within the organisation.
Similarly, the existence of a code of ethical
conduct does not ensure ethical behaviour
throughout the organisation. On the contrary,
managers and employees may regard the code
of ethics “as one more set of procedures to be
undertaken to keep the bosses, the auditors or
the regulators happy” (Bartlett and Preston,
2003, p. 45). They may feel that complying
with such a code will add to their workload
and does not provide clear tangible benefits,
resulting in a lack of interest and commitment.
Enron, for example, had adopted a code of
ethics and used formal means to implement it.
The company’s actions, however, clearly dem-
onstrated that its code did not ensure ethical
behaviour (Adam and Rachman-Moore, 2004).
734
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

87. Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
Cleek and Leonard (1998) identified the
objectives of a code of ethics as increasing
social responsibility, providing guidelines for
acceptable employee behaviour, improving
management, assisting organisations to com-
ply with government guidelines and im-
proving corporate culture. However, they
concluded that the mere existence of a code of
ethics was not a significant factor in influen-
cing behaviour; rather, it is the way the code
is communicated, enforced and used that
has a greater impact. Research conducted by
Schwartz (2004) identified relevance and set-
ting realistic standards as being important in
influencing the effectiveness of a code of
ethics. Cassell
et al.
(1997) advised that the
prevailing contextual framework must be
taken into account when formulating, imple-
menting and enforcing a code. They concluded
that the impact of any code will be mediated
by its design process, its content, the way it
is presented and its enforcement.
The above discussion highlights the need to
ensure that a code of ethical conduct helps to
promote ethical behaviour within an organisa-
tion, rather than existing on paper only. To

88. have credibility, a code of conduct must be
context specific and tackle the significant
issues confronting the organisation and its
environment. An organisation, for example,
may have operations in particular countries
where there is strong public concern relating
to the use of child labour or the abuse of
human rights. Another organisation might
have to deal with pollution arising from
manufacturing processes or possible health
threats from the use of certain products. In
order to identify the key issues, boards should
encourage talks with their main stakeholders,
either in “one off” meetings or through more
permanent advisory panels. Stakeholders may
include shareholders, employees, customers,
suppliers, analysts and institutional investors
and/or community organisations. Such con-
sultative dialogue with the organisation’s
various stakeholders will help to eliminate
“blind spots” and group think.
As the experience with strategic planning
has shown, there is a need to use a flexible
approach towards the development of guide-
lines for ethical conduct. This includes exten-
sive discussion and debate between board,
senior managers, middle managers and other
employees on a regular basis, involving both
the content and implementation of policies
and processes that address ethical behaviour.
Such involvement of different levels of the
organisation helps to develop a code of ethical
conduct that is understood and owned by
everyone in the organisation, thus fostering
commitment and dedication. This also in-

89. cludes paying attention to informal aspects of
ethical conduct. Informal discussions about
ethics may help to identify potential “grey
areas” and improve the quality of ethical
thinking within the organisation. There
should be regular staff development and train-
ing programmes and an opportunity to make
amendments to the code of ethics and its pro-
cedures, if appropriate (Kitson and Campbell,
1996).
Lack of implementation
During the 1970s and 1980s top managers
tended to spend insufficient time on strategic
planning and delegated the planning function
to either a corporate planning department or
a corporate planner (Steiner, 1979). Planning
staff often cut senior executives out of the
strategy development process and turned
them into little more than rubber stamps
(Wilson, 1994). Line managers were also ex-
cluded from the planning process and their
expertise was largely ignored (Bonn and
Christodoulou, 1996). The failure to involve
line personnel in the planning process resulted
in line managers disassociating themselves
from the conclusions of the strategic planning
process and paying little or no attention to
strategy implementation. In addition, strategic
plans were rarely reviewed and many top
managers rejected the formal planning mech-
anism by making intuitive decisions that con-

