An Analysis of the Ethical Codesof Corporations and Busine.docx

An Analysis of the Ethical Codes
of Corporations and Business Schools
Harrison McCraw
Kathy S. Moffeit
John R. O’Malley Jr.
ABSTRACT. Reports of ethical lapses in the business
world have been numerous and widespread. Ethical
awareness in business education has received a great deal
of attention because of the number and severity of busi-
ness scandals. Given Sarbanes-Oxley legislation and re-
cent Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International’s (AACSBI) recommendations, this
study examined respective websites of Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regulated public companies
and AACSBI-accredited business schools for ethical pol-
icy statement content. The analysis was accomplished by
classifying ethical expressions into a framework consisting

of the attributes of thematic content and focus/themes
partially based on the 2004 research of Gaumnitz and
Lere. Findings indicate that public companies have been
diligent in presenting website ethical content that closely
follows authoritative recommendations. Business schools
appear not to have prioritized such disclosure to the
extent done so by public companies. Although there was
improvement between two samples taken in 2005 and
2007, this study provides evidence that many accredited
business schools have little or no disclosed ethical
expectations in their mission, vision, goals, or other
similar types of statements on their websites. Additional
findings provide several opportunities for future research.
KEY WORDS: AACSBI, corporate ethical codes, eth-
ical codes, content of ethical codes, Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC
Ethical lapses in the business world were numerous
and widespread during the late 1990s and into the
early part of the new century. Business conduct that

at best was questionable, if not criminal, permeated
the business news. Jennings (1999) provides several
examples of firms implicated and fined for such
conduct including Archer Daniels Midland (price-
fixing), Long-Term Capital (unusually high-risk
investments), Cendant (creative earnings), Bankers
Trust (leveraged derivatives), Rite-Aid and Wal-
Mart (charge back policies with suppliers, which
caused temporary or permanent underpayments),
and Sears (disregard for bankruptcy laws and creditor
rights). Other firms implicated for corporate mal-
feasance include Enron, WorldCom, Sunbeam,
Arthur Andersen, and HealthSouth (Russell and
Smith, 2003). Management of these firms appear to
have been swept away by opportunities to reap
extraordinary gains for their firms and/or them-
selves. Managers made decisions that caused great
harm to their careers, their companies, their stake-

holders, and society. Ethical misconduct by business
managers as cited above has triggered regulatory
reform designed to protect stakeholder interest.
The American system of higher education sup-
plies the majority of business leaders in the United
States. Given the number and severity of past busi-
ness scandals, the ethical content of business educa-
tion across the country has drawn notice. The ethical
culture of business organizations can be influenced
by the college graduates they hire. Given that our
market-based system ultimately revolves around trust
(Levitt and Breeden, 2003), the teaching of ethical
principles is as important as the teaching of other
skill sets and critical analysis (Bligh et al., 2000).
However, prior to 2003, students received at most
the equivalent of a one-half semester course devoted
to ethics (Sankaran, 2003).
Purpose of research

Business leaders, both present and future, should
understand the linkage between the precepts of a
stated ethical code and their professional behav-
ior. The purpose of this research is to investigate
Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87:1–13 � Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9865-2
compliance by business firms with federal regulations
concerning disclosure of written ethical codes and
business school compliance with the Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
(AACSBI) recommendations concerning ethical expec-
tations. Specifically, this study will investigate the
content of both corporate and business school codes of
ethics.
Ethical systems
The word ‘‘ethics’’ in Greek means ethos or char-
acter. Ethics is defined by Webster as ‘‘(1) A system

of moral principles and (2) Dealing with right and
wrong of certain actions and with the good and bad
of such action’’ (Webster, 1990, p. 307). People
often define ethical behavior as what a person does
when no one is looking. In an institutional setting
(business or educational), Wood (2002, p. 2) likens
ethics as ‘‘a set of formal and informal standards or
conduct that people use to guide their behavior.’’
Kaptein and Schwartz (2007) believe that ‘‘the
adjective ‘ethics’ underscores the fact that an ethical
code is not just an instrument that serves the interests
of the company, but that it has – or should have – a
broader normative claim’’ (p. 7).
Ethical behavior often originates from values such
as honesty, integrity, and respect. These expectations
should be stated in mission, conduct, or values policy
statements. Universities and colleges should
emphasize ethics education so that graduates can

effectively confront difficult situations that they will
encounter in their professional lives. Ethical deci-
sions often involve the conflict managers find when
weighing client or customer interests against their
own interests (Sankaran, 2003). Students should be
made aware that the so-called ‘‘rational behavior’’
that follows the neoclassical economic model should
be avoided (Dobson, 2003). This model focuses on a
narrow view of self-interest and revolves around the
idea that the rationality behind individual behavior
can only be found in the pursuit of personal material
wealth. Dobson (2003) suggests that students should
be taught that integrity and honesty in today’s
organizational culture is neither irrational nor in
conflict with their self-interest. Ethical policy state-
ments should define the boundaries of self-interest
within the parameters of the organization.
A value or ethical system can be developed by a

group of individuals whether professionally or occu-
pationally based. Ethical or behavioral statements are
often developed because individuals or organizations
have the resources and/or skills to either benefit or
harm society. If individual or occupational lapses
generate fear or mistrust, society will impose (and has
imposed) restraints through regulation. In order to
avoid such action, affiliated individuals attempt self
regulation through monitoring and enforcement
mechanisms often backed by law (Shaver, 2003).
Ethical decision making focuses on the individual as
a moral agent. The individual is responsible for his or
her actions, which inevitably stem from a learned
value system. The system may arise from unreflected
sources such as the family or culture, or from sophis-
ticated frameworks requiring critical analysis. The
actions of others may influence an individual’s views
of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although

many organizations have an ethics statement, accept-
able behavior is often the result of the internalization
of values displayed by others. Appropriate behavior
sets an example that can influence suitable choices on
the part of all organizational employees. A formalized
statement of conduct announces to all personnel the
level of expected behavior. However, the actions of
top management often define what is actually deemed
acceptable regardless of the values expressed in a
written statement.
The application of professional or occupational
ethics, which emphasizes the relationship between a
group and society, may be at odds with preferred
personal choices. Shaver says, ‘‘when the individual
group member is faced with ethical choices – at least
within his or her occupational context – group
values must trump personal/philosophical values’’
(Shaver, 2003, p. 292). Consequently, the content of

