A Principlist Code of Ethics
Valentin Muresan
University of Bucharest
The author starts from what he considers a wrong trend in institutional ethics (both in theoretical litterature and in
practice), i.e. to hide the ethical codes behind “codes of conduct” or “business codes” with the purpose of avoiding
the implementation of genuine ethical infrastructures in organisations. Such a purpose is not accidental. Some
people and some political bodies sincerely believe that ethical codes are very problematic entities. From this doubt,
two questions are raised: the ethical codes do they realy exist and are they definable as such? The main contribution
of this article is to show thatit is possible toconceive a methodology for grounding ethical codes on the principlist
ethical framework. Itsuggests to use some moral principles,widely recognized, as the basis for the selection of
adequate bodies of moral rules, correlated to specific rights, as well as to a list of character virtues. Finally, this
model suggests to us how to proceed at the periphery of the system where ethical decision making processes
contribute to enriching or cleaning the system; a typology of ethical trainingsis also implied. By grounding a
strategy of building ethical codeson principlism,one reduces the chaotic diversity of the ways in which ethical codes
are designed today.It also explains several typical mistakescommited in the field.
Key words: code of conduct, ethical code, ethical infrastructure, principlism, principlist moral code.
Every organization can be seenas a hierarchy of codes, as a complex systemof guiding
rulesdesigned to assure the professional, financial, social etc. performance of that organization.
For instance, there are codes which regulate the behavior at each workplace (rules for using a
lathe, or a computer etc.). There are rules for using the phone, rules for quality assurance, codes
for assureing the financial performance and diminishing financial risks, there are codes that set
up the structure of the organization, and codes that regulate the good work in its various
subsystems: rules for doctoral programmes in universities, codes for the campus life, codes of
etiquette etc. Among all these, quite recently, a new type of code became, shyly, object of study
and management tool: the code of ethics. What is it?
I’ll investigate in the first part of the article the confusion between codes of conduct (or
business codes) and ethical codes; my hypothesis is that,quite frequently, this is a deliberate
confusion meant to avoid the adoption of ethical restrictions which may enter into conflict with
1
the mentality of the profit exclusivity or with the mentality of neglecting institutional morals. I’ll
continue by envisaging the shortcommings of a number of popular definitions and manners of
conceiving the process of building an ethics code, trying to find out its specificity i.e. the criteria
for distinguishing a code of ethics from other kinds of codes.In countries like Romania, where
corruption is considered a big national problem but, paradoxically, the unethical institutional
behavior is tolerated becauseit is considered harmless; where the systems of ethics management
are almost unknown and, contrary to the dominant opinion, the widespread and inoquos “small
corruption” is in fact the “big fish” - it is vital to find the right way as concerns the institutional
ethics. Some empirical research (Alistar, 2011) (Muresan, 2009) show that this country could be
ranked in the “reactive phase” of the evolution scale of ethics management (Rossouw, Vuuren,
2003) in which everybody is apparently interested in the subject, even take some superficial
measures, but in fact programatically ignore the issue. That is why it’s a duty of those involved
in ethics management to opt for a way to go, not only to display the existing alternatives.
Consequently I’ll adopt anormative attitude as concerns the status of the codes of ethics. Then
I’ll show the implications of the decision to build an ethical code following as a guide and
justification the “principlist ethical framework” (Beauchamp, Childress, 1978). There are many
other ways in which ethical codes were grounded and justified: utilitarian, kantian, virtue theory,
feminist, rights theory, contractarian etc. In some other cases there is no justification of an ethical
code: to give such a justification is considered to be a too “philosophical” task, while the
problem of codes is a pragmatic art.What I shall do in the end is to explore thecomparative
advantages of my approach, whose main output is a principlist code of ethics.
Codes of ethics or codes of conduct?
2
My thesis in this chapter is that there is a visible tendency among those who approach
ethical codes, both in theory and in practice, to hide the ethical code behind the “code of
conduct” or the “business code”, in other words, to declare a sincere interest in building moral
organisations but in reality to neglect their moral content. The empirical studies in Romania
show a rebarbative attitude of national companies towards everything what is “ethical”. Only the
profit counts.
After years and years of institutional moral practicewithoutmoral codes, we are now in a
position to remark their presence almost everywhere. Good or bad, their existence is an
undisputable fact (Verbos et alia, 2007). But do we have an answer to the question: what
distinguishes ethical codes among other type of codes?Some will say that making such a
distinction is useless. On the contrary, I completely agree with Muel Kaptein (2008b, p. 60)
when he says that “when the organisation itself refered to the code as an “ethical code”, it is
important that the code is indeed ethical”.Unfortunately, this almost never happens. A lot of
authors remarked the “lack of clarity around what exactly a code of ethicsconsists of”. In
practice, it is difficult to isolate
codes of ethics since they are usually mingled among
professional codes, business codes, codes of practice, codes of conduct, business standards, value
statements, etc. (Yallop, 2010, p. 24). This situation should not surprise these authors as far as
many of them constantly encouraged an attitude of distrust by accepting the comfortable
confusion between ethical codes and other kinds of codeson the motive that this is the practiceor
that people are scared of the word “ethical”. Or,by their undisguised preference for descriptive
and
empiricist
explanations
(this
means
for
them
“science”),
neglecting
and
despiseingnormative approaches. Mark Schwartz (2005, p. 27) remarked the very few normative
studies on corporate codes of ethics as well as the scarcity of the efforts to morally ground and
justify the codes using theories or other ethical frameworks. On such a lenientview, “almost
everything goes”.
3
For instance, while reading Kaptein’s book The Living Code(Kaptein, 2008b) I wasn’t
completely convincedthat he is speaking about a moral business code (MBC) and not simply
about a business code (BC). What he pretends to speak about isethical codes because he claims
that in his book “a business code is about ethical behavior” and in the academic litterature in
general “the business code is also referred to by the name” of “code of ethics” (Kaptein, 2008b,
p. 16, 18). All the more, in an article of the same period, Kaptein and Schwartz (2008) claimed
that the “ethical” attributeis somehow redundant when applied to codes,asit captures a too
narrow meaning, which may spread skepticism around,because an ethical code doesn’t serve the
selfish interests of that company, but the interests of all the stakeholders concerned (this is the
principle of univeralizability, consubstantial with that of impartiality). That’s why they prefer to
speak about a „business code”, which is a combination of various rules, some of them moral. Or,
if there is a “skeptical” attitude towards ethical codes, our task is not to avoid the term, but to
educate people not to be afraid of it and search for the reasons of that attitude. In this context,
Kaptein and Schwartz (2008, p. 113) define a “business code” as such:
“A business code is a distinct and formal document containing a set of prescriptions developed by
and for a company to guide present and future behavior on multiple issues of at least managers and
employees toward one another, the company, external stakeholders and/or society in general”.