90. flicted with the formal plans (Steiner, 1979).
These problems with strategy implementa-
tion led to a number of changes during the
1990s. The staff-driven process of corporate
planning was replaced by a more consultative
approach, which involved divisional and busi-
ness unit managers in its process. Planning
meetings were used as a forum to address
strategic issues on a regular basis and to help
generate stronger commitment from line
managers. Prime responsibility for developing
strategy was moved to line managers charged
with strategy implementation. This decentral-
isation of strategic planning to divisions or
business units was accompanied by a shift of
strategic planning responsibility from plan-
ning staff to line managers. In addition, the
role of the corporate planner changed from
being a “doer” of planning to becoming a
coordinator and facilitator who assisted line
managers with the planning and who ensured
that an organised and efficient planning pro-
cess took place (Bonn and Christodoulou,
1996).
Implementing business ethics is similar
to implementing strategy (Murphy, 1988).
Schwartz (2004) identified senior management
support, training and reinforcement as being
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS ETHICS

91. 735
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
important factors in determining the effective-
ness of codes of ethical conduct. Reporting
violations and consistent enforcement of the
code were also found to be important. The
research by Adam and Rachman-Moore (2004)
showed that informal methods such as follow-
ing the example set by management and con-
forming to the social norms of the organisation
were also important in code implementation.
The Australian Standard AS8000 (2003)
advises against succumbing to the temptation
to merely satisfy legal requirements, rather, it
is claimed that “[t]he board and senior man-
agement should strive to achieve a culture of
good governance” (p. 12). Similarly, KPMG
(2003) identify three possible approaches to
the ASX Corporate Governance Principles:
simple compliance, meeting best practice
and driving business performance. If the
principles are regarded as simply another
compliance issue, adopting them will not
enhance performance. However, the require-
ment to implement these principles can pro-
vide the impetus to introduce performance-
enhancing change throughout the organisation.

92. In order to take advantage of this opportunity,
strong leadership and commitment from the
board is required.
The implementation of codes of ethical con-
duct to drive business performance requires
the establishment of appropriate structures
and processes for monitoring and improving
ethical behaviour. This includes identifying
key performance indicators, which are used to
provide reliable information about the organ-
isation’s ethical performance. The perfor-
mance indicators should not just be extensions
of the organisation’s financial reporting sys-
tem, but include non-financial measures such
as organisation reputation and community
perception. Monitoring the organisation’s
ethical performance identifies whether the
existing approach is meeting expectations
in terms of how the policies, procedures
and codes of conduct are implemented and
whether existing processes are achieving their
performance potential or whether they require
improvement.
An increasing number of large companies,
particularly in the United States, have estab-
lished Ethics Committees. Their task is to deal
with policy formulation and with specific
violations of the organisation’s ethical code
or complaints from employees and other
stakeholders (Kitson and Campbell, 1996).
Although such committees might be useful,
there is a danger of them becoming the sole
body responsible for dealing with business
ethics. As the experience with strategic plan-

93. ning has shown, corporate planning depart-
ments in the 1970s and 1980s tended to
exclude line managers from the planning pro-
cess and top managers were likely to spend
insufficient time on strategic planning. The
result was a lack of ownership in the planning
results and, as a consequence, a lack of imple-
mentation. Ethics Committees may encounter
similar problems, namely a delegation of
ethical issues by top managers and a lack of
involvement from line personnel. Such delega-
tion may prove particularly harmful since
senior managers are regarded as role models
within the organisation, so their behaviour is
crucial in determining whether the implemen-
tation of ethics policies will succeed (Johnson
and Smith, 2002). To overcome these potential
problems, Ethics Committees should ensure
that top managers and line personnel address
ethical issues on a regular basis and that the
prime responsibility for developing policies,
procedures and codes of ethical conduct is
given to line managers who are responsible for
implementation. Hence, Ethics Committees
should predominantly coordinate and facili-
tate the development of guidelines dealing
with ethical behaviour and ensure that the
organisation has efficient processes in place to
deal with ethical issues.
Lack of integration throughout
the organisation

94. Strategic planning in the 1970s and early 1980s
tended to neglect the organisational culture in
which it took place (Steiner, 1979). Wilson’s
(1994) research showed that culture was the
respondents’ main concern in the field of
strategic management. Cultural problems
included issues such as internal politics,
bureaucracy, poor communication, lack of
willingness to respond to change, lack of
organisational learning, and lack of market
and customer orientation.
Over the past two decades organisations
have responded to the “cultural challenge” by
trying to integrate the strategic planning sys-
tem throughout the organisation as a whole.
Organisational culture has become a critical
ingredient in the implementation of strategy
and organisations have started to recognise
that the values, motivation and behaviour of
the organisation’s members are critical deter-
minants in the success or failure to implement
strategy. In particular, organisations have
actively tried to shape their culture by estab-
lishing effective communication processes
throughout the organisation, by providing
programmes for education and training, and
by placing strong emphasis on leadership by
example (Bonn and Christodoulou, 1996).
Similarly, organisational culture can either
promote or hinder ethical behaviour. Adam