ethical or behavioral statements deserves close
examination.
Response of business practice
Given the adverse public response to what appeared
to be continuous ethical lapses on the part of some
major U.S. corporations, the United States Congress
enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (107th
Congress, 2002) on July 29, 2002. Section 406 of
this Act required the Securities and Exchange
2 Harrison McCraw et al.
Commission (SEC) to issue rules to implement its
provisions requiring a company to disclose whether
it has adopted a code of ethics that applies to its
principal executive officer, the principal financial
officer, and the principal accounting officer. The Act
further directed the SEC to require companies who
have not adopted such a code to explain why they

have not. These directives were accomplished when
the SEC issued Final Rule 33-8177 (SEC, 2003).
Amendments to a company’s code of ethics or a
waiver of a provision within a code is required by
the SEC to be disclosed in a company’s Form 8-K.
In Rule 33-8177, the SEC defined the term
‘‘code of ethics’’ to be written standards that are
designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote:
• Honest and ethical conduct, including the
ethical handling of actual or apparent con-
flicts of interest between personal and profes-
sional relationships;
• Full, fair, accurate, timely, and understand-
able disclosure in reports and documents that
a public company files with the SEC or in-
cludes in other public communications;
• Compliance with applicable governmental
laws, rules, and regulations;
• Prompt internal reporting of violations to an
appropriate person identified in the code of

ethics; and
• Accountability for adherence to the code.
Companies may choose among three methods in
their annual report to make their codes publicly
available: (1) file as an exhibit; (2) give the website
address where it is posted; or (3) include a statement
that the company will provide a copy of its code to
any person upon request without charge.
The above standards do not specify every detail
that must be addressed in a corporate ethical code
nor does it prescribe specific language that must be
included (SEC, p. 19). The SEC believes that spe-
cific code provisions and compliance procedures are
best left to individual firms.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission, an indepen-
dent agency in the judicial branch of the federal
government, also responded to recent corporate
failures. Organized in 1985, the Commission’s goal

was to develop a national sentencing policy for the
federal courts to ensure that similar offenses receive
similar sentences. At its public meeting on April 8,
2004, the Commission voted to amend its organi-
zational guidelines as a result of the findings of the
Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Organizational Sen-
tencing Guidelines and the passage of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act. Incentives were offered to organizations
having a corporate governance system that included
an effective compliance and ethics program.
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) took
action against corporate corruption in November
2003 by requiring its members to adopt and disclose
a code of business conduct and ethics for directors,
officers, and employees and to promptly disclose any
waivers of the code for directors or executive offi-
cers. The Exchange allows each company to deter-
mine its own policies, but all listed companies should

address certain criteria to include:
• Conflicts of interest;
• Corporate opportunities;
• Confidentiality;
• Fair dealing;
• Protection and proper use of company assets;
• Compliance with laws, rules, and regulations
(including insider trading laws); and
• Encouraging the reporting of any illegal or
unethical behavior.
Unethical behavior by CEOs, CFOs, and other
top managers in many large firms such as Enron,
WorldCom, and HealthSouth has forced regulators
to look for the root cause of recent corporate ethical
failures. Regulators focused, in part, on the fact that
the lack of an ethical compass played a large part in
most of these company failures. Sarbanes-Oxley
legislation, SEC/NYSE regulations, and the Federal
Sentencing Commission developed ethical guide-
lines and enforcement processes that placed corpo-
rate America on notice that overt behavior

detrimental to the welfare of stakeholders would not
be tolerated. The above standards and processes were
developed in an attempt to prevent a repeat of the
ethical meltdown experienced in the United States.
Response of business education
The AACSBI is the foremost accrediting body of
business schools. In response to ethical lapses in the
3An Analysis of the Ethical Codes of Corporations and Business
Schools
business world, the AACSBI has encouraged mem-
ber schools to renew and reinvigorate their com-
mitment to ethics education. In its 2004 report to
AACSBI’s Board of Directors, the Ethics Education
Task Force (EETF) stated that ethical behavior is
essential to the delivery of quality business educa-
tion. Member schools were encouraged to develop a
code of ethics, a code of conduct, an honor code, or
some similarly titled statement.

Criterion E from the current AACSBI standards
(AACSBI, 2004) states that business schools must
establish expectations for ethical behavior for
administrators, faculty, and students. The EETF
identified four broad program-based themes for
possible inclusion in ethical codes for business
schools:
• The responsibility of business to society;
• Ethical decision making;
• Ethical leadership; and
• Corporate governance.
The particular ethical characteristics to be included
within these four areas were left to the discretion of
the institutions.
The development of ethical codes or statements
can be a long and laborious process that generally
requires committee formation. Committee members
should include alumni, faculty, staff, and students
who are enthusiastic about the project, and if pos-

sible, are opinion leaders. The committee should
hold forums for discussion, both inside and outside
the college, inviting all interested parties including
supporting corporate and community constituents.
A committee has several options to begin the
process of code development. A first step would
logically be to look at existing AACSBI standards.
Given the direction from AACSBI, committee
members may also look for ethical content in policy
statements developed at other accredited schools of
business. They also may go to sources such as the
Institute of Business Ethics, which offers guidance in
the development of ethical statements.
An example of the code development process at
the institutional level can be found on the University
of South Carolina website (see Appendix). In the
spring of 1989, a committee of faculty, staff, and
students began developing what was to become

the Carolinian Creed. The committee represented
diverse groups of the campus population. They
decided that the end product should include the
following: (1) what characterizes relationships on
campus; (2) a concise statement of standards that
should be reflected in these relationships; and (3)
how these standards should be communicated. The
key was to develop a statement specific enough to
cover most situations but not so specific to become
prescriptive in nature. The Carolinian Creed was
endorsed and approved in October 1990 by the
University Board of Trustees, the Faculty Senate,
and the Student Senate.
Given the AACSBI’s revised mandates concern-
ing ethical policy statements, the Richards College
of Business (RCOB) at the University of West
Georgia formed a committee of students, staff, fac-
ulty, and representatives from the surrounding