This is surely not a code of ethics because it regulates “multiple issuse”. One of the bad
consequences of this fact is the fostering of an attitude of denial towards ethical expertise. If we
look at the “behavioral prescriptions” following this definition, we can find everything we want:
activities concerning profits, competition, some labour conditions (which do not suggest tight
relations with ethics), and activities concerning human rights, coruption, sexual harrasment
(which obviously are related to ethics).This dissolution of the “ethical code” into a “business
code” or a “code of conduct” which refer to any kind of institutional activity is not a sign that
the organization takes ethics seriouslsy; on the contrary,this is the sign of thewish to avoidthe
4
adoption of ethical regulations. M. Schwartz (2001, p. 248) acknowledges that “a certain degree
of confusion remains as to what a code of ethics consists of” and remarks the various labels used.
But the definition selected by him is far from being able to compensate these shortcommings:
“A code of ethics is considered to be a written, distinct and formal document which consists of
moral standards used to guide the employee or corporate behavior”.
I may hardly agree that “code of ethics” is definable without circularity by “moral
standards”, but the difficult question is: what is a “moral standard”? This is not explained at all
and we are not told how to demarcate a code of ethics from a code of good practices. As far as
there are articles in which these authors openly speak about ethical codes, their nature, utility and
functions, this means that one may give such demarcation criteria. For example, Kaptein and
Wempe (1998, p. 189) claimed that the aim of ethical codes is to „increase the moral resistance
of an organization”, i.e. that we set up a moral code to better challenge the factors that tend to
degrade the organization’s „moral content”, by „moral content” meaning the degree towhich an
organization makes efforts to fulfill its responsibilities towards all stakeholders.This is true, an
ethical code includes rules that prohibit immoral behavior. But the question is again: how can we
distinguish immoral behavior? These sophisticated topics benefited of few attention from the
part of specialists in institutional ethics because most practitioners think that eveybody is an
expert in ethics, thatgenuine ethics is that learned during the first childhood and that it isa quite
personal problem.
The next citation is another characterisation of ethical codes done by Donald Menzel in
his wellknown book Ethicsmanagement for public administrators (Menzel, 2007, p. 69):
“Codes should be regarded as living documents that are integrated into the fabric of the
organizational culture. Ethics managers who take pride in their professional code of
ethics by displaying it in the work environment are taking an important step in cultivating
an ethical culture”.
5
This is the highest phase of ethics management evolution i.e. having an ethical code
which works perfectly and has benefic effects, being an integral part of the company’s activities
on the whole. Moreover, it is in accordance with a managerial culture of “integrity”, surpassing
the phase of “complience” in the evolutionary scheme of ethics management. This is the
American perception of the topic and it differs radically from the same perception in countries
where Ethics Management is practically unknown. For instance, in Romania, a recent research
showed that on a sample of 631 companies only 18% have a code of ethics and only 5% of them
are Romanian companies. Conclusion: “in the aria of Romanian business such a practice [ethics
management] does not exist yet” (Alistar, 2011, p. 34). Moreover, the empirical research showed
a firm refuse from the part of the personnel to introduce elements of ethics management in local,
Romanian, firms. The ethical traninig is practically unknown, the ethics managers (if they exist)
are not aware that to have an ethical code is not enough, that a whole system of ethics
management is needed. Paradoxically, at the level of declaration almost everybody say they feel
the need of improving and protecting the moral life of their organization.One of the results of the
confusion between business codes and ethics codes is, for instance, the Romanian code of ethics
of the public servants. Even if done under the suprevision of the European Commission, it is a
tipical “code of conduct” having the form of a juridical law (no. 7/2004) that “regulates the
norms of professional conduct of the public servants”. Among these, few moral principles and
regulations, most of them confuse or redundant (e.g. the rule that regulates the gifts cannot be a
moral principle and the principle of “freedom of conscience and expression” is not something
proper to the public servants). The background of such a simulacrum of ethics code is the
mentality that we don’t need experts in institutional ethics: lawyers, PRs or managers are enough
for this job.
6
Are there codes of ethics?
But maybe the skeptics are right: the very existence of ethical codes is problematic: such
critics, of a radical particularist stance, claim that business enterprises, first of all, are quasidictatorships and that trying to assert in them the validity of an ethical code is silly. But it’s an
undeniable fact that in such enterprises one can find codes of ethics. And they are not, for that, a
simple
instrument of the managers to assure complience, because a largely recognised
characteristic of an ethical code is to be adopted autonomously by all those who will obey it. So,
we have a kind of self-imposed dictatorship for increasing the common good. Inteligent selfimposed constraint is freedom.
Narrativists and various kinds of particularists claim the “death” of applied ethics and of
its ethical codes, since each organization and even each man must have its own or his own
morality. This is something impossible to accept for the majority of institutional ethics
experts.They are working with a reality which actually includes ethical codes. This is a fact.
Of course, as we saw, there are authors who speak openly about „ethical codes” but
prefer a very broad characterisation of them (under the borrowed name of „business codes”), so
broad that they lacks any specificity:
„A business code is an independent document which has been developed for and by an
organisation to guide the current and future conduct of its managers and employees”(Schwartz,
2005, p. 27) (Kaptein, 2008, p. 17) .
This definition has at least two shortcommings: it is too large and it doesn’t distinguish
essential from accidental properties of codes. It is easy to see that under the umbrella of this
7
concept enters almost every kind of system of rules in an organization: a code of good practices,
the financial code, the workplace security code etc. They are all official and independent
documents, adapted to the conditions of the place, having a guiding force. These do not
distinguish the moral codes. Of course, the moral codes have a number of traits that Kaptein
lists and judiciously comments but these are accidental, non-specific qualities. For instance, an
ethical code must be an official document of the organization1, having a prescriptive, not a
descriptive form; this system of rules is set up by the organization itself and updated by it too (it
is not the case of principles), the system of obligations is enforced by sanctions, the code is
durable and valid for employees and managers; the code formulates not only the duties, but aslo
the rights of employees (Kaptein, 1998, p. 172). All these are properties which may belong to
any kind of code. Of course, Kaptein adds the condition: these rules are „about moral behavior”.
But the concept of „moral behavior” is so vague (i.e. he says that it’s a matter of principle, about
fundamental interests, and involve emotions) that it hardly can be said to demarcate the domain
of „moral”.
