How did They Say That? Ethics Statements and Normative Frameworks at Best Companies to Work For

How did They Say That? Ethics Statements and Normative Frameworks at Best Companies to Work For

Kristine F. Hoover • Molly B. Pepper

Received: 23 August 2012 / Accepted: 12 June 2014 / Published online: 30 July 2014 ! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This empirical study explores aspects of how companies that are positively recognized by their work-

force as ‘‘Best Companies to Work For’’ convey the

underlying principles of their ‘‘trustworthy’’ culture. The study examines the normative ethical frameworks (deon-

tological, teleological, and ethic of care) and affective

language utilized in the ethics statements. Although mul- tiple studies have considered normative ethical frameworks

in individual ethical decision making, few have considered

normative ethical frameworks in organization ethics statements. In addition, this study expands the analysis to

include the ethic of care. Of the ‘‘Best Companies to Work

for’’ in this study, 93 had accessible online ethics state- ments. Findings indicated 70 % (65 of 93) of the ethics

statements utilized combinations of three types of norma-

tive ethics studied, while 30 % (28 of 93) used a single framework. In statements with combined frameworks, the

deontological framework had the highest frequency

(40 %), while the ethic of care was present in 33 % of statements and the teleological framework had the lowest

frequency (27 %). In ethics statements with a singular framework, the framework rankings were consistent with

findings for combined frameworks. Using the Dictionary of

Affect in Language, there were statistically significant differences on pleasantness between statements that men-

tioned ethic of care and those that did not. This study sheds

light on how these trustworthy companies communicate (1)

by publishing their ethics statements and (2) by using a multidimensional approach in their ethics statements that

has greater pleasantness when an ethic of care is utilized.

Keywords Codes of ethics ! Deontological ethics ! Ethic of care ! Ethics statements ! Teleological ethics ! Trust ! Best companies to work for

Introduction

A 2013 Harris Poll found that perceptions of corporate

America are relatively ‘‘grim’’ with an erosion of trust in

corporate leadership. In response to multiple ethics scan- dals, Fombrun and Foss (2004) find organizations are

attempting to inculcate ethical principles into their orga-

nizational cultures to build trust with their employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. Levitt and

Breeden (2003) add that the market-based system is built in

large part on trust, making trust a crucial factor in the economy.

How do corporations effectively express to their stake- holders the ethical principles of their organizations and (re-

)gain their trust? The current study examines the degree to

which ethics statements use various normative ethical frameworks in reasoning and tone. Do these statements

speak to rules and legal compliance, similar to ‘‘We obey

the law’’ at Arkansas Children’s Hospital (2010)? Or do the statements consider outcomes such as being ‘‘a special

company and an exceptional place to work’’ at Gilbane

(2010)? Or maybe the statements have an emotional appeal to relationships and the human condition: ‘‘Growing pro-

fessionally, having fun with our colleagues, and finding

satisfaction in our work are central to our way of life’’ from Kimley-Horn and Associates (2010)?

K. F. Hoover (&) ! M. B. Pepper Gonzaga University, 502 East Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258, USA e-mail: hoover@gonzaga.edu

M. B. Pepper e-mail: pepper@jepson.gonzaga.edu

123

J Bus Ethics (2015) 131:605–617

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2255-z

 

 

In a 1984 study, Sanderson and Varner found ethics

codes from Fortune 500 companies mostly consisted of ‘‘rules based on laws’’ (p. 29). This approach is consistent

with a sense of duty that is present in the normative ethical

framework of deontological ethics. The current study examines whether new patterns have emerged in more than

25 years since Sanderson and Varner’s analysis of ethics

codes using the lens of normative ethical theory. The current study examines ethics statements from companies

identified on Fortune’s ‘‘Best Companies to Work For’’ where rankings are based on a survey of employee trust and

a culture audit. The focus on companies that have been

deemed trustworthy by their own employees is intended to provide a means of benchmarking for other companies that

aspire to distinguish themselves from the perceived prev-

alence of corporate scandal. Calls for research on ethics statements suggest that a

greater understanding is needed to explore how to increase

ethics statements’ effectiveness (Erwin 2011; Stevens 2008). Previous studies of ethics codes have explored

communication processes and enforcement (Stevens 1994)

and subject matter (Chatov 1980; Hite et al. 1988; White and Montgomery 1980). Schwartz (2005) identified six

universal normative values in the content of ethics state-

ments (trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship) and more recently, Ki and Kim

(2010) studied the espoused values in ethics statements. As

a standalone document, an ethics statement is not likely to be effective (Cleek and Leonard 1998), however, an ethics

statement is the focal point of an ethics program (Yizraeli

and Shilo 2000). Given the excess of corporate distrust and the dearth of

research on the utilization of normative ethical frameworks

in ethics statements, the purpose of the study is to expand our understanding of how trusted companies communicate

ethical rationale. Building on the knowledge of previous

studies, the current study addresses a gap in the literature regarding the prescriptive nature and tone of ethics state-

ments—and the explicit guidance provided in ‘‘trusted’’

organizations. The sections that follow include relevant literature on trust, ethics statements, normative ethical

frameworks, and affective tone. The methodology and

results are presented, followed by discussion and implica- tions for future research.