95. 736
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
and Rachman-Moore (2004) found that the
majority (67.7 per cent) of employees they sur-
veyed identified the social norms of the organ-
isation and the behaviour of management to
be most influential in determining ethical con-
duct. The social norms of the organisation are
influenced by formal and informal controls
that “arise as groups attempt to regulate the
behaviour of their memberships according to
various mores, norms and values which have
become socially established and sanctioned in
different intra-organizational contexts” (Cas-
sell
et al.
, 1997, p. 1081). These controls are
embedded in organisational contexts in which
competing influences have arisen in day-to-
day social interactions (Cassell

96. et al.
, 1997)
and influence particular aspects of behaviour
within the organisation.
Hence, if an organisation’s commitment to
business ethics as identified in its corporate
governance framework is to have a lasting
impact, the ethical principles must be an in-
tegral part of how the organisation operates
and be reflected in the organisation’s code of
ethical conduct, formal and informal controls,
policies, processes and procedures. Ethical
principles will be regarded with cynicism if
there are inconsistencies in an organisation’s
approach towards ethics and, in particular, if
members of the board of directors and top
management assert them, but behave unethi-
cally (Minkes
et al.
, 1999). The board and man-
agement, therefore, have to ensure that there
is a high degree of congruence between the
ethical standards of the organisation and their
own behaviour and activities. Pinchot and
Pinchot (1992) suggested that executives
should cultivate their ethical competence with
the same enthusiasm they devote to cultivat-
ing their technical, marketing and financial
skills. When the board makes strategic deci-

97. sions concerning, for example, acquisitions,
divestitures or international expansion, these
decisions should be informed by, and be con-
sistent with, the organisation’s stated ethical
position.
In addition to “walking the talk”, the board
and senior management need to actively pro-
mote, manage and monitor a culture that
emphasises ethical behaviour and integrity
within the organisation. A statement of the
organisation’s commitment to ethics should be
included in the mission statement, in the
organisation’s overall strategies and goals, as
well as in supporting functional strategies
such as human resource management and
marketing. Ethics should become everyone’s
business and “the way we do things around
here” (Bower, 1966, p. 22) should be consistent
with the organisation’s ethical values. This
requires the establishment of training pro-
grammes for employees and the provision of
communication channels for receiving feed-
back on initial and ongoing problems and
difficulties.
Practical considerations for an
integrated approach to
business ethics
The above discussion has identified a number
of important considerations that boards of
directors need to address if they want to suc-

98. cessfully integrate ethical concerns into their
organisations’ corporate governance struc-
tures. These considerations give rise to a num-
ber of questions that can be used by boards to
evaluate their approach to business ethics.
First, boards need to identify their current
values, attitudes and beliefs and whether they
are appropriate for their organisation. Does
the board agree on what an ethical issue is?
Who initiates discussion about ethical issues
and when? How does the board debate ethical
issues? Who is involved in the discussion?
Second, boards should closely examine their
behaviour towards ethical issues. Does the
board take ethical issues into account when
making key strategic decisions? What impor-
tance does the board assign to these ethical
issues? To what extent do board members
“walk the talk” regarding ethical issues?
Finally, boards need to evaluate the or-
ganisation’s current strategies, policies and
procedures and investigate whether they en-
courage ethical behaviour and reflect the
organisation’s ethical values. Does the organi-
sation have a code of conduct and who knows
about it? Are all employees involved in the
development and implementation of ethical
guidelines? Are relevant training programmes
established that promote the organisation’s
stand towards ethical behaviour? Are relevant
structures and processes for monitoring and
improving ethical behaviour established? Is
the organisation’s focus on ethical behaviour
embedded in the organisation’s culture?