Wood and Rimmer(2003, p. 184) propose to distinguish ethical codes from codes
ofconduct by the following property: the first provide the guidance principles, i.e.
thephilosophical values of an organisation, and the second the prescriptive rules, i.e. the practical
guidelines thatenables the ethos of the code to come alive. The codes of ethics are more
educational than punitive. This is not at a long distance from the
distinction between “value
statements” and “codes of rules and regulations”. The two kinds of codes exist either separately
or in combination, although the American experience show that “code of ethics” is a “generic
term”. As I shall show in what follows, not only that this distinction is difficult to be done, but
also that this combination is a dangerous one for the idea of institutional ethics.
Not only individual researchers, but also European institutions detered the concentration
on specific moral codes and on the management of moral relations. In the European Commission
documents, one distinguishes between „codes of ethics”, „codes of conduct” and „codes of rules
and regulations”. The Code of ethics should be a short and general document which establishes
the values and principles of the moral behavior. It is associated by some North European
1
This characteristic may be sometimes important, e.g. when you have to oppose those who claim that the
unwrittenhabits and traditions of an organization, its „unwritten codes” are enough, that thy are equally efective
and we don’t need a written form of them („everybody know from his grandma that plagiary is wrong”). These
are the disguised enemies of ethical codes.
8
researchers with a management model based on integrity: an aspirational code. To the other
extreme, the Code of rules and regulations stipulates in a minute way the expected actions and
the sanctions associated, connected to an ethical context dominated by the compliance values. It
seems that half of the European countries choose to implement a mixed kind of code that
combines the previous ones. This is called a Code of conduct. It contains mid-level norms that
establish the aspirational values, as well as a set of concrete expectations. One also distinguishes
between Value statement and Code of conduct. A value statement is a document aimed at
establishing the (moral?) values of the organization without giving detailed rules of application
in specific situations. The conclusion was that to impose the adoption of Codes of ethics would
be excessive since, as a matter of fact, in most cases, the actually adopted Codes of ethics were
nothing more than value statements, without any reference to the ethical principles. However,
empirical research shows that half of the member countries use value statements and the other
half codes of conduct. The EU seems to encourage the adoption of the Codes of conduct warning
that they have to include values and principles (Moilanen, 2007).
The risk that Moilanen doesn’t mention – or doesn’t see - is that, by focusing the
European policy on codes of conduct – not on codes of ethics – one compromises the whole
programme of administrative ethics that the European Commission intended to implement. The
result of this attitude would be that most organizations would ignore the above recommendation
that requires that the codes of conduct must be based on an ethical value statement (what the
author calls an „ethical code”) and, at the other end, on specific regulations derived from the
first. Moreover, it is highly probable that those who are involved, at the level of the European
countries, in implementing moral policies would be tempted to ignore the specificity of the
moral training, the peculiar traits of the organization’s moral culture (not identical to the
company culture in general). They would probably ignore the fact that the prevention of the
phenomena of corruption and immorality in general requires sui generis measures which suppose
a professional ethical approach.
That is why the strategy proposed by the professor of the
University of Helsinki, Timo Moilanen, seems to me self-destroying. The codes of conduct will
not regulate the moral aspects of the organization life at all, but merely the professional aspects
from the perspective of efficiency and quality assurance. This is the old strategy of CSR and
E&C to simulate the interest for ethical problems by focusing in fact on aspects of image,
juridical compliance, efficiency and quality of professional activities etc. These are also
9
important problems, but by giving them an exclusive priority we tend to forget the moral rules
themselves.
If we look at the moral codes of various organizations we are shocked by an even greater
disorder. The way of justifying the codes does not respect any rule, suggesting a profound, but
widely accepted, ethical ignorance. Some codes are grounded in ethical theories, some other in
one or several principles, others in values, some in rights, or in local moral rules considered
moral principles, in types of responsibility, in ad hoc principles, etc. But most of them are
grounded in nothing.
Not only that this „freedom” puts us in the situation of not having any
chance to learn how to build a code of ethics and why we adopted a given strategy and not
another, but it covers a number of errors and inadequacies. For instance, all Romanian
universities and other institutions have ethical codes based on the focal values of the
organization. This is a trend all over the world, an empirical study showing that almost a half of
the bigest companies in the world ground their moral codes on the characteristic values of the
company. But nobody remarks that the „principle of institutional integrity” as used in the EU
ethical documents gathers all the professional values under it. Therefore the codes based on a set
of values are, without the will of their authors, codes based on one principle which I am not sure
they recognize: We ought to protect, in face of every external interference,
a sphere of
intangible values and qualities through which men [institutions] identify their way of being and
work and which, if affected, we endanger the identity itself of human beings [and institutions
seen as moral communities] . All values which are selected to ground the moral code may be
unified under a single principle: that of integrity. The same for those who ground the codes on
rights: the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights (1948)is based on one moral principle,
that of respect of dignity. Finally, to adopt as principlessecond order rules, at random, is a
conceptual confusion with bad practical consequences.
To be clear: when I am looking for the distinctive characteristics of a code of ethics, I
don’t claim that the codes of ethics have to be uniques, given the universality of the moral
principles. I don’t want to deny the possibility of having distinctmultinational companies or
universities with partly distinct codes at the level of specific moral rules, but not at the level of
principles.1 In a university, the department of philosophy and that of biology will have partly
10
distinct codes because the biologists will have a special chapter concerning the morality of
research on animals. A multinational will include in its code values and rules specific to the local
culture. But to ground two different British university codes on different principles means to
accept that between Keele and Edinburgh a moral revolution happend. Consequently, the
universities in the same country will become incomparable at the level of the moral basic notions
and by implication at the level of moral rules: we shall not be able to say if plagiary is wrong or
not, because there may be universities with a completely different ethos. We could move in a
university where plagiary or some forms of plagiary are considered moral. To show that this is
not absurd, I shall take an example:the plagiary was not a significant immoral issue in the
universities of the ex-communist countries. It was rather tolerated. In a culture based on the cold
war values, to rob and plagiarize technological solutions from the capitalist countries for making
the communist economy survive, was an quasi-official strategy, not a moral fault. So, it is
possible to radically change the moral meaning of our notions.
A professional field must benefit of a homogenous basis of moral values and principles,
of a common ethos. Against the extremecultural variability, the multinationals and various
professional organizations are looking today more and more for common universal values. The
research on global ethics, world heritage, multiculturalism, unified codes etc. are a sign that the
universal (not only the local) is again interesting.
To conclude, such codes of ethics are an undeniable reality, practical and theoretical.
What in unsatisfactory still is the way of defining them in an opperational way.
What is a code of ethics?
It is difficult to find out what is a moral code. Researchers have remarked that “it is
difficult to find a universally acceptable definition of codes of ethics because of the complexity
11
of the phenomenon and the differing perceptions ofcodes” (Wood, Rimmer, 2003, p. 183) .