community to develop such a statement. The
committee initiated the process by using input from
constituent groups and considering AACSBI’s four
broad-based perspectives. The process included
vigorous discussion and analyses of specific ethical
terms and their meanings. Compromises were
reached among committee members, culminating in
the ‘‘Statement of Ethical Expectations’’ for the
RCOB. The statement was enthusiastically ap-
proved by various constituent parties and can be
found on the College’s website (See Appendix).
A formal statement of ethical behavior has both
internal and external benefits. Internally, it identifies
and promotes organizational beliefs and values. It
also serves as a continuous reminder to students,
faculty, staff, and administrators that ethical behavior
is important and is expected. Externally, it serves as a
signal to outside constituents that the college is

committed to appropriate behavior.
Ethical code content analysis – representative
research
Individual organizations (e.g., businesses, health service
organizations, and educational institutions) and pro-
fessional groups (e.g., medical, legal, and accounting)
appear to generate the majority of ethical codes. Within
a given group or profession, differences in codes can
often be attributed to different constituencies served
and different entity goals. Jamal and Bowie (1995)
believe that the public expects the ‘‘professions’’ to
exhibit higher behavioral standards than other types of
business enterprises. Even if entity goals differ, society
must trust that their interests will be protected. Both
society in general and constituent groups are audiences
for ethical codes.

Researchers have established general methodolo-
gies to systematically compare the content of ethical
codes for similarities and differences, to facilitate
discussion, and to advance understanding. Catego-
rizations and descriptions have been used for analysis
purposes by numerous researchers such as Hite et al.
(1988), Lefebvre and Singh (1992), Jamal and Bowie
(1995), Gaumnitz and Lere (2002), Kaptein (2004),
and Gaumnitz and Lere (2004).
Hite et al. (1988) studied the frequency and types
of topics (content) covered in the ethics statements
of 67 large U.S. corporations. The topics most often
covered by the sampled companies were (1) misuse
of funds and improper accounting (66%); (2) con-
flicts of interest (64%); (3) dealing with public
officials (61%); (4) confidential information (54%);
(5) foreign payments (bribes) (48%); and (6) gifts
accepted and given (both 46%). The authors noted

that the misuse of funds and improper accounting,
which is both illegal and unethical, was mentioned
most often in ethical policy statements.
Lefebvre and Singh (1992) used a sample from the
Financial Post 500 companies to examine whether
each had established an ethical code, what issues
were addressed, and the similarities and dissimilarities
that existed between the companies’ codes. The
analysis was patterned closely after the Cressey and
Moore (1983) and Matthews (1987) methodologies.
Codes were analyzed along four broad categories
including (1) general information; (2) types of con-
duct addressed; (3) enforcement and compliance;
and (4) penalties for illegal behavior. Specific code
content analysis of responding companies was based
on 66 criteria depending on whether a criterion was
(1) not discussed; (2) discussed; (3) discussed in
depth; or (4) emphasized.

In an attempt to create a logical framework for
analyzing and drafting ethical codes, Jamal and
Bowie (1995) developed three areas of ethical code
provisions. These areas included (1) addressing moral
hazard; (2) providing norms of professional courtesy;
and (3) statements relating to the public interest.
Using these three categories, two coders indepen-
dently classified the rules, principles, and obligations
of the ethical codes of the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, the National Society
of Professional Engineers, and the American Bar
Association. A third coder resolved categorization
disagreements. After classification, the researchers
analyzed the data to determine term meanings
within the three categories and the professional,
client, and societal advantages and disadvantages
within the context of information asymmetry
(imbalance of information between professional and

client). The ultimate conclusion drawn from this
research is that information asymmetry within the
professional–client relationship that can impact the
public at large should not be exploited by the pro-
fessional. Therefore, provisions within a code should
be developed consistent with this conclusion.
Gaumnitz and Lere (2002) analyzed the content
of ethical codes for 15 major professional business
organizations in the United States that represented
the business disciplines of accounting and auditing,
appraisal, finance, human resources, information
technology, insurance, management, marketing,
production and inventory control, and real estate.
The authors used an iterative process to categorize
groups of statements that reflected different ethical
ideas. They identified nine ethical themes that all
professionals should follow:
1. Confidentiality;

2. Honesty and integrity;
3. Responsibilities to employers/clients;
4. Obligations to the profession;
5. Independence and/or objectivity;
6. Legal and/or technical compliance;
7. Discreditable or harmful acts;
8. Social values; and
9. Ethical conflict resolution.
They found that the first five themes were in-
cluded in 80% of the codes and seven of the nine
themes appeared in 67% of the codes (p. 37). Each
theme contained specific ethical statements, includ-
ing the obligation to: (1) be honest (80%); (2) not
disclose confidential information (73%); (3) avoid
conflict of interest (73%); (4) faithfully execute
responsibilities (60%); (5) obey the law (60%); and
(6) not misrepresent (53%) (p. 41).
Kaptein (2004) collected data concerning the

existence, frequency, and content of ethical codes
Schools
for the 200 largest companies in the world according
to the Scope Core Company list as determined by
Van Tulder et al. (2001). The investigative meth-
odology used was based on the corporate integrity
model of Kaptein and Wempe (2002). This analysis
reviewed ethical codes according to company
responsibilities toward (1) stakeholders; (2) principles
relating to stakeholder relationships; (3) corporate
values; and (4) employee responsibilities. Codes
were analyzed as to implementation, compliance,
and monitoring along with length and tone. The
study also analyzed the prevalence of code titles and
internal conduct of employees.
Gaumnitz and Lere (2004) developed an analytical
framework for ethical codes using a numerical