Literature Review

Although there are several definitions of trust, it has been generally defined as a positive expectation that another will

not act opportunistically (e.g., Rousseau et al. 1998). When

this ‘‘positive expectation’’ occurs in organizations, it may be a result of stakeholder knowledge and familiarity with

an organization as communicated in part through ethics

statements.

(Dis-)Trust and Organizational Trustworthiness

Ghoshal et al. (1995) have stated that ‘‘The manager’s

primary task is redefined from institutionalizing control to embedding trust.’’ It is significant to note that Swift (2001)

articulated two distinct continuums to explain differences between levels of trust and distrust. In other words,

although an organization may not be distrusted, it may not

necessarily be trusted. Swift’s results suggest that the opposite of distrust is no distrust, while the opposite of trust

is no trust. This implies that companies not only need to

manage levels of distrust, but also actively work to achieve trust. Yet, there is a gap in our understanding of the

communication of ‘‘trustworthiness’’ to stakeholders—how

can we better support managers’ ability to embed trust, to communicate the ‘‘trustworthiness’’ of a company?

Integrity (adherence to a set of principles) along with

ability (competency) and benevolence (a sympathetic relational orientation) combine to form organizational

trustworthiness (Greenwood and Van Buren 2010).

Greenwood and Van Buren’s (2010) organizational trust- worthiness construct posits trust as a moral concept in the

organization-stakeholder relationship relying on Hosmer’s

(1995, p. 393) definition such that

Trust is the reliance by one person, group, or firm,

upon a voluntarily accepted duty on the part of

another person, group or firm, to act in a manner that is ethically justifiable; that is, undertake morally

correct decisions and actions based upon ethical

principles of analysis towards all others engaged in a joint endeavor or economic exchange.

To some degree, the paucity of the literature on trust and ethics statements may be due to analysis of trust as an indi-

vidual level variable and ethic statements as part of organiza-

tional culture and an organizational level construct. However, the concept of an organization as a moral agent has been pre-

sented previously (Collier 1998; Donaldson 1982; Moon et al.

2005; Moore 1999, 2005; Pruzan 2001; Weaver 2006). In research of ethically exemplary organizations (e.g.

those adhering to ethical principles), Bowen (2004) com-

pleted a case study in the pharmaceutical industry in which responses from interviews were consistent with an execu-

tive who said ‘‘I always return to the central question

(when facing an ethical dilemma): What would the ethics statement have us do?’’ Which, when taken with Green-

wood and Van Buren’s definition of trust, might be con-

sistent with asking ‘‘What would the ethics statement have us do to undertake morally correct decisions and actions

606 K. F. Hoover, M. B. Pepper

123

 

 

based upon ethical principles of analysis towards all others

engaged in a joint endeavor or economic exchange?’’ A shift in this research stream is moving from asking ‘‘what,’’

to questions of ‘‘why’’ and ‘‘how.’’ ‘‘Why do organizations

believe in being ethical?’’ ‘‘How is tone used in commu- nicating these statements of ethicality?’’ In these shifts, the

questions are no longer focused on the presence or content

of ethics statements, but rather are focused on belief sys- tems of duty, consequences, or care, for example, as the

principles for justification.

Ethics Statements

An ethics statement is a ‘‘written, distinct, and formal

document which consists of moral standards that help guide employee or corporate behaviors’’ (Schwartz 2005,

p. 27). Although many professional associations have

created ethics statements, such as the Academy of Man- agement or the Society of Human Resource Management,

ethics statements at the organizational level can be tailored

to be relevant to an organization’s specific culture and in such cases, may play a significant role in ethical decision

making (Fisher 2005), as well as be a statement of the core

values and guide for ethical practices (Cleek and Leonard 1998; Higgs-Kleyn and Kapelianis 1999; Wright 1993). In

a study of ethics statements posted online at public rela-

tions firms, 99.2 % (602 of 605) of the ethics statements were created by the organization and were not the ethics

statement of the respective professional association (Ki and

Kim 2010). Past research has studied the degree to which companies

have ethics statements. For example, ethics statements

have been found at more than 90 % of large corporations (Center for Business Ethics 1992), more than 70 % Fortune

1,000 companies (Weaver et al. 1999), and in more than

50 % of the 200 largest companies in the world (Kaptein 2004).