Nevertheless, there are definitions and I shall propose here a fresh one.
The ethical nature of a code can be assured by several means, not all of them equally easy
to use.
One may try, as a first exercise,
to find out an exhaustive list of essential
characteristicsderived from the great doctrines we know, trying to compatibilize them and to
morally justify a system of rules in this general manner. These characteristics could be the
following:
beneficence, non-maleficence, respect of dignity, impartiality, universality,
generalization test, social homologation, specific internal motivation, publicity, coherency. But it
would be difficult to see how these criteria could be used in practice. Whether they could, this
would be a pluralist approach. Some other criteria could be added. But this is something difficult
to use.
Fortunately, there is another way, more practicable, to justify a code of ethics: by appeal
to a particular ethical theory or „ethical framework” which justify a certain vision about
morality. So, we may have Kantian codes of ethics (L’Etang, 1992), rule-utiliutarian codes of
ethics (Starr, 1983), feminist codes of ethics, contractarian codes (Sacconi, 1999), virtue based
codes of ethics, Hare-utilitarian code of ethics, etc. The ethical nature of the code is derived in
this case from the recongized moral principlesor virtuesthat ground it. The mature ethical
background is the garantee that the code will coherently develop. The subsidiary moral
rulesderives their moral character from that of the principles. This is one of the major
advantages of grounding a code on wellknown principes of ethics: in this way, we have a
relatively undisputable criterion of demarcation for the term „moral”. I shall propose here a
principlist justification of a code of ethics. But to use asinglemonistic theory (Mill’s or Kant’s or
another) is an example of dogmatic attitude, hardly convincing. For example, the utilitarian
code advantages listed by Starr are not exclusive qualities of this kind of code, e.g. (1) that
utilitarian codes of ethics are generally held to be in the public interest (which code is against? –
V.M.) ; (2) that codes of ethics are to a large extent rules (in fact, they should be much more:
values, virtues, moral rules of various types, procedures, rights etc.- V.M.); (3) that utilitarian
codes of ethics oughtto promote utility as criterion of morality (there are other important criteria
too – V.M.); (4) publicly known binding rulesare easier to be applied (utilitarianism has not the
monopoly of publicity - V.M.)
and (5) business often thinksin consequentialist terms
anyway(not only business, but it’s time to learn to be more open-minded – V.M.).(Starr, 1983, p.
12
28). The Kantian codes builder is convinced that “a code adopted for another end that the moral
law itself is not a code of ethics” (L’Etang, 1992). If the real purpose is profit increase or
reputation we are rather insidebusiness codes or inPR aria. Moreover, autonomy implies that the
code rules should be formulated and adopted by each employee, not only by the staff.
Principlism is not an explicative „theory”, but a pluralistic methodology adaptable to
various tasks. Adopting principlism has the following advantages: 1) it strenghtens the point of
view that we need moral principles to make moral judgments and this is essential for an ethical
code2; 2) it does not ignore the organisation’s values (the „value statement” is tacitely present in
the set of principles); 3) it’s a pluralistic frame of reference,compatible with the theory of
virtues,
with narativsm and consequentialism etc. 4)
it is adaptable to
several contexts
(bioethics, but also business ethics); 5) it is very rich as concerns the practical suggestions; 6) it
is based on a concept of „common morality” which combines the intellectual experience given
by a plurality of classical ethical theories with the know how assured by the morality
characteristic to a specific professional field, therefore it’s a „friendly” procedure from the
perspective of the lay people; 7) principlism suggests a complex decision procedure fited for the
ethical code: it is a combination of „principle specification” to create a new moral rule and assess
actions; to „maximize the coherency” of the code for introducing a new rule or to choose
between two conflictual specifications; to „weight the reasons” in case of moraol dilemma
(Beauchamp, Childress, 1979). All these decision procedures are perfectly applicable to the
moral code.
I have to stress that a code doesn’t functionby itself: an ethical code is alive only if it is
embedded– not „in an organization”, neither in its „general management” - but in an „ethical
infrastructure” or a „system of ethics management”3. We have in Romania ethical codes but they
are generally not functional. The cause is the same: they were multiplied by imitation and lack of
professionalism, and are not part of an ethical infrastructure. An ethical infrastructure is
something complex, including at least the following elements (their relationship depends on each
organization):
13
Figure 1. Embedding ethical code into an ethical infrastructure.
Finally, if the aim of an ethical code is to „protect an organization from harms”2, it has to
protect „equally” all those involved, including the external stakeholders, not only the
organization itself. The simple fact that it is the ethical code of an organization cannot give
priority to the values and interests of that particular organization, since it would infringe the
principle of impartiality. And because an ethical code cannot take sides, it cannot be relative to a
given organization either; this implies that the quite widespread particularist strategy „each
organization with its own ethical code” is a nonsense. An ethical code must be grounded on
some common values and principles which have at least a broad generality if not universality.
In my approach, a CODE OF ETHICS is:
1) An official, independent and durable document of the organization, having a prescriptive, not a
descriptive form, including moral values, principles, rules, rights and personal virtues, enforced by
2
Harms in this sense may be caused by the neglect of moral obligations, by an underestimation of the risks the moral
(is it moral or immoral) habits have on the organization under the pressure of the market competition; or the tacit
support given to various irresponsible behavior in a context in which the descentralization process progresses; or the
losses caused by corruption and other kind of immoral behavior; or the lack of interest for satisfying the needs of
the clients etc.
14
(moral and non-moral) sanctions, assuring organization’s self-regulation (“from within”); it guides the
activities of managers and employees, being in the same time their autonomous product. These are,
more or less, Kaptein’s qualities of a code of ethics. I shall add:
2) Itis grounded on an ethical theory or “ethical framework” that demarcates the domain of morals (this
elucidates the requirement to demarcate ”morality” by a pluralistic procedure);
3) But this is still not enough: a good code of ethics must also encourage the formation of certain moral
virtues(which are the internalization of some patterns of behavior).Only actions that obey some moral
rules may be called “moral”; but obeying the rules is not yet moral behavior; it must be motivated
from inside.
4) It should be revised periodically by the Ethics Committee of the organization;
5) It should be embeded in a system of ethics mangement, the only context where the code can be alive;
6) It has to protect by its principles some fundamental values of humankind, such as: to increase the
wellbeing of the personell, and equally of all those concerned; to assure an integral and successful
social and professional life;to diminish or eliminate the harms(risks) that threaten the organization’s
members in their reciprocal relations, in the relations with the organization and with the external
stakeholders; to respect the dignity, integrity and autonomy of all those concerned;and all these in an
impartial way, protecting equally all the organization’s members in their reciprocal relations, in their
relation with the organization and with the society at large.