format to capture six vital attributes. These attributes
revolve around (1) topical emphasis and (2) struc-
tural form. Topical emphasis refers to the attri-
butes of focus (themes), thematic content, and
tone. Structural emphasis is represented by the
attributes of length, level of detail, and shape. Their
numerical format requires researchers and users to
have a solid understanding of nine concepts. These
concepts, as defined by Gaumnitz and Lere (p. 334),
include:
• Statement – Each statement represents a sepa-
rate idea or requirement in a code. The
number of statements is not necessarily the
same as the number of sentences. Two major
difficulties occur when a statement relates to
a sentence that contains more than one idea
(a sentence that contains more than one eth-
ical obligation is counted as more than one

statement) and sentences that do not include
an obligation or requirement (in which case
it is not considered to be a statement).
• Length – The number of statements included
in a code.
• Theme – One or more statements that ad-
dress a particular topic or idea. The number
of statements must always be greater than or
equal to the number of themes.
• Focus/Breadth – Codes with few themes are
considered to be focused, while codes with
many themes are considered broad.
• Tone – Ethics codes can be classified along a
tone continuum ranging from inspirational/
aspirational to legal/regulatory.
• Detail – Noted by the average number of
statements per theme. A higher (lower) aver-
age corresponds to a greater (lesser) level of
detail.
• Emphasis – A characteristic of individual
themes defined as the number of statements

that address a particular idea.
• Shape – The distribution of statements across
themes is considered a code’s shape.
• (a) Pure Horizontal – An extreme example
of shape when there is one statement per
theme.
• (b) Pure Vertical – An extreme example of
shape when a single theme is presented with
all statements focused on the one theme.
• Thematic Content – The aspect common to
the statements that comprise a theme charac-
terizes the thematic content (honesty, confi-
dentiality, integrity, etc.).
The number of themes and the number of state-
ments per theme form the shape of a given code with
thematic content and tone noted by a descriptive
term. The number of columns in the numerical
coding represents the number of themes. The number
of statements per theme is noted by a count of com-
mon statements. For example, according to Gaumnitz

and Lere, a ‘‘11111111’’ numerical coding has eight
themes with only one statement per theme and would
be considered broad, with little detail, and a pure
horizontal shape. On the other hand, a ‘‘5112-hon-
esty, character, aspirational’’ coding is more focused,
has greater detail, and in comparison, a more vertical
shape. Such a code would have nine statements and
four themes with honesty supported by five state-
ments, character supported by two statements, and
two other themes with an aspirational tone.
Research characteristics
Based in part on the Gaumnitz and Lere (2004)
topical emphasis classifications of thematic content
and focus/themes and the previously stated criteria
established by the SEC and NYSE for business
entities and the AACSBI for business schools, a
categorical classification scheme of ethical charac-
teristics or expressions was developed. The partial

Gaumnitz and Lere format is appropriate for the
classification of ethical expressions and the mea-
surement system used in this research for analysis
purposes. SEC/NYSE regulations and AACSBI
recommendations were classified into (1) thematic
content and (2) focus/themes.
For business entities, the thematic content of
honesty and all focus/themes can be traced to the
SEC’s Rule 33-8177 and/or NYSE regulations,
while integrity is included in thematic content be-
cause it is a broad characteristic of ethical conduct.
All focus/themes are self-explanatory, except for fair
dealings, fair/timely disclosure to the SEC, and
corporate opportunities. Fair dealings include the
treatment of suppliers, colleagues, and customers
with dignity, respect, fairness, honesty, and without

seeking an undue advantage. Fair and timely dis-
closure is regarded as full and accurate financial
reporting to the SEC of required periodic reports.
Corporate opportunities prohibit employees from
exploiting information obtained at work for their
own personal gain. The following 11 ethical
expressions of thematic content and focus/themes
for corporate ethical statements were used for anal-
ysis purposes:
Thematic content Focus/themes
Honesty Compliance with laws
Integrity Avoid conflicts of interest
Fair dealings
Confidentiality
Accountability
Protection of company assets
Reporting illegal activity
Fair/timely disclosure to SEC

Corporate opportunities
The AACSBI has suggested business schools
base an ethical code or statement on four broad-
based themes as opposed to specific themes, as
required by SEC and NYSE. The authors of this
article specified two ethical expressions that would
generally be considered thematic content and five
characteristics that would generally be considered
focus/themes in a collegiate setting. These seven
items, which are self-explanatory, were matched
with the four suggested AACSBI broad-based
themes:
Thematic
content
Focus/themes AACSBI program-
based themes
Honesty Ethical decision-making
Integrity Ethical decision-making

Diversity Ethical leadership
Respect
for others
Ethical decision-making
Obey laws Governance
Meet societal
obligations
Responsibility of
business to society
Accountability Ethical leadership
The study
We have defined a business code of ethics as a policy
statement that describes the responsibilities of cor-
porate management and employees as stated in the
SEC Final Rule and the NYSE corporate gover-
nance rules. For business schools, we have defined a
code of ethics as any policy statement with a title that
implies ethical or behavioral content.

The specific purpose of this research is to inves-
tigate the website existence of ethical statements as
defined above and at least the mention of the above-
specified ethical expressions. Given the far-reaching
capabilities of the internet, websites are generally
used by both business firms and educational insti-
tutions to convey selected information to both
external and internal parties.
In its Final Rule, the SEC recognized the flexi-
bility of website disclosure as a communications
medium. Business schools, on the other hand, use
their websites for a variety of purposes to convey
information to students, faculty, administrators, and
external parties about programs, processes, and goals.
We believe that business schools in general would
strongly consider a policy statement concern-
ing ethics or behavior to be worthy of website
disclosure.

Business schools’ websites present a variety of
educational policy statements (e.g., mission, vision,
goals, values, and conduct) that might identify eth-
ical expectations. Our analysis explored any state-
ment on business schools’ websites for identification
of ethical expressions as defined by this research.
Schools
Alternatively stated, our research includes the iden-
tification and analysis of specified ethical terms
regardless of the statement title or location on a
business school website.
Research questions
Public companies
The following questions formed the basis of our
analysis of corporate websites:
1. Have sampled business firms presented an
ethical policy statement?