Moving beyond the presence of ethics statements, the

Ethisphere Institute (2013) measures the quality of ethics statements using the following weighted components:

readability and tone (20 %), risk topics (20 %), tone from

the top (15 %), presentation and style (15 %), non-retali- ation and reporting (10 %), commitment and values

(10 %), and public availability (5 %). As one of the two

most heavily weighted categories in Ethisphere’s (2013) ethics statement quality measure, ‘‘readability and tone’’

involves the style and tone of the language used in the

document. Ethics codes public availability is also measured in the

Ethisphere’s ethics statement quality measure. Laczniak

and Murphy (1985) stated that to encourage greater effi- cacy of ethics statements, the statements should be

communicated to both employees and external audiences.

Murphy (1995) also found that company web sites are the most common communication channel for these state-

ments. Websites influence perceptions of organizations by

creating impressions of the organization’s legitimacy, innovation, and caring (Winter et al. 2003).

Normative Ethical Theories

The field of normative ethics is a subset of philosophy that

addresses questions of how we ought to act. These pre-

scriptive concepts provide a rationale, or reasoning for why certain decisions or actions are right or wrong. Studying the

‘‘why’’ or rationale provides greater understanding to the

beliefs or motivations of the ethics statements. Although many studies of ethical decision making have considered

multiple moral frameworks such as utilitarianism, rights,

and justice (Cavanagh et al. 1981; Fritzsche and Becker 1984; Premeaux, 2004; Premeaux and Mondy 1993), or

deontology, utilitarianism, relativism, egoism, and justice

(Reidenbach and Robin 1990), few studies have included the ethic of care or female ethics in their analysis (Kujala

et al. 2011).

Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics focus on rules or obligations of indi- viduals. One of the most widely recognized writers from

this perspective is Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German

philosopher. According to Kant, an individual has a duty to voluntarily act only in ways such that the actions would be

consistent with the voluntary actions of any other person

and should become universal law. In the deontological framework, duty is based not on results or consequences,

but rather on doing what is right as a good in and of itself.

Gotsis and Kortezi (2010) argue that deontological ethics can be used to better manage negative political behavior.

Micewski and Troy (2007) argue that self-regulating

‘‘moral duty’’ should guide executive decision making, suggesting that corporate leadership should take into

account a duty to employees, investors, and the environ-

ment, transcending profit maximization. Similarly, Jones et al. (2005) argued that ‘‘business practices under a Kan-

tian regime have only one ultimate reason for being: to

develop the human, rational and moral capacities of people in and outside the organization’’ (p. 45).

Teleological Ethics

A second seminal ethical approach is teleological, includ-

ing consequentialism. The Greek word telos means goal, end, or purpose. In the teleological approach to ethics, what

How did They Say that? 607

123

 

 

is good is dependent on good results. Utilitarianism, a form

of teleological ethics, is based on the greatest good for the greatest number (Bentham et al. 1996). Many American

managers have used utilitarianism as a framework for

decision making (Fritzsche and Becker 1984; Premeaux 2004; Premeaux and Mondy 1993), consistent with the

concept of cost-benefit analysis focusing on profitability

(Velasquez 1998). Utilitarianism can be related to the maximization of economic value (Mertens and Dhillon

1999) and a study of why companies engage in corporate social responsibility activities found consequential rea-

soning was used to avoid negative outcomes (Arvidsson

2010).

Ethic of Care

A third approach is the ethic of care, first articulated by

Gilligan (1977). This ethical framework is based on emo-

tional, interpersonal connectedness. In a business setting, an organization might state that the organization values

diversity based on the uniqueness of each individual and

his/her dignity and right to contribute and be a part of the organization (Harvey and Allard 2005). Of note, the ethic

of care explicitly values the human condition and has a

relational focus. Although much research using the ethic of care has been accomplished in a breadth of fields from

education, to nursing, to social work, Kujala et al. (2011)

provided one of the first studies to include ethic of care as an ethical framework in the analysis of managerial moral

decision making.

When studying individual ethical decision making, Hunt and Vitell (1986) and Ferrell et al. (1989) suggested that

individuals making ethical decisions do not simply work

out of one dominant normative ethical theory. Kujala et al. (2011) adapted the multidimensional ethics scale (Re-

idenbach and Robin 1988, 1990) to be inclusive of addi-

tional ethical frameworks and found that although utilitarianism was the dominant moral theory used in

individual ethical decisions making, over time ethical

decision criteria have become more multidimensional to include the use of care ethics which had not been explicitly

measured previously in this context.