What follows is a short preliminary set of definitions for the main termsas they are used
in our discussion. Moralvalues are social ideals, never completely tangible, such as justice,
happiness, dignity etc. They are a kind of standards of behavior located in organisation’s culture.
There is a kernel of widely recognized moral values. New values may be added through analogy
with them. They are a human creation but survive individuals making possible ethical education.
Ethical principlesare very general prescriptions which protect the basic moral values and
commend them; they don’t tell us what to do, but are an euristic criteria for formulating,
15
choosing, adding new moral rules. They are the ground of the set of moral rules which is
essentially the code, but are not moral rules proper (e.g. the principle of autonomy, the principle
of justice etc. ). A particular moral rule is an obligation or a forbearance which governs a set of
actions that belong to a particular domain, for instance medicine, the rule stating that each
citizen has an equal opportunity to get a basic level of healthcare. Moral virtues are dispositions
of character which assure a stable behavior to the agentand,în general,a happy life (courage,
temperance, justice etc.). They are properties of individuals and are trained. For instance, justice
is a moral value in our societies, but at the same time a trait of character, a virtue. The valueconcept itself is usually vague, it doesn’t tell us relevant things about its content and about what
to do. That is why to base the code on values risks to diminish its effectiveness. The principle
of justice tells us what justice is, gives us a very general normative standard: e.g. „Treat equals
equally and unequal unequally” (this refers to equality/inequality in relationto merit). Therefore,
this principle of justice asks us to distribute the goods based onthe person’s meritif we want to be
just, not to discriminate, and in general not take sides. We have to distinguish everywhere
between these notions.
We saw some possible ways to reduce the uncontrolled variety ofways one builds ethical
codes either by guiding ourselves after a list of essential characteristics of the “moral” or by
empirical research on the “core universal values” of moral organizations. Another way would be
that of grounding this activity on a moral theory, anethical framework as, for example, that of
“principlism”.
A principlist codeof ethics
16
One of the causes of the chaos reigning in the world of ethical codes is the absence of a
stable background for building them. Ethical theories are diverse, the pragmatic frameworks of
moral decision making are also diverse, and the lack of professionals in the field encourages
anarchy. A short review of the existing codes collections shows that everything goes. Taking as a
background the great theories or theethical frameworks, it is possible to diminish the divergent
arbitrary styles ofbuilding ethical codes.
I shall propose here the construction of an ethical code based on the principlist
methodological doctrine. The principlist procedure was conceived for the biomedical field, but it
can easily be extended to other domains, too. It is grounded on some core ethical principles,
which are widely recognized standards of action and which may ground systems of moral
rules.What does this framework teach us?
The initial and fundamental suggestion made by this ethical framework to those who
want to use it as a guide for building ethical codes is that a good code must always have, in an
explicit manner, some ethical principlesas its basis. They should be widely recognized ethical
principles belonging to an influential cultural and philosophical tradition, e.g. the Western one,
in which one can find the utilitarian tradition, the Kantian tradition, the tradition of justice
theories etc. These are our fundamental intuitions about what is morally good, which we are the
most unwilling to abandon or even revise and in accordance with which we establish all other
moral rules. The majority of codes of ethics ignores such a promissing starting point. Besides,
because a lot of code builders invented ad hoc“principles”, it would be useful to gather,
systematize and professionallyhomologate, at the EU or UNESCO Ethics Committees level, a
portfolio of universal or widely recognized ethical principles, given that the current list (which
exists and represents a good starting point) contains many inaccuracies and gaps. It is something
17
analogous to the list of widely accepted “universal human rights”. They may be sorted out by
specialists in ethics. It is their task to justify why these are the moral principles and not others.
We, as users of them, are assured to base our code on an ethical ground which is the result of a
social agreement, without further investigations. Each code designer will be able to choose from
this portfolio those principles which suit his domainthe best. As ethical principles are very
abstract norms which defend the core moral values of human beings, it is not necessary to
distinguish between a “value statement” and theethical principles: the values aretacitlyassumed
in the ethical principles. For example, the value of autonomy is tacitely assumed in and protected
by the principle of autonomy or respect for dignity (understood as autonomy). This principle
requires us to protect the freedom of choice and man’s capacity to develop views and life plans
without being impeded by others, even if they consider those acts as wrong. Without such a
reciprocal check of moral principles and implicit values, the postulation of a value statement
separated of moral principles, generates the risk of finding in it some non-moral, arbitrary,
values (as, for instance: excelence in business or professionalism in universities). Not to speak
about the fact that the principles are more fitted to generate moral norms by specification, while
values are hardly transformable into rules.
From the ethical principles we can derive or specify systematicsets ofmoral rules
particular to a field, the so-called “moral duties”. From the autonomy principle, for instance, we
shall specify the rule of informed consent for hospitals, another one for research, but also the rule
of freedom of expression formass-media. Moral rules (duties), unlike the principles, tell us what
we are morally allowed to do and what we’re not allowed to do.The major criterion for
developing the system of moral rules (the code) is the coherencemaximizationof the whole
system or, more exactly, the degree of agreement with principles. This is the main criterion for
18
adopting new rules: coherence with the principles, with the existent rules, as well as the
coherence of the rules between themselves; or, eventually, some other local criteria e.g. the
utilitarian one.
When we speak about moral rules we missan essential distinction which principlists teach
us to emphasize: the distinction between “basic moral rules” (do not lie, do not commit suicide
etc. – the only ones we usually take into account) and, respectively, “authority rules” (regarding
the hierarchy of the first type of rules in a certain situation or regarding the rights of the legal
representatives, in general the overruling relation) and “procedural rules” (e.g. what procedure to
follow in case of incompetence of the patient during a surgery intervention; these are bigger or
smaller “moral routes” specific to that organisation in solving a moral problem). The last two
categories are not classical moral rules, but some kind of meta-rules (that’s precisely the reason
why they are usually ignored); however, they are vital for the good functioning of the system of
basic moral rules.
A special kind of procedural rules which may be attached to the code is what I have
called the “moral routes of the organisation”. These are well established chains of procedural
rules and institutional facilities intended to efficiently resolve specific moral problems relative to
which there is a long experience (how to identify values in facts, malpraxis, sexual harrassment,
gifts etc.). This includes amoral highway which tells everyone how to behave rightly when one
is confronted with a completely new moral problem.
We usually stop here when we characterize the codes: we say that an ethical code is a
system of moral rules (and, if we don’t forget, we add that it is based on principles or in
something else). The principlist method suggests us to go on.