99. Conclusion
Concerns about the activities of organisations
have resulted in an increase in the attention
being paid to corporate governance. Bodies
such as the OECD and stock exchanges have
developed corporate governance principles
that include reference to business ethics. We
have argued that an organisation’s approach
to ethics must be addressed in its corporate
governance framework. However, this is just
the first step if the organisation is interested in
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS ETHICS
737
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
more than simple compliance with corporate
governance principles. Measures must be
taken to ensure that organisational behaviour
is consistent with the ethical values espoused
in the codes of conduct for boards of directors

100. and employees, as well as the organisation’s
mission statement, its overall strategies and
goals, and its supporting functional strategies.
We have employed an analogy with stra-
tegic planning to provide insights into how
ethical concerns can be integrated into an
organisation’s corporate governance structure.
Our main argument centred around three
major weaknesses – a bureaucratic and formal-
ised approach, lack of implementation and
lack of integration throughout the organisa-
tion. These weaknesses were prevalent in
strategic planning in the 1970s and 1980s and
are potentially just as problematic for an
integrated corporate governance approach to
business ethics. We have provided a number
of practical suggestions formulated into ques-
tions for boards of directors to consider when
integrating ethical concerns into their organi-
sations’ corporate governance structures.
An integrated approach towards corporate
governance and business ethics should help
organisations to implement high standards of
ethical behaviour throughout the organisa-
tion. Such a proactive approach provides
evidence of the board’s commitment to good
corporate governance and may help to
enhance the organisation’s reputation and
competitiveness.
References

101. Adam, A. M. and Rachman-Moore, D. (2005) The
Methods Used to Implement an Ethical Code of
Conduct and Employee Attitudes,
Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics
, 54, 225–244.
Australian Consumers’ Association (2003)
Pan
Pharmaceuticals
(http://www.choice.com.au/
viewArticle.aspx?id
=
103731&catId
=
100386&tid
=

102. 100008&p
=
1).
Australian Standard AS8000 (2003)
Good Gover-
nance Principles
. Sydney: Standards Australia
International.
Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Corporate Gover-
nance Council (2003)
Principles of Good Corporate
Governance and Best Practice Recommendations
.
Sydney: Australian Stock Exchange.
Bartlett, A. and Preston, D. S. (2003) Not Nice,
Not in Control: Management, Ethics and Self-
Deception in the Modern Corporation,
Philosophy
of Management

103. , 3, 37–46.
Boatright, J. R. (2003)
Ethics and the Conduct of Busi-
ness
, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bonn, I. and Christodoulou, C. (1996) From Stra-
tegic Planning to Strategic Management,
Long
Range Planning
, 29, 543–551.
Bower, M. (1966)
The Will to Manage
. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Cadbury, A. (2000)
Global Corporate Governance
Forum

104. , World Bank, quoted by Hopkins, M.
What, if any, is the Relation between Corporate
Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility
(http://www.csmworld.org/public/
csr_governance.htm).
Carroll, A. B. (1991) The Pyramid of Corporate
Social Responsibility: Towards the Moral Man-
agement of Organizational Stakeholders,
Business
Horizons
, Jul–Aug, 39–48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999) Corporate Social Responsi-
bility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct,
Business and Society
, 38, 268–295.
Cassell, C., Johnson, P. and Smith, K. (1997) Open-
ing the Black Box: Corporate Codes of Ethics in
their Organizational Context,
Journal of Business
Ethics

105. , 16, 1077–1093.
Cleek, M. A. and Leonard, S. L. (1998) Can Corpo-
rate Codes of Ethics Influence Behavior?
Journal
of Business Ethics
, 17, 619–630.
Epstein, E. M. (1987) The Corporate Social Policy
Process: Beyond Business Ethics, Corporate
Responsibility, and Corporate Social Responsive-
ness,
California Management Review
, 29, 99–114.
Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L. (2000)
Business Ethics
, 4th edn. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Fisher, J. (2004) Social Responsibility and Ethics:
Clarifying the Concepts,

106. Journal of Business Ethics
,
52, 391–400.
Floyd, S. W. and Wooldridge, B. (2000)
Building
Strategy from the Middle
. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Grace, D. and Cohen, S. (2005)
Business Ethics
, 3rd
edn. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Higgs, D. (2003)
Review of the Role and Effectiveness
of Non-Executive Directors
. London: Department
of Trade and Industry.
Hill, C. W. L., Jones, G. R. and Galvin, P. (2004)

107. Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach
.
Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.
Investment and Financial Services Association
Limited (IFSA) (2003)
Corporate Governance: A
Guide for Fund Managers and Corporations
, 3rd edn.
Sydney: IFSA.
Johnson, P. and Smith, K. (2002) Constituting
Business Ethics: A Metatheoretical Exploration,
Reason in Practice
, 2, 21–35.
Kiel, G. and Nicholson, G. (2003)
Boards that Work:
A Guide for New Directors
. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Kitson, A. and Campbell, R. (1996)

108. The Ethical Or-
ganization
. Houndsmills: Macmillan Business.
KPMG (2003) ASX Corporate Governance Prin-
ciples: Issues for Boards to Consider (http://
www.kpmg.com.au/aci/docs/asx_issues-for-
board.pdf).
Minkes, A. L., Small, M. W. and Chatterjee, S. R.
(1999) Leadership and Business Ethics: Does it
Matter? Implications for Management,
Journal of
Business Ethics
, 20, 327–335.
Mintzberg, H. (1994a)
The Rise and Fall of Strategic
Planning
. New York: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1994b) Rethinking Strategic Plan-
ning Part 1: Pitfalls and Fallacies,

109. Long Range
Planning
, 27, 12–21.
http://www.choice.com.au/
http://www.csmworld.org/public/
http://
738
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005
Volume 13 Number 6 November 2005
Murphy, P. E. (1988) Implementing Business Ethics,
Journal of Business Ethics
, 7, 907–915.
New York Stock Exchange (2003)
Corporate Gover-
nance Rules

110. , New York (http://www.nyse.com/
pdfs/finalcorpgovrules.pdf).
OECD (2004)
Corporate Governance, Frequently Asked
Questions about the OECD Principles of Corporate
Governance
(http://www.oecd.org/faq/0,2583,
en_2649_37439_31717413_1_1_1_37439,00.html).
Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd,
Annual Report 2002
.
Pinchot, G. and Pinchot, E. (1992) Can We Afford
Ethics?
Executive Excellence
, 9, 3–4.
Robbins, S. P., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. and Coulter,
M. (2003)

111. Management
, 3rd edn. Frenchs Forrest,
NSW: Prentice Hall.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2002)
Management
, 7th edn.
New York: Wiley.
Schwartz, M. S. (2004) Effective Corporate Codes of
Ethics: Perceptions of Code Users,
Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics
, 55, 323–343.
Schwartz, M. S. and Carroll, A. B. (2003) Corporate
Social Responsibility: A Three-Domain Ap-
proach,
Business Ethics Quarterly
, 13, 503–530.
Shaw, W. H. and Barry, V. (2004)

112. Moral Issues in
Business
. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Steiner, G. (1979)
Strategic Management: What Every
Manager Must Know
. New York: The Free Press.
Therapeutic Goods Association (2003)
Pan Pharma-
ceuticals Limited – Regulatory Action and Product
Recall Information
(http://www.tga.health.gov.
au/recalls/pan.htm).
Viljoen, J. and Dann, S. (2000)
Strategic Manage-
ment
, 3rd edn. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson
Education.

113. Wilson, I. (1994) Strategic Planning Isn’t Dead – It
Changed,
Long Range Planning
, 27, 12–24.
Ingrid Bonn
is a Senior Lecturer in the
Graduate School of Management at Griffith
University, Australia. Her research interests
are in the areas of corporate governance
and corporate social responsibility, strategic
decision-making, and performance and
longevity of organisations. She has published
articles in academic journals such as
Long
Range Planning, Journal of Organizational Change
Management
,
Management Decision
and

114. Asian
Business & Management
.
Josie Fisher
is a Lecturer in the New England
Business School at the University of New
England, Australia. Her research interests
include corporate governance and social
responsibility, business ethics and bioethics.
She has published in a variety of refereed jour-
nals including the
Leadership and Organization
Development Journal
,
Journal of Business Ethics
,
Journal of Medical Ethics

115. and
Medicine, Health
Care and Philosophy
.
http://www.nyse.com/
http://www.oecd.org/faq/0,2583
http://www.tga.health.gov