Affective Language

Recently, there have been studies involving emotion in the

workplace (Brief and Weiss 2002; Fisher and Ashkanasy

2000; Seo et al. 2004). Studying affect in language—the emotional undertones of language—provides insights into

human behavior (Whissell 2011a) and advances the

understanding of texts (Whissell 2011b). Words provide information about the personality and identity of the person

who wrote or spoke them (e.g., Pennebaker et al. 2003).

Further, particular linguistic features in a text can signal specific emotional attitudes (Rude et al. 2004). Emotion is

communicated through language (Whissell 1998) even

when the words themselves are not being used to describe an emotion (Petrone and Whissell 1988). The mere choice

of words can communicate an affective tone. There are

several methods for analyzing the emotional tone or affect of language, including having human raters examine texts

and make judgments. However, specialized softwares such as used in this study may detect themes or patterns that

would otherwise go unnoticed (Mossholder et al. 1995).

Method

Process

The purpose of the study was to identify (1) the presence or absence of ethics statements in ‘‘Best Companies to Work

For,’’ (2) the extent and combination of ethical frameworks

utilized in these ethics statements, and (3) the tone of these ethics statements. The research involved content analysis

of the ethics statements provided on each company web

site, and application of the Dictionary of Affect in Lan- guage (DAL) computer program (Sweeney and Whissell

1984; Whissell 1998) to each ethic statement.

Sample

This study examined Fortune Magazine’s 2009 ‘‘100 Best Companies to Work For.’’ To be eligible for the ‘‘100 Best

Companies to Work For’’ list, an organization must have

1,000 or more regular full- and part-time U.S. employees, have been in operation for at least 7 years, be a non-gov-

ernment organization, and not have experienced a recent

merger or acquisition. Organizations are chosen for the list by the Great Place to Work Institute. The institute evaluates

organizations based on a ‘‘trust index’’ completed by

employees and a ‘‘culture audit’’ completed by management. These are important aspects of the current study and its

purpose to expand understanding of how internally per-

ceived trusted companies communicate ethical rationale. See Table 1 for a list of the companies used in this research.

Existence of Ethics Statements

If the Best Companies to Work For are identified based on their trustworthiness, we tested for the presence of ethics

statements online as common easily accessible communi-

cation tool. A high frequency of online and easily acces- sible ethics statements may be an indication that these

608 K. F. Hoover, M. B. Pepper

123

 

 

Table 1 98 Companies on the ‘‘2009 Best Companies to Work For’’ list used in analysis