19
An ethical code must also explicitly specify the rights of the members of that community,
more precisely, the rights of all the stakeholders, treated impartially. Some people do not see any
place for rights in an ethical code. They forgett that there is an ethical approach focused on
rights and there exist ethical codes based on rights too. To deny this reality is to accept a kind of
factual blidness.The rights are valid claims guaranteed by society to its members with all the
force of the competent institutions and are protected by sets of moral duties. The right to
freedom in scientific research is protected by a set of duties (moral rules) which forbid the
unreasonable limitation of this kind of freedom and also establish its reasonable limits.Of course,
not all moral duties are correlative to some rights, the meaning of the moral duties and of the
principles from which they derive is broader. This is one of the main reasons whyit is not
possible to raise the rights at the rank ofprinciples in anethicalcode, as many people actually do:
this would mean to let outside a part of morality – those moral duties whichare not correlative to
rights. Therefore, a chapter of the code mayspecify the fundamental rights of the members of that
professional community, of the external stakeholders, these rights being by themselves a guide
for selecting the proper moral duties to be included in the kernel of the code. The two spheres –
rights and moral duties - are balancing and checking each other.
In addition to the rights sphere,we arrive finally to the ever changing land of the living
moral judgmentsthrough which we adopt new rules or morally assess novel actions and
decisions. This also became a field which is highly professionalized. This is the level of ethical
decisiom makingmethods. Each code of ethics has to have one or more decision procedures
which have to be applied by the members of the Ethics Committee and trainedto the whole
personell together with the code’s content. In our case there are several procedures: the
20
specification of principles and rules, the weightingofreasons and the coherencymaximisation of
the set of principles and rules (Beauchamp, De Grazia, 2004, p. 69).
Finally, a usually ignoredelementinethical codes architecture consistsof themoral
virtuescharacteristic toa givenprofession. These were a later acquisition of principlism. They
must be carefully identified and educated throughspecial programs of character building. They
are characterqualities which make people bea kind of moral person, andnot onlyact in
accordance with institutional rules. Of course, most of the virtues are, actually, internalizations
of the accepted moral rules.
Fig. 2. The structure of a principlist code of ethics.
The presence of virtues in the ethical code is almost ignored nowadays, although I think
that taking them into account is absolutely vital for transforming in fact a mere system of
rulesinto a genuinemoral code. The problem of virtues is vital for every organization because it
21
concerns themotivation we have to respect a moral code and also the way we achieveto
implement it. A member of the organization may (formally) respect the moral code provisions,
but actually act immorally (if he follows in fact a subsequent egoistic purpose). To act morally
means something more than to respect the ethical rules, it means to respect them for the sake of
themselves or, in other words, following what ourconscience dictatestous and not aiming at some
other hidden purposes. Therefore, having a virtuous character is a sine qua non condition for
really acting morally.Making efforts to build moral characters is a necessary condition for having
agenuine institutional moral life. Moreover, sometimes the way you respect moral rules is
decisive – as in the doctor-patient case. Hospital managers (and not only) acknowledge that they
do not need a kind of robots which mechanically respect ethical rules, but persons who believe in
these rules and are able to sympathize and communicate with the patient; they are looking for
something more than compliance, they are looking for people able to understandand rationally
feel what is morally right. More and more, the managers acknowledge that what their companies
need, to better control immoral behavior, is not to multiply the rules and punishments, but to
educatea responsible personnel. Ethical virtues are character traits formed by a sui-generis
training, which guide their possessors to constantly make worthy actions, to livea virtuous
professional life. What does “worthy actions” mean in this moralcontext? The simplest way for
identifying the morally worthy actionsas well as persons’ moral virtues is by correlating them
with the moral duties specified by the code. Through the analyisis of the rules agreed uponinside
the organization we could reach the table of virtues and vices relevant for that organization
which we have to inculcate in the character of all its members, given the fact that this system of
rules circumscribes the morality of that institution. That’s why a living ethical codeneeds
periodicalawareness ethical trainings.
22
All the variety of ethical virtues (not to be confused with professional or vocational
virtues) could be introduced, if we prefer a code basedonly on principles, at the end of the code,
under a single new principle, that of integrity. This will refer both to the moral integrity of
persons(i.e. the intangible kernel of personal moral virtues of the employees) and to the
institutional moral integrity (i.e. the institutionalcharacteristics which stimulates the personnel’s
moral behavior and inhibits the immoral one.)The part of the code that concerns virtuesis also the
basis of the whole moral pedagogyconcerning thepersonalassimilation of a moral code by
transforming the rules of conduct and principles (values) into moral dispositions whichhave the
opporunity to become our second nature.
What principlism suggests (see Figure 2) is that an ethical code is somethingmore than an
institutional system of moral duties. It is a system of principles (which tacitly contain the focal
moral values of the institution, principles which must be rephrased each time in a form adapted
to the covered area), then a system of moral rules (of different types, including some which don’t
have the appearance of moral rules), a set of profession-specific rights, correlative to a part of the
moral rulesand, finally, the constellation of charactervirtueswhich the members of that
organization must be taught. In this approach, an ethical code supposes a significant
enforcementeffort which implies the work of professionals in ethics management (education is
part of this). The effect of the traditional endemic lack of professionalism was the frequent
attempt to groundthe ethical codes on everything imaginable, but not on principles! Principlism
also shows quite clearly why such a “common sense” approach is wrong.
The principlist approach of ethical codes shows us also the weaknesseses of the codes’
management. For instance, one should not separate “values” from “principles” and write
independent “value statements”; to proceed like that means to increase the probability of
23
including in the list non-moral values (belonging to the “company culture”) and of making the
mapping of the moral sphere even more vague. Values can be seen as cultural standards, as ideal
norms; the ethical principles protect those moral values by making them compulsory or by
prohibiting them.
One of the most frequent error in designing ethical codes is that of beginning with some
rules of behavior characteristic to the organization’s culture which are arbitrarily raised at the
rank of “principles”. For example, one of the Romanian journalists’ code stipulates that, for
them, a moral principle is “Try to discover the truth and to spread it”. Now, of course, noone
trained in ethics will accept this as a moral principle. It is rather a particular rule specificto this
professional field. It is similar to thefollowing rule for teacher-researchers in a university: “Try
to discover andformulate the truth as you see it (you, the teacher) and teach it accordingly”.