2. Have sampled business firms mentioned the
recommended SEC/NYSE themes?
Business schools
The following questions formed the basis of our
analysis of business schools’ websites:
1. Have sampled business schools presented an
ethical policy statement?
2. Have sampled business schools mentioned
specified ethical expressions?
We have no expectations that business enterprises
or business schools will present an ethical policy
statement or if the specified ethical expressions will
be noted on their websites.
Methodology
In order to conduct the analysis, three samples were
selected – one from Fortune 400 companies and two
from U.S. AACSBI-accredited doctoral-granting
business schools. A stratified sample of 50 companies

was drawn from the 2004 listing of the Fortune 500.
The sample included 20 companies from the top
100, 15 companies from the next 100, 10 companies
from the next 100, and finally, five companies in the
last 100, therefore, representing the top 400 com-
panies. Codes of ethics or similar statements for
business firms were generally found in the Corporate
Governance section of a company’s website. For
every company, relevant statements were printed for
the December 2004–January 2005 time period.
The 91 doctoral-granting business schools listed in
the 2004–2005 and 2006–2007 Accounting Faculty
Directories (Hasselback, 2004, 2006) comprised the
other samples. All sampled institutions hold AACSBI
accreditation and are thus subject to Criterion E of
current AACSBI standards. These standards are
primarily concerned with the ethical education of
students; however, it should be noted that ethical

expressions in Criterion E includes the expectation
of appropriate behavior by administration, faculty,
staff, as well as students. Each of the 91 business
schools’ websites were examined thoroughly and
relevant information was printed for analysis pur-
poses. Data were collected for the first business
schools’ sample in the December 2004–January 2005
time period (hereafter referred to as the 2005 sam-
ple), and in the March 2007–April 2007 time period
(to be referred to as the 2007 sample). While busi-
ness enterprises linked their codes of ethics so they
could be easily found on their websites, policy
statements by business schools (with or without
ethical implications) were often difficult to find.
The initial sample suggested that business enter-
prises were, for the most part, attempting to comply
with federal law. It was therefore believed that a
second sample was not needed to draw conclusions

given research objectives. We did not draw the same
conclusion regarding the initial sample of business
schools. It was therefore decided that a second
sample of business schools should be drawn.
For business firms, two researchers analyzed the
sample of corporate codes as to the presence and/or
discussion of specified topical content. A copy was
printed once a code and supporting information was
located on the website. Elaborate examples often
delineated what did and did not constitute ethical
behavior. These copies were independently read by
two of the three authors and then were discussed. If
the two researchers agreed that a specified thematic
or focus/theme content was present, data was
recorded as a binomial measure.
For business schools, the researchers examined all
policy statements appearing on the sampled websites.
Relevant information was printed to facilitate analysis.

If the two researchers agreed that specified thematic
or focus/theme content or other expressions were
present, the data was recorded. The presence of a
specified ethical expression in a policy statement was
coded as 1, while its absence was coded as 0.
Given that one sample was drawn from business
firms, our analysis of 2005 corporate data consisted
of a frequency count and a chi-square test of char-
acteristic mean proportions. A frequency count and
a chi-square test for the difference of overall mean
proportions between the two business school sam-
ples of policy statements containing ethical expres-
sions were performed. In addition, a frequency
count and a chi-square test for the difference of
overall mean proportions of specified ethical
expressions between the two business school samples

were conducted.
Results
Business practice
With respect to research question 1, all 50 compa-
nies sampled had online accessible ethics statements.
In general, the beginning of the codes disclosed
ethical principles (thematic content), followed by
SEC and NYSE focus/themes of compliance with
laws, fair dealings, conflicts of interest, confidenti-
ality, accountability for adherence to the code,
protection of assets, reporting illegal activities,
timely disclosure to the SEC, and corporate oppor-
tunities.
The titles of the sampled codes varied consider-
ably, including ‘‘Winning with Integrity,’’ ‘‘Spirit
and the Letter Integrity Policy,’’ ‘‘Principles of
Business Integrity,’’ and ‘‘Corporate Principles and
Standards of Conduct.’’ Statements ranged from

over 100 pages to 5 pages in length and varied
considerably in format. Some took a question and
answer framework, while others were organized into
categorical sections and subsections. Most state-
ments presented extensive examples of unacceptable
conduct.
Research question 2 findings are detailed in
Table I. The thematic contents of honesty and
integrity were mentioned or discussed by 26 and 39
firms, respectively. The measured frequency of
focus/themes mentioned or discussed by all 50
companies were compliance with laws, conflicts of
interest, and confidentiality. The other focus/themes
noted or discussed ranged in frequency from 24 to
48 companies, with fair and timely disclosure
measured only 24 times. The mean value of all 11
characteristics was 42.
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine

if the proportions of the recommended SEC/NYSE
thematic content and focus/themes were the same.
The chi-square value of 22.8095 with 10 degrees of
freedom has a p-value of 0.011. This indicates that
some of the counts of the specified ethical expres-
sions are statistically different from the mean value
of 42.
Characteristics with lower counts included fair
and timely disclosure to the SEC, corporate oppor-
tunities, and honesty.
Education
With respect to the 2005 sample (research question
1), only 52 of the 91 business school websites (57%)
contained either/and a mission, vision, values, goals,
or some similar statement that might include ethical
expressions. There were 34 mission statements, five
vision statements (with some colleges having both),
and 18 other various titles including values state-

ment, core values/credo, promise statement, com-
munity standards, statement of purpose, and shared
principles. Only 23 out of the 52 business schools
mentioned the characteristics of thematic content
TABLE I
2005 Business firm thematic content and focus/theme
frequency and chi-square analysis*
Item Item description Count %
1 Compliance with laws 50 100
2 Fair dealings 46 92
3 Conflict of interest 50 100
4 Confidentiality 50 100
5 Accountability for adherence to code 47 94
6 Protection and use of corporate assets 48 96
7 Reporting illegal activities 48 96
8 Fair/Timely disclosure to SEC 24 48
9 Corporate opportunities 34 68
10 Honesty 26 52