Rank Company U.S. employees Percent Women Percent minorities Job growth

1 NetApp 5,014 0.24 0.34 0.12

2 Edward Jones 34,496 0.65 0.07 0.09

3 Boston Consulting Group 1,680 0.47 0.26 0.10

4 Googlea 12,580 0.33 0.35 0.40

5 Wegmans Food Markets 37,195 0.54 0.17 0.06

6 Cisco Systemsa 37,123 0.26 0.44 0.07

7 Genentech 10,969 0.51 0.44 0.05

8 Methodist Hospital System 10,535 0.75 0.66 0.01

9 Goldman Sachs 14,088 0.37 0.36 0.02

10 Nugget Market 1,536 0.44 0.37 0.22

11 Adobe Systems 4,255 0.35 0.32 0.09

12 Recreational Equipment (REI) 9,780 0.41 0.12 0.11

13 Devon Energy 3,752 0.32 0.14 0.11

14 Robert W. Baird 2,184 0.44 0.06 0.04

15 W. L. Gore & Associates 5,481 0.40 0.18 0.05

16 Qualcomm 11,932 0.25 0.53 0.19

17 Principal Financial Group 13,343 0.66 0.08 -0.01

18 Shared Technologies 1,568 0.26 0.20 0.12

19 OhioHealth 11,858 0.78 0.17 0.07

20 SAS 5,381 0.45 0.16 0.05

21 Arnold & Porter 1,296 0.56 0.35 0.03

22 Whole Foods Market 51,967 0.44 0.44 0.22

23 Zappos.coma 1,655 0.59 0.26 0.39

24 Starbucksa 146,700 0.66 0.31 -0.06

25 Johnson Financial Group 1,300 0.71 0.09 0.04

26 Aflaca 4,493 0.67 0.41 0.01

27 QuikTrip 10,159 0.37 0.30 0.33

28 PCL Construction Enterprises 4,420 0.10 0.40 0.24

29 Quicken Loans 2,890 0.43 0.18 -0.41

30 Bingham McCutchen 1,605 0.63 0.32 -0.02

31 CarMax 16,107 0.24 0.44 0.14

32 Container Store 3,286 0.66 0.28 0.04

33 JM Family Enterprises 4,577 0.41 0.28 -0.01

34 Umpqua Bank 1,707 0.76 0.14 -0.04

35 Kimley-Horn & Associates 2,190 0.33 0.14 -0.08

36 Alston & Bird 1,718 0.59 0.32 0.07

37 TDIndustries 1,713 0.09 0.39 0.07

38 Microsoft 55,237 0.25 0.32 0.15

40 EOG Resources 1,803 0.39 0.14 0.30

41 Camden Property Trust 1,849 0.50 0.43 -0.01

42 Plante & Moran 1,558 0.55 0.06 0.04

43 Rackspace Hosting 1,992 0.22 0.35 0.59

44 NuStar Energy 1,319 0.19 0.21 0.23

45 King’s Daughters Medical Cntr. 3,041 0.76 0.02 0.04

46 American Fidelity Assurance 1,509 0.67 0.20 0.10

47 DreamWorks Animation SKG 1,614 0.29 0.25 0.18

48 Mattela 5,552 0.60 0.32 N.A. %

49 Intuit 7,637 0.43 0.31 0.00

How did They Say that? 609

123

 

 

Table 1 continued

Rank Company U.S. employees Percent Women Percent minorities Job growth

50 Burns & McDonnell 2,840 0.23 0.13 0.16

51 Ernst & Young 26,090 0.49 0.30 0.00

52 Booz Allen Hamilton 19,243 0.38 0.28 0.09

53 Stew Leonard’s 2,219 0.43 0.51 -0.02

54 Erickson Retirement Communities 10,871 0.76 0.45 0.18

55 Salesforce.coma 1,958 0.33 0.26 0.24

56 KPMG 24,442 0.49 0.29 0.07

57 Novo Nordiska 3,053 0.55 0.22 0.11

58 PricewaterhouseCoopers 29,144 0.48 0.27 -0.02

59 Scripps Health 10,374 0.78 0.49 0.06

60 Scottrade 1,946 0.34 0.24 0.25

61 Deloitte 38,903 0.45 0.33 0.07

62 Griffin Hospital 1,143 0.78 0.10 -0.02

64 Millikena 8,150 0.38 0.39 -0.06

65 Texas Instrumentsa 14,379 0.23 0.40 -0.04

66 MITERE 6,420 0.31 0.15 0.06

67 Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta 5,850 0.82 0.44 0.08

68 Southern Ohio Medical Center 2,188 0.82 0.02 0.04

69 National Instruments 2,527 0.27 0.24 0.08

70 Stanley 4,590 0.45 0.36 0.65

71 Men’s Wearhouse 16,477 0.50 0.55 -0.01

72 Nordstrom 49,236 0.72 0.42 -0.08

73 Chesapeake Energy 6,850 0.23 0.12 0.23

74 Alcon Laboratories 7,160 0.48 0.28 0.05

75 Atlantic Health 6,968 0.77 0.42 0.02

76 Lehigh Valley Hosp. & Health Network 8,897 0.81 0.11 0.06

77 Northwest Community Hospital 3,372 0.83 0.27 -0.03

78 Marriott Internationala 124,247 0.55 0.61 0.02

79 Baptist Health South Florida 10,641 0.75 0.74 0.09

80 Bright Horizons 14,437 0.96 0.37 -0.01

81 S.C. Johnson & Sona 3,368 0.39 0.16 -0.01

82 Perkins Coie 1,696 0.59 0.19 0.03

83 eBay 9,089 0.42 0.38 0.09

84 Juniper Networks 3,743 0.22 0.45 0.15

85 Arkansas Children’s Hospital 3,527 0.81 0.29 0.06

86 CH2M HILLa 19,011 0.26 0.17 0.14

87 Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 1,609 0.54 0.29 0.08

88 Publix Super Markets 141,314 0.49 0.39 0.03

89 Herman Miller 5,646 0.40 0.20 -0.07

90 FedEx 233,457 0.28 0.43 -0.01

91 Gilbane 2,169 0.26 0.15 0.12

92 Four Seasons Hotels 13,401 0.45 0.65 0.04

93 Valero Energy 16,881 0.38 0.42 -0.04

94 Build-A-Bear Workshop 4,886 0.86 0.29 0.02

95 Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants 6,298 0.44 0.62 0.04

96 T-Mobile 39,822 0.48 0.48 0.12

97 Accenturea 32,318 0.40 0.35 0.07

98 Vanderbilt University 21,041 0.67 0.26 0.05

610 K. F. Hoover, M. B. Pepper

123

 

 

organizations find ethics statements add value to their

company. Ethics statements for each company were col- lected from the respective company web sites. Not all

ethics statements were available. Of the 100 companies on

the ‘‘Best Companies to Work For’’ list, two did not pro- vide complete information on employees and were exclu-

ded from further consideration. Ethics statements were

located for 93 of the remaining organizations. Researchers used the search engine on the individual company web sites

and searched the term ‘‘ethics’’ to locate statements, while allowing for a breadth of titles of these statements,

including credos, codes, statements, and philosophies.