Asimilar professional rule is valid for car-mechanics: “Try to repair cars as efficiently as
possible and teach your disciples the same skill.” It is clear enough that the last two examples are
not moral rules at all, but rules which regulate aspecific purposeof the journalist, teacherresearcher and car-repairer professions. These are non-moral rules. They can become moral if
they are explicitly connected to an ethical principle (this tells us the importance an explicit
formulation of the moral principles has).For instance, the above journalist’s rule can be seen as a
specification of the moral principle of respect for the readers’dignity (“don’t ever lie your
readers, tell them only the truth”); and the academics’ rule receives a moral shape if we see it as
a specification of the autonomy principle (“as they see it” means to tell the truth in an
autonomous way, freely, not because it is imposed by authorities).
From the exampleabove one can also see why it is wrong to start a code from rights.
Rights are correlative to moral duties and both are based on ethical principles. The rights from
24
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are based on the principle of respect for dignity (see
the Preamble). If we ignore the principles, we ignore the very foundation of the recognized
rights, we don’t know why we have selected certain rights, neither do we know what obligations
they imply, for us and for others, impartially; but the code of ethics can make these kinds of
obligationsclear. Moreover, it makes us clear that the moral duties sphere is larger than that of
duties correlative to some rights.
There are also codes which begin with the profession’svirtues or with the professional
person’s virtues. Thispremise is also wrong. These codes start with the end: ethical virtues
suppose, at least in part, the internalization of ethical rules and the respect for the moral values
defended by theprinciples. Therefore we must have all these elementsfirst (I am speaking here
about the code genesis, not about its “contents”). Moreover, if we look more closely, we will see
that every code based on the so-called institutional virtues (and individual virtues)is reducible to
a code based on a single principle: the integrity principle, as it is defined in the EU ethical
documents. Therefore, principles come first.
Finally, here it is the mylast suggestion following from the principlist doctrinefor the
code designer: this grounding of the code makes us clear whywe have three types of ethical
training. Compliance training is suitable for the awareness and better understanding ofthe moral
rules and principles. Suitable for character building and the internalization of moral rules is the
training meant to form moral dispositions (or “character building”): it is based on case analysis,
simulations, psycho-drama etc. Finally, for managing the periphery where we assess and adopt or
reject new moral rules, training is necessary for the development of moral thinking based on the
study and internalization of ethical decision-making methods.
In conclusion, here are the advantages of an ethical code based on principlism:
25
1) It resolves the problem of the ethical nature of the code: it is assured by the ethical
framework behind.
2) It resolves the problem monism-pluralism in favour of the second, a pluralism of
principles, the monism being either a dogmatic alternative or one which resists rational
critique (intended to exclude alternative views).
3) It imposes a grounding of the ethical code on ethical principleswidely recognised and
avoids the arbitrary solutions in finding a stable basis to the ethical codes.
4) The ethical principles are the protectors of ethical social values (benevolence, dignity,
autonomy, justice, integrity etc.) and the source of moral rules (duties) as well as the
code updating criterion (using some proper procedures of morally decision making like
specification, weighting the reasons, reflective equilibrium etc.).
5) It stresses the complex machinery represented by an ethical code (principles, values,
rules, virtues, decision methods,
etc.) which needs a even more complex “ethical
infrastructure” to function.
6) Therefore, there is no need to mention the moral values separately, in a “value
statement”, and we avoid the invention of some ad hoc “principles”.
7) Principles circumscribe the moral sphere (and thus avoid the confusion with professional
values and with the “codes of conduct” or of “good practices”). Those who like this
confusion like also to say that through a code we “establish a profession”; is it not too
much and too confusing? Is it not more reasonable to say that “we establish a profession
viewed as a moral community”?
8) Principles also offer a safe guide for enriching the code with new rules (the reason why
most codes are not updated is that they do not benefit from such landmarks).
26
9) By using widely recognized ethical principles we have the feeling of belonging to a
common ethos (at least to the “European”or “Western” one). There is no reason to have
two codes for journalists in the same country. Have they different morals?
10) It suggests the reasons which stay behind the adoption of various kinds of ethical
trainings.
Contrary to its name, we can see now that a principlist code of ethics is not a mere set of
principles and rules. It is a complex machine consisting of principles, values, rules, rights, virtues
of character, decision procedures, ethical routes and enforcement measures. Suppose we have
such an ethical code. How should we use it?For using it we must embed it in our minds and in a
larger methodological context. Without a functional system of ethics management – which may
be quite complex – it is unlikely that the code will survive.
There are remarkable differences between this way of conceiving the code of ethics and
other strategies to build it. Let’s comment comparatively the position of Muel Kaptein (2008b,
p. 19). Kaptein prefers a „business code” grounded on the strategic objectives of the company
and on its „core values”. More exactly, a „good business code” is comprehensive, morally
justifiable, authentic and manageable (Kaptein, 2008b, p. 59). Why is it so? It seems, on
empirical grounds. Which is not too much. To be comprehensive means to find in the code all
the layers mentioneed in the code pyramid (Fig.3). We may agree, but the problem is that a code
pyramid may be done in various ways. For example, a code built on the principlist framework
has a completely distinct hierarchy of layers. The result is a distinct code, having a more
inclusive comprehensiveness. Kaptein defines moral justifiability in terms of consistency with
laws and ethical regulations outside the organisation; to this, one adds the requirement to
express the expectations of all stakeholders. On my approach, coherency with other moral rules
is not enough: consistency with juridical laws is important but ethically irrelevant, that with
ethical codes does not guarantee that these codes are really ethical; one needs something more
basic able to guarantee the moral content of the code. In my view these are the widely recognised
moral principles. And the main problem concerning the stakeholders is, more exactly, to treat
27
them impartially. Kaptein’s option for a good code is that for a code based on values and
consisting of norms. These are the main ingredients of such a moral code. The following
pyramids contain several layers signifying these ingredients. We can compare now the layers of
my code of ethics (right) with Kaptein’s. The diference is total.
He puts as the highest layer Mission & Vision. The mission of the organization is its
raison d’ȇtre and expresses the strategic objectives of the company. However, I believe, there is
a widespread practice to place Mission and Vision at the beginning of the strategic plan or of the
business plan. This gives the main purpose (purposes) of the organization, which can be detailed
in a cluster of policies with adequate budgets. This has nothing to do with an ethical code. Ethics
is only a small part of an organization’s life and the „ethical programs” are part of the cluster of
policies in the strategic plan. The fact that some big companies include this layer into their code
of ethics is a proof that sometimes we don’t know what to do with an ethical code, that those
companies do not take ethics seriousoly. Mission & Vision does not belong to my pyramid. I
transfer the „mission” of the organisation to other strategic documents. My highest layer is that
of moral principles as adopted in the principlist framework.
Kaptein’s pyramid
My pyramid
Fig. 3. Layers of the code pyramid.