11 Integrity 39 78
Mean value 42 84
*Chi-square value: 22.8095, p-value: 0.011.
Schools
(honesty and integrity) or focus/themes (diversity,
respect for others, obey laws, meet societal obliga-
tions, and accountability) in one or more policy
statements. No sampled doctoral-granting AACSBI-
accredited business schools had a specific policy
statement using the words ‘‘ethics’’ or ‘‘ethical’’ in its
title (Table II).
Of the 91 business school websites in the 2007
sample (research question 1), 70 (77%) contained a
mission, vision, goals, and/or other similar type of
statement. When considering all types of statements,
there were 65 mission statements, 31 vision state-

ments (with some colleges having both), and 37
statements that included ethical expressions in their
titles such as values, credo, promise, or other similar
descriptions. Statements specifying thematic content
or focus/themes were found in 47 of the 70 state-
ments. The term ‘‘ethics’’ or ‘‘ethical’’ appeared in
one statement title (Table II).
Data comparison for the 2005 and 2007 business
school samples detailed in Table II revealed a signif-
icant increase in the percentage of business schools
that had (1) a policy statement of any kind on their
websites (p-value = 0.005); (2) policy statement titles
implying ethical expectations (p-value = 0.002); and
(3) policy statements containing specified thematic
content or focus/themes (p-value = 0.000). No sig-
nificant difference in the number of statements whose
title included the term ‘‘ethics’’ or ‘‘ethical’’ was
found.

In the 2005 sample for research question 2, six
business schools mentioned honesty and ten men-
tioned integrity with respect to thematic content
(Table III). Of the focus/themes, nine business
schools noted diversity and respect for others, five
mentioned accountability, and one identified meeting
societal obligations. None of the schools sampled
mentioned obeying laws. Other themes or expressions
TABLE II
Business school policy statements with ethical characteristics
frequency and chi-square analysis
Item 2005
Sample
% of 91
Business
schools
2007
Sample
% of 91

Business
schools
p-Value of
change from
2005/2007
Have a policy statement of any kind 52 57 70 77 0.005
(8.0557)*
Policy statement titles implying ethical expectations 18 20 37
41 0.002 (9.4062)*
Statements containing one or
more specified thematic content or focus/themes
23 25 47 52 0.000 (13.3714)*
‘‘Ethics’’ or ‘‘Ethical’’ in statement title 0 0 1 1 0.316
(1.0055)*
*Chi-square statistic is in parenthesis.
TABLE III
Business school specified characteristics frequency and chi-
square analysis
Ethical attribute Item 2005
Sample

% of 91
Business
schools
2007
Sample
% of 91
Business
schools
p-Value of
change from
2005/2007
Thematic content Honesty 6 6.6 17 18.7 0.014 (6.0219)*
Integrity 10 11.0 35 38.5 0.000 (18.4509)*
Focus/themes Diversity 9 9.9 26 28.6 0.001 (10.2231)*
Respect 9 9.9 27 29.7 0.001 (11.2192)*
Accountability 5 5.5 19 20.9 0.0002 (9.4072)*
Societal Obligations 1 1.1 5 5.5 0.097 (2.7576)*
Obeying Laws 0 0 3 3.3 0.081 (3.0503)*

*Chi-square statistic is in parenthesis.
mentioned were collegiality, compassion, trust, pro-
fessionalism, fairness, principled, sincerity, openness,
and conscience.
The 2007 sample (research question 2) revealed
that the thematic content term of honesty was cited
17 times and integrity was mentioned 35 times
(Table III). Focus/theme characteristics of diversity
were referred to 26 times, respect for others was
noted 27 times, while accountability was mentioned
19 times in the sample. Meeting societal obligations
and obeying laws, mentioned five and three times,
respectively, completed the focus/theme counts.
Other characteristics mentioned in the sample in-
cluded trust, ethics/ethical behavior (but not in the
statement title), dignity, fairness, collegiality, civility,

openness, sincerity, and professionalism.
The ethical characteristic comparison for business
schools between the 2005 and 2007 samples is
shown in Table III. A chi-square analysis of the
differences in proportions for each of the seven
ethical characteristics between the samples indicated
that five of the seven items (honesty, integrity,
diversity, respect, and accountability) were signifi-
cantly different at the 0.05 level. For the remaining
two items (societal obligation and obeying laws), no
statistical difference was found between the two
samples at the 0.05 level.
Discussion
Business practice
The SEC released ethical disclosure recommenda-
tions for publicly traded firms in Rule 33-8177 on
January 23, 2003. The completion of the drawing of
the 50-firm sample of business enterprises was in

January 2005. Within this 2-year time period, all
enterprises sampled had developed and posted codes
of ethics or similar statements on their respective
websites. Most firms elaborated to great extent on
the attributes or characteristics of behavior discussed
in this research.
The chi-square analysis indicated that there was a
significant difference from the mean for some the-
matic content and focus/themes characteristics. The
characteristic with the lowest frequency count (24)
was fair/timely disclosure to the SEC. This is likely
due to the fact that the management of some firms
believe that it is a matter of law, not ethics, to report
to the SEC as required on a timely basis. Honesty, as
an ethical corporate goal, was noted in only 26
codes. This might be because honesty may be con-
sidered a mainstay of ethical behavior and a foun-
dation for all ethical characteristics. Corporate

opportunities, noted 34 times, and conflict of
interest, counted 50 times, could be interpreted to
have the same meaning. Since corporate opportu-
nities specifically address employees using informa-
tion obtained in the workplace for their own
benefit, it is logical to assume that some corporate
management would consider that conflict of interest
provisions would encompass corporate opportuni-
ties. We believe that the sampled business enterprises
have complied with those rules and regulations
established by Sarbanes-Oxley and the SEC. It is
evident from our findings that business enterprises
have followed ethical area recommendations.
Business school findings
In June 2004, the AACSBI released its four broad-
based themes of (1) ethical decision making; (2) ethical
leadership; (3) corporate governance; and (4)
responsibility of business to society. This coincides

closely with the time period of our first sample. We
believe there was little time for sample schools to re-
spond to the AACSBI recommendations as shown by
the number of policy statements of any kind in the
2005 and 2007 samples. In the 2005 sample of 91
business schools, only 23 mentioned specified topical
content, although other themes were developed. The
2007 sample of business schools revealed a marked
improvement with topical content expressed on 47
websites. In the 2005 sample, only 18 policy statement
titles implied ethical expectations. In the 2007 sample,
38 websites, which included one statement with
‘‘ethics’’ in its title, had policy statements implying
ethical expectations. However, it would be difficult to
conclude that ethical disclosure within the 2007
sample is adequate given honesty and integrity were
mentioned only 17 and 35 times, respectively.
The AACSBI is encouraging business schools to

