Research
U.S. Press Portrayal of Corporate Leaders
Hannah and Zatzick (2008) reviewed literature from three major business magazines (Business Week, Fortune, and Forbes) before and after the 21st
century corporate ethics scandals, e.g., Enron, Worldcom, etc. There was no change in the way journalists incorporated ethics when depicting leaders.
The study considered several reasons why the media excludes ethics when discussing successful business leaders. The authors suggest the need
for additional research to connect ethical leadership to organizational performance (Hannah & Zatzick, 2008).
Individual Ethics Assessment
Comer and Vega (2008) developed a test to measure an individual's personal ethical threshold (PET). The score shows how susceptible a person
is to pressure in an organization that makes it harder to act morally. An individual with a high score is more likely to act morally. The authors
administered the test to 506 undergraduate business school students in eight United States schools. Older students had higher scores and students
in the northeast had lower scores. There was no relationship between the score and the person's gender (Comer & Vega, 2008).
Corporate Codes of Ethics
Helin and Sandstro (2007) evaluated research dating back to 1994 on corporate codes of ethics.
The authors found "we still lack knowledge on how codes work, how they are communicated and how they are transformed inside organizations"
(Helin & Sandstro, 2007, p.1). They also speculate that the lack of knowledge may be more considerable than the mid 1990s. Since it is not known
if corporate codes of ethics successfully influence an organization's ethical climate, Helin and Sandstro suggest transformation-oriented studies that examine things such as how codes are communicated and turned into action (Helin & Sandstro, 2007).
Living Code of Ethics
Klemm Verbos, Gerard, Forshey, Harding, and Miller (2007) explored the concept of a living code of ethics that stems from leadership;
an ethical organizational culture; and the aligned processes of attraction-selection-attrition, socialization, reward systems, decision-making,
and learning. The authors define a living code of ethics as "the cognitive, affective, and behavioral manifestation of an ethical organizational
identity within a positive ethical organization" (Klemm Verbos, Gerard, Forshey, Harding, & Miller, 2007, p.22). The authors suggest that leaders use
the living code model to evaluate their organization's ethical consistency (Klemm Verbos et al., 2007).
Cultural Differences
Brey (2007) considered whether information ethics differs according to culture. The author defined information ethics as "the study of ethical issues
in the use of information and information technology. Contemporary information ethics is a result of the digital revolution (or information revolution)
and focuses mainly on ethical issues in the production, use, and dissemination of digital information and information technologies" (Brey, 2007, p.24). Brey studied the attitudes of Western and non-Western cultures regarding privacy, freedom of information, and intellectual property rights. The study found that there are differences in the morals of Western and non-Western cultures that can impact global information ethics (Brey, 2007).
European and U.S. Business Practices
Hurst (2004) compared the corporate ethics, governance and social responsibility practices of European and United States business. The author studied eight European and ten U.S. companies in several industries. The findings indicated that companies in Europe have a higher commitment to social responsibility while companies in the U.S. are more focused on business ethics and governance (Hurst, 2004).
Internet Commerce
Falkofske (2000) developed a college curriculum to teach the legal, ethical, and business issues related to Internet commerce. The author asserts that small business owners who are unaware of their restrictions and obligations can run into problems. The following ethical issues were included in the curriculum: privacy (personal and financial information), confidentiality of communications, e.g., email, advertising gimmicks, spam, accessibility and usability for the disabled, and protecting children (Falkofske, 2000).
Return to Home Page
|