Coding of Ethical Frameworks

Ethics statements were coded for the presence of each ethical

framework, deontological, teleological, and ethic of care. For

eachethicsstatement,eachethicalframeworkwascodedasnot present, present but not primary, or primary. Analysis of the

ethical frameworks was based on the multidimensional ethics

scale of Kujala et al. (2011). Evidence of a deontological framework included language of legal compliance, fairness,

obligations, duties or standards. Evidence of a teleological

framework included a focus on efficiencies, consequences, maximizing benefits, reducing harm, outcomes, success, and

measures. The ethic of care was identified with language

catering to different parties’ views, an emotional appeal to relationships and the human condition, or care for others.

Given that ethics statements are narratives, these levels

(not present, present by not primary, or primary) provided opportunity to distinguish between statements that merely

referenced a framework as unique to others that clearly

emphasized or prioritized a framework. For example, a statement that includes ‘‘We comply with all applicable

federal, state and local laws and regulations’’ could be

coded as a deontological framework present but not pri- mary. However, a statement that includes ‘‘we strive to

employ the highest ethical standards, demonstrating hon-

esty, fairness and accountability in every decision and action…’’ and further elaborates on these responsibilities could be coded as a deontological framework as primary.

Coder Reliability

Ethics statements were coded by one of the study authors and a graduate student. The coders first independently

analyzed approximately 5 % (5 of 93) randomly selected

ethics statements (Wimmer and Dominick 2000). An iter- ative process was used to refine the coding and ensure the

researchers were applying the coding consistently on the

sub-sample. The inter-rater reliability on the final round of coding of the sub-sample exceeded 0.80 (Riffe et al. 1998),

indicating an acceptable level of agreement. The coders

then independently completed the coding process for all statements including a recoding of the original sub-sample

and analyzed the results for reliability. Agreement on the

coding was 97 % for Deontological—present not primary, 98 % Teleological—not present, 98 % Ethic of care—

present not primary, and all others 100 %, well within

levels of acceptability (Boyatzis 1998).

Tone of Ethics Statements

Each ethics statement also was assessed using the DAL

computer program (Sweeney and Whissell 1984; Whissell 1998). The DAL contains approximately 8,700 words that

have been rated for pleasantness, activation, and imagery.

The DAL has been used to rate emotional tone in text samples in several organizational contexts, including

employees’ accounts of diversity incidents (Roberson and

Stevens 2006) and employee reactions to organizational change efforts (Mossholder et al. 1995). The DAL uses

measures of pleasantness, activation, and imagery to cal-

culate the percentages of different types of words including very pleasant words, very unpleasant words, very active

words, very passive words, fun or cheerful words, very sad

words, and nice or soft words. It also counts the number of words and number of sentences. The means for the DAL

ratings of pleasantness, activation, and imagery according

to this coding is available in Table 2. A one-way between subjects analysis of variance was performed for each type

of ethics on the pleasantness, activation, and imagery of the

ethics statements.

Table 1 continued

Rank Company U.S. employees Percent Women Percent minorities Job growth

99 General Millsa 17,018 0.40 0.19 -0.01

100 SRA International 6,266 0.40 0.31 0.21

Source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/full_list/ a Indicates companies on both the ‘‘Best Companies to Work For’’ and the ‘‘Most Ethical Companies’’ list

How did They Say that? 611

123

 

 

Results

The results of this study focus on the four research ques-

tions. The primary areas of inquiry were on the presence of

ethics statements, the use of normative ethical frameworks, the combinations in which normative ethical frameworks

were identified, and the tone relative to the ethical frame-

works in use.

Ethics Statements Presence

Our first research question asked how frequently compa-

nies identified in 2009 as ‘‘Best Companies to Work for’’ made an ethics statement available online. Of the 100

companies listed in the 2009 ‘‘Best Companies to Work

For,’’ the researchers were able to locate ethics statements online for 93 of the companies.

Framework Presence

Our second research question focused on the presence of

normative ethical frameworks and had two parts, asking

which frameworks were utilized and which were not. Of the three normative frameworks studied (deontological,

teleological, and ethic of care), evidence for the use of all

three normative frameworks was found. Deontological references were most prevalent, being found as either a

primary or secondary framework in 77 of the 93 (83 %)

statements, with 16 statements not using this framework. Correspondingly, an ethic of care framework was found as

either primary or secondary in 63 statements (69 %) and in

30 statements, evidence of the ethic of care was not found. And finally, the teleological framework was found in 51

statements (55 %), with 42 statements not providing evi-

dence of this third framework.