emphasize both personal and professional ethical
behavior. Even though an educational institution
might have a university-wide code of ethics/con-
duct or institutional ethical standards, sampled
11An Analysis of the Ethical Codes of Corporations and
Business Schools
business school website focus appears not to priori-
tize expectations of ethical behavior with other sta-
ted goals. Instead, the ‘‘successful’’ student and the
reputation of the college/school of business appear
to be the focus. The following statement from a
college of business vision statement exemplifies this
mind-set, ‘‘to be increasingly recognized for
advancing the interests of our stakeholders through
instruction, research and service that … prepares our
students to think strategically and become effective
leaders.’’ Other statements appeared to be more self-
serving: ‘‘To direct resources to activities that will

produce the highest return in terms of enhancing
our reputation’’ and ‘‘to be a nationally ranked
business school.’’ While such statements may be
appropriate for business school websites, the relative
absence of ethical expressions in business school’s
mission, vision, stated goals, or other policy state-
ments is a concern. AACSBI has revised its visitation
standards to now require a 5-year review rather than
the previous 10-year cycle. Accredited business
schools might be waiting until their impending
accreditation visit to make changes in policy state-
ments disclosing ethical expectations.
Conclusions
During the past decade, many corporations have
incurred substantial penalties due to the violation of
federal laws and regulations. Often violations were
considered to be ethical breaches of trust with
shareholders and the public. New laws and regula-

tions were adopted to emphasize ethical behavior on
the part of business management. At the same time,
business schools have been encouraged by AACSBI
to reinvigorate ethical expectations among their
students. Our findings indicate that corporate man-
agement has made a substantial effort to follow new
ethically-related laws and regulations. Our research
also indicates that business schools have not estab-
lished ethical expectations to the same degree as that
of business firms.
All 50 firms sampled displayed a corporate code of
ethics on their respective websites. The frequency of
focus/themes mentioned or discussed by all 50
companies included compliance with laws, conflicts
of interest, and confidentiality. The mean score of all
measured characteristics was 42.
Criterion E from the current AACSBI standards
states that accredited business schools must establish

expectations for ethical behavior. The results of our
initial sample (2005) indicated a low adherence to
this accreditation standard. Our 2007 sample indi-
cated improvement. However, based on a total
sample of 91 business schools, Table II indicates that
many business schools are simply not following
Criterion E of the current AACSBI accreditation
standards. This may be due to (1) business schools
not using website disclosure for developed ethical
expectations; (2) unfamiliarity with the current
AACSBI recommendations; (3) familiarity with the
recommendations, but have not revised their state-
ments given the current 5-year accreditation review
cycle; and/or (4) relying on the fact that their uni-
versity’s mission, vision, and/or ethical statements
adequately cover AACSBI mandates.
It has taken legislation and regulation to state the
ethical objectives that should be followed in business

practice. Compliance, in terms of this research, only
means businesses have stated expected employee
behavior. Stated objectives do not always equal
actual behavior. Based on a review of curricula of
sampled websites, business schools in the United
States are prioritizing the teaching of ethics. How-
ever, they should consider, if they have not already
done so, including ethical themes or other forms of
ethical awareness on their websites as a continuous
reminder of this educational goal. Future research
might determine whether business schools have
moved from the position in this study to one more
in line with AACSBI recommendations. Addition-
ally, any discernable disconnect between academic
emphasis and business policy might be explored.
Appendix
University of South Carolina (www.sa.sc.edu/creed/
itsorigin.htm)

Richards College of Business, University of West
Georgia (www.westga.edu/�busn/)
References
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International: 2004, Ethics Education Taskforce, Ethics
http://www.sa.sc.edu/creed/itsorigin.htm
http://www.sa.sc.edu/creed/itsorigin.htm
http://www.westga.edu/~busn/
http://www.westga.edu/~busn/
Education in Business Schools. AACSB International,
St. Louis, Missouri. www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/
EthicsEdu.
Bligh, D., H. Thomas and I. McNay: 2000, ‘Under-
standing Higher Education: An Introduction for Par-
ents, Staff, Employers and Students’, Quality Assurance
in Education 8(3), 152–155.
Cressey, D. R. and C. A. Moore: 1983, ‘Managerial
Values and Corporate Codes of Ethics’, California

Management Review 25(4), 53–77.
Dobson, J.: 2003, ‘Why Ethics Codes don’t Work’,
Financial Analyst Journal 59(6), 29–36.
Gaumnitz, B. R. and J. C. Lere: 2002, ‘Contents of
Codes of Ethics of Professional Organizations in the
United States’, Journal of Business Ethics 35(1), 35–50.
Gaumnitz, B. R. and J. C. Lere: 2004, ‘A Classification
Scheme for Codes of Business Ethics’, Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics 49(4), 329–335.
Hasselback, J.: 2004, Accounting Faculty Directory 2005
(Prentice-Hall, NJ), p. iii.
Hasselback, J.: 2006, Accounting Faculty Directory 2006–
2007 (Prentice-Hall, NJ), p. iii.
Hite, R. E., J. A. Bellizzi and C. Fraser: 1988, ‘A Content
Analysis of Ethical Policy Statements Regarding
Marketing Activities’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 771–
776. doi:10.1007/BF00411024.
Jamal, K. and N. E. Bowie: 1995, ‘Theoretical Consid-

erations for a Meaningful Code of Professional Ethics’,
Journal of Business Ethics 14(9), 703–714.
Jennings, M. M.: 1999, ‘What’s Happening in Business
Schools’, Public Interest 137, 25–32.
Kaptein, M.: 2004, ‘Business Codes of Multinational
Firms: What do They Say?’, Journal of Business Ethics
50(1), 13–31.
Kaptein, M. and M. Schwartz: 2007, The Effectiveness of
Business Codes: A Critical Examination of Existing Studies
and the Development of an Integrated Research Model
(Research Institute of Management, RSM Erasmus
University, Erasmus), pp. 1–42.
Kaptein, M. and J. Wempe: 2002, The Balanced Company:
A Theory of Corporate Integrity (Oxford University Press,
Oxford).
Kizior, R. J.: 2000, ‘Longitudinal Study on the Effects of
Ethics Courses on the Value Systems of Graduate
Students’, in Fifth Annual Ethics and Technology Conference,