The core values indicates the motivations of the organization and are the emotive part of
the organizational culture. But if we look at their list (inductively obtained) we find that half of
28
them have no relation with ethics at all (innovation/creativity, customer orientation,
professionalism, teamwork/cooperation, efectivness, productivity). The ethical values (respect,
courage etc.) are vague enough for „not instructing managers and employees how to behave”. In
this case, what’s the usefulness of these values presented as being separate of principles?
Alternatively, if values are implicitely contained in principles then we can start the construction
of the code from the moral principles (values included) and conceive the set of moral rules as
specifications of principles (and values).This is my way of approaching the subject. Principles
(including values) represeent in the principlist pyramid the highest layer.
Responsibilities towards stakeholders stay with one foot in CSR and with the other in the
obligation to respect internal and external stakeholders. Here we should add the characteristic
specific to themoral code to treat as equal all the parties involved in a common activity,
including
external stakeholders (not
only clients). No exclusive advantage for your own
company, a fair treatment of all participants to the business is the distinctive mark of an ethical
code. This is not a distinctive layer but rather it may be a purpose of the company mission
expressed by a special set of moral rules in the code.
I don’t see any need to distinguish between general norms and specific rules here. The
real difficulties I see concern rules’ origin, on what are they grounded, what criteria have we to
modify them, what reasons are there to adopt new rules which are also moral? There is no
substantial answer to such questions, since the genetic perspective on codes is absent here.
Surprisingly, the rules of the moral code are not necessarily considered asmoral rules (see the
rule concerning „used paper” etc.) . The „rules of thumb”, which are usually distinguished of the
„moral rules”, are in Kaptein’s approach a kind of moral rules, situated at „the interface between
norms and rules”. This makes the status of the whole body of norms and rules quite unclear.
The empirical finding that „some codes consist only of one layer and others of two or
three” and some others „start with the mission, directly followed by rules” is not encouraging.
This is the proof of the chaos that reign in the field of codes building. A „value statement”
cannot be a substitute for a code of ethics. A value statement alone remains a managerial poem.
The conclusion is that a „code of conduct” emphasizes the 4th layer. But what emphasizes a
code of ethics? It seems to be completely absent. In my pyramid the source of the moral
character of the code consists in a widely recognised set of ethical principles.
29
As we can see on the comparative scheme, Kaptein’s pyramid (left) may be completely
transferedat the level of the first two layers of my pyramid. The basic three layers of my
pyramid are not present in Kaptein’s pyramid. My code of ethics is more compact at the
foundation and more rich as concerns its body of rules (it supplementarily includes, at its
periphery, rights, virtues of character and tools for assessing and deciding new rules in the code).
A good code of ethics shouldnot focus on only one layer, but ideally comprise all.
REFERENCES
Alistar, V. 2011, (et alia), Integritatea în mediul de afaceri din România (Integrity in
RomanianBusiness), Centrul pentru Integritate în Business, Bucharest.
Beauchamp T., Childress, J.: 1979, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp T, De Grazia, D.: 2004, Principles and Principlism, in G. Khusfs (ed.), Handbuckof
Bioethics, Kluwer Academic Pub.
Kaptein M.,: 1998, Ethics Management. Auditing and Developing the Ethical Content of
Organizations, Kluwer Academic Pubolishers.
Kaptein, M. Wempe, J.: 1998, „Twelve Gordian Knots When Developing an Organizational
Code of Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 853-869.
Kaptein, M.: 2004, “Business Codes of Multinational Firms: What Do They Say?”, Journal of
Business Ethics,50.
Kaptein, M.: 2008a, „Ethics Programs and Ethical Culture: A Next Step in Unraveling Their
Multi-Faceted Relationship,”, Journal of Business Ethics, 89: 261-281.
Kaptein, M.: 2008b, The Living Code, Greenleaf Pub. Ltd.
Kaptein M.: 2011, „Towards effective codes: Tersting the relationship with unethical behavior”,
Journal of Business Ethics, 99: 233-251.
30
Kaptein, M. Schwartz, M.S.: 2008, „The Effectivness of Business Codes: A Critical
Examination of Existing Studies and the Development of an Integrated Research Model”,
Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 111-127.
Kemp, P. et al, 1995-1998, Final Report of the European Commission on the Project Basic
Ethical Principles in Bioethics and Biolaw, Part B.
L’Etang, J.: 1992, ‘A Kantian Approach to Codes ofEthics’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(10),
737–744.
Menzel, D.: 2007, Ethics Management for Public Administartors, M. E. Sharpe Inc.
Moilanen, T.: 2007, „The Adoption of an Ethics Framework in EU Member States”,
Conferenceon Public Integrity and Anticoruption in Public Service, Bucharest, May.
Muresan V.: 2009, Managementul eticii în organizaŃii (Ethics Management in Organizations),
Editura UniversităŃii din Bucureşti.
Rossouw, G. J., van Vuuren, L.J. : 2003, “Modes of Managing Morality: A Descriptive Model
of Strategies for Managing Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 389-402.
Sacconi, L.: 1999, “Codes of Ethics as ContractarianConstraints on the Abuse of
AuthorityWithin Hierarchies: A Perspectivefrom the Theory of the Firm”, Journal of Business
Ethics 21: 189–202.
Schwartz, M. S,:2005 , “Universal Moral Values for CorporateCodes of Ethics”,Journal
ofBusiness Ethics, 9: 27–44.
Starr, W. C.: 1983, ‘Codes of Ethics: Towards a RuleUtilitarian Justification’, Journal of
Business Ethics 2(2),99-106.
Verbos A.K., Gerard J.A., Forshey P. R., Harding C.S., Miller J.S (2007), “The Positive Ethical
Organization: Enacting a Living Code of Ethics and Ethical Organizational Identity”, Journal
ofBusiness Ethics, 76: 17-33.
Wood G., M. Rimmer: 2003, „What are they Really and what should they be?”, International
Journal of Value-Based Management, 16, 181-195.
Yallop A. (2010), The Use of Codes of Ethics in New Zealand Marketing Research and Effects
on Ethical Behaviour, Aukland University of Technlogy.
NOTES
1
However, I agree that the same moral principle may be formulated in ways adequate to the context in which it is
used.
31
2
A review of the litterature on the ethical codes can be found in G. Wood, M. Rimmer, „What are they really and
what should they be?”, p. 181.
3
To build a code on ethical principles has at least the following advantages: it answers in a way the question „what
is the nature of morality?”; it offers a common ground for various codes of ethics at different levels, from the local
to the universal one; it represents a recognized guideline for the development of the code.
4
Kaptein defines the embedding of a code by: focusing our attention on it; implementation; internalization and
institutionalization (Kaptein, 2008b, p. 5).
32