Frameworks in Combination or Isolation

Our third research question addressed the use of frame-

works in combination or isolation. Findings in the current study indicate that 70 % (65 of 93) of the ethics statements

utilized language consistent with various combinations of

each of the three types of normative ethics studied; 28 utilized a single framework, 32 utilized two frameworks,

and 33 utilized all three frameworks of interest in this study. As presented in Table 3, other than the single tele-

ological framework (n = 0), the range of statements

identified for each of the single and double framework categories (deontological, teleological, ethic of care,

deontological and teleological, deontological and care, and

teleological and care) was 7–19 statements; this is in contrast with the number of statements that utilized all

three frameworks combined (33).

In statements using a combination of two or three frameworks, the deontological framework had the highest

frequency (40 %), while the ethic of care was present in

33 % of the statements, and the teleological framework had the lowest frequency (27 %). The combination of deonto-

logical and ethic of care frameworks was most prevalent, in

Table 3 Analysis of statements and normative ethical frameworks (n = 93)

Deontological Teleological Ethic of Care

Deontological and Teleological

Deontological and Care

Teleological and Care

Deontological, Teleological and Care

One Framework (n = 28) 19 9

Two Frameworks (n = 32) 11 14 7

Three Frameworks (n = 33) 33

Table 2 Analysis of tone and ethical framework

Deontological Teleological Ethic of Care

E A I E A I E A I

No mention

Mean 1.93 1.71 1.52 1.90 1.72 1.52 1.87 1.71 1.50

N 16 16 16 44 44 44 30 30 30

S.D. 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.09

Primary

Mean 1.88 1.71 1.51 1.89 1.71 1.52 1.95 1.73 1.54

N 34 34 34 3 3 3 23 23 23

S.D. 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07

Secondary

Mean 1.95 1.73 1.54 1.94 1.72 1.52 1.94 1.72 1.53

N 43 43 43 46 46 46 40 40 40

S.D. 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06

Total

Mean 1.92 1.72 1.52 1.92 1.72 1.52 1.92 1.72 1.52

N 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93

S.D. 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07

E Emotion, A Activation, I Imagery

612 K. F. Hoover, M. B. Pepper

123

 

 

14 of the 32 statements (44 %) with dual frameworks,

while a deontological and teleological paring was found in 11 statements (34 %) and teleological and ethic of care in 7

statements (22 %) using two frameworks .

In the 28 ethics statements (30 %) that utilized a sin- gular framework, the ranking of frameworks was similar

with the highest frequency in deontological ethics (19 of

28, 68 %), then ethic of care (9 of 28, 32 %) followed by 0 % teleological ethics. Of the statements that provided

evidence of a single normative framework, none of them used teleological ethics in isolation.

Frameworks and Tone

Our final research question considered the tone communi- cated with each type of ethical framework. For deonto-

logical ethics, there were no statistically significant

differences between statements that mentioned deontolog- ical ethics and those that did not on pleasantness, activa-

tion, or imagery. There also were no differences between

statements that mentioned teleological ethics and those that did not on pleasantness, activation, or imagery. For ethics

statements that mentioned an ethic of care, there was a

statistically significant difference on pleasantness between statements that mentioned ethics of care (1.94) and those

that did not (1.88), F(1,91) = 23.68, p 0.001. Also, on statements with an ethics of care, there was a significant difference on imagery between those that mentioned an

ethics of care (1.53) and those that did not (1.50),

F(1,91) = 14.31, p 0.05.

Within Ethics Types

A one-way between subjects analysis of variance was per-

formed within each type of ethics on the pleasantness,

activation, and imagery. Results found no statistically sig- nificant differences between statements that mention teleo-

logical ethics and those that emphasize it or between

statements that mention ethics of care and those that emphasize it. However, for statements that mention deon-

tological ethics versus those that emphasize deontological

ethics, there were statistically significant differences. On pleasantness, statements that mentioned deontological ethics

were more pleasant (1.95) than those that emphasized

deontological ethics (1.89), F(1,75) = 14.85, p 0.05. On activation, statements that mentioned deontological ethics

were marginally more active (1.73) than those that empha-

sized deontological ethics (1.71), F(1,75) = 6.17, p 0.05. On imagery, statements that mentioned deontological ethics

had more imagery (1.54) than those that emphasized deon-

tological ethics (1.51), F(1,75) = 9.53, p 0.05.

Employee Analysis

We analyzed whether there were differences in the per- centage of women and minorities at the organizations

based on the type of ethics mentioned in the companies’

statements. There were no statistically significant differ- ences for any organizations on percentage of minorities

based on the type of ethics mentioned in their statements.