Chicago, IL, July 21–22, 2000. www.ethicstech.org/
papers/kizior.doc.
Lefebvre, M. and J. B. Singh: 1992, ‘The Content and
Focus of Canadian Codes of Ethics’, Journal of Business
Ethics 11(10), 799–808.
Levitt, A. and R. C. Breeden: 2003, ‘Our Ethical Ero-
sion’, Wall Street Journal, New York, N.Y., December
3, 2003, p. A16.
Matthews, M. C.: 1987, ‘Codes of Ethics: Organizational
Behavior and Misbehavior’, Research in Corporate Social
Performance and Policy: Empirical Studies of Business Ethics
and Values 9, 107–130.
New York Stock Exchange: 2003, Corporate Governance
Rules, November 4, 2003.
Russell, K. A. and C. S. Smith: 2003, ‘It’s Time for a
New Curriculum’, Strategic Finance, December 2003,
pp. 47–51.
Sankaran, S.: 2003, ‘Relationship Between Student

Characteristics and Ethics; Implications for Educators’,
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 112–124.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 107th Congress, July 2002.
Securities and Exchange Commission: 2003, Final Rule
Release 33-8177, Disclosure Required by Sec-
tions 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
January 23, 2003, pp. 1–60.
Shaver, D.: 2003, ‘Toward an Analytical Structure for
Evaluating the Ethical Content of Decisions by
Advertising Professionals’, Journal of Business Ethics
48(3), 291–298.
Van Tulder, R., D. Berghe and A. Muller: 2001, Erasmus
(S) Coreboard of Core Companies: The World’s Largest
Firms and Internationalization (Rotterdam School of
Management, Rotterdam).
Webster: 1990, Webster’s Desk Dictionary of the English
Language (Portland House Publishing), p. 307.
Wood, L.: 2002, ‘Beyond the Oxymoron: Can Business

Ethics Pay?’, The Galt Global Review, May 15, 2002,
pp. 1–2.
Harrison McCraw and Kathy S. Moffeit
University of West Georgia,
Carrollton, GA, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
John R. O’Malley Jr.
Georgia Southern University,
Statesboro, GA, U.S.A.
13An Analysis of the Ethical Codes of Corporations and
Business Schools
http://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/EthicsEdu
http://www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/EthicsEdu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00411024
http://www.ethicstech.org/papers/kizior.doc
http://www.ethicstech.org/papers/kizior.doc
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Outline
placeholderAbs1Sec1Sec2Sec4Sec5Sec6Sec7Sec8Sec9Sec10Sec
11Sec12Sec13Sec14Sec15Sec16Sec17Sec18Sec19Bib1
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false

/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (None)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% 050ECI051)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJDFFile false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual
/DetectBlends true
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/SyntheticBoldness 1.00
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 524288
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false

/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 150
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256

/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1

/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?)
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description <<
/ENU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020

007500730065006400200066006f0072002000640069006700690
0740061006c0020007000720069006e00740069006e0067002000
61006e00640020006f006e006c0069006e0065002000750073006
100670065002e000d002800630029002000320030003000340020
0053007000720069006e00670065007200200061006e006400200
049006d007000720065007300730065006400200047006d006200
48>
/DEU
<FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066
006f00720020004100630072006f0062006100740020004400690
07300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d0050007200
6f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006
c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020
007500730065006400200066006f00720020006f006e006c00690
06e0065002e000d00280063002900200032003000300038002000
53007000720069006e006700650072002d005600650072006c006
1006700200047006d006200480020000d000d0054006800650020
006c00610074006500730074002000760065007200730069006f0
06e002000630061006e00200062006500200064006f0077006e00
6c006f00610064006500640020006100740020006800740074007
0003a002f002f00700072006f00640075006300740069006f006e0
02e0073007000720069006e006700650072002e0063006f006d00
0d0054006800650072006500200079006f0075002000630061006
e00200061006c0073006f002000660069006e0064002000610020
007300750069007400610062006c006500200045006e0066006f0
063007500730020005000440046002000500072006f0066006900
6c006500200066006f0072002000500069007400530074006f007
0002000500072006f00660065007300730069006f006e0061006c
0020003600200061006e0064002000500069007400530074006f0
07000200053006500720076006500720020003300200066006f00
7200200070007200650066006c00690067006800740069006e006
700200079006f007500720020005000440046002000660069006c
006500730020006200650066006f007200650020006a006f00620
020007300750062006d0069007300730069006f006e002e>
>>
>> setdistillerparams

<<
/HWResolution [2400 2400]
/PageSize [5952.756 8418.897]
>> setpagedevice
For this discussion, please go to the electronic reserves and
access the article titled: "An Analysis of the Ethical Codes of
Corporations and Business Schools."
The business ethics movement, like business ethics itself, has
become a topic of much recent debate and discussion and the
concern for ethics in business continues. Business ethics as it
relates to academic training contributes to various discussions,
research and teaching that inform both ethics in business and
the business ethics movement. In this article, you read all about
ethic standards set for the worlds elite business schools.
With this said, given the push for more ethical teaching in
today's AACSB accredited colleges, do you see the ethics in the
corporate business world changing as new graduates are more
and more focused on ethics in business? In response to this
question, please state your position and back up your answer
with examples, data or research to support your position

An Analysis of the Ethical Codesof Corporations and Busine.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Analysis of the Ethical Codesof Corporations and Busine.docx

Similar to An Analysis of the Ethical Codesof Corporations and Busine.docx (20)

More from galerussel59292

More from galerussel59292 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Analysis of the Ethical Codesof Corporations and Busine.docx