Also, there were no differences for organizations with statements containing deontological or teleological ethics

on percentage of female employees. However, for organi-

zations with statements that mentioned ethics of care, there was a statistically significant higher percentage of women

(51 %) than at organizations without ethics of care in their

statements (40 %), F(1,91) = 6.29, p 0.05.

Discussion

Greenwood and Van Buren (2010) have suggested that

organizational trustworthiness involves adherence to a set of principles (integrity) along with ability and benevolence. A

contribution of this study is to shed light on how some

trustworthy companies have articulated their principles through their ethics statements. This study examined the

ethics statements for 93 of Fortune’s ‘‘Best Companies to

Work For’’ and analyzed the normative ethical frameworks (deontological, teleological, and ethic of care) and affective

language utilized in the statements. Statements using a

deontological framework included language of legal com- pliance, fairness, obligations, duties or standards. Statements

using a teleological framework included a focus on effi-

ciencies, consequences, maximizing benefits, reducing harm, outcomes, success, and measures. And, statements

using an ethic of care included language catering to different

parties’ views, when an emotional appeal to relationships and the human condition was evident, including care for

others. Although ethics statements have been the focus of

scholarship for many decades, this study attempted to address in part the call for additional research to contribute

to the efficacy of these statements (Erwin 2011; Stevens

2008). This study updated prior studies on normative ethical frameworks of ethics statements (e.g., Sanderson and Varner

1984) and expanded the understanding of the emotional tone

of the ethics statements at these organizations by completing a DAL analysis, something the authors of this study believe

has never been studied before.

By studying the ethics statements at companies recog- nized by employees as the best companies to work for,

other organizations too may benefit from these findings.

Increasing our understanding of how ethics statements can be communicated and constructed may provide better tools

How did They Say that? 613

123

 

 

to increase trust, leading to positive outcomes including

more civility (Uslaner 2002) and less negative employee attitudes and opportunistic behaviors (Ghoshal 2005). If

Swift (2001) has suggested that companies need to actively

work to achieve trust, this study provides guidance that (1) these trustworthy companies do publish ethics statements

and (2) the ethics statements of these trustworthy compa-

nies are written most commonly with multidimensional normative ethical frameworks (deontological, teleological,

and/or an ethic of care) and have a more pleasant tone if they include teleological or ethic of care frameworks.

The finding that 93 of the 100 companies considered for

this study had ethics statements accessible on their web sites is noteworthy in light of other research findings where

the prevalence of ethics statements on web sites has ranged

from 38.7 % (605 of 1,562) of public relations firms (Ki and Kim 2010) to more than 90 % of large corporations

(Center for Business Ethics 1992). The sample for the

current study was specifically targeted at organizations that are recognized by their employees through Fortune as

being one of the ‘‘Best Companies to Work For.’’ The

prevalence of the availability of ethics statements may be an indication of public commitment to specific values.

While this study in no way purports causality between a

presence of ethics statements and ethical decision making or ethical behavior, the availability of ethics statements

indicates at least some attention paid to ethics by these

companies. The findings on the types of ethical framework(s) utilized

in these ethics statements provide historical perspective to

how ethics statements have changed over time. In 1984, Sanderson and Varner’s study of ethics codes from Fortune

500 companies found that most were based on deontological

ethics. Evidence of a deontological framework included language of legal compliance, fairness, obligations, duties, or

standards. The results of the current study find that deonto-

logical ethics are at least mentioned in 83 % of the state- ments studied. However, deontological ethics infrequently

stood alone in the statements. It was the only framework in

20 % of the statements. Interestingly, teleological ethics was combined with other ethical frameworks in 51 of the state-

ments, but never stood on its own as the only ethical

framework in any of the 93 statements analyzed. Evidence of a teleological framework included a focus on efficiencies,

consequences, maximizing benefits, reducing harm, out-

comes, success, and measures. There is little to no previous research available to situate study of ethics statements using

an ethic of care framework. The ethic of care was identified

with language catering to different parties’ views, when an emotional appeal to relationships and the human condition

was evident, including care for others. Most statements

(70 %) used more than one ethical framework, with the most common combination being one that used all three ethical

frameworks. However, in the statements that used com-

bined frameworks, the teleological framework had the low- est frequency (27 %) of use among the three frameworks.

This finding of teleological ethics being the least used in

ethic statements is in sharp contrast to studies of ethical frameworks used in decision making in which utilitarian-

ism (teleological ethics) were core criteria (Fritzsche and

Becker 1984; Kujala et al. 2011; Premeaux 2004; Preme- aux and Mondy 1993). The prevalence of combinations of

frameworks is consistent with findings of a multidimen- sional approach that is found in ethical decision making

(Reidenbach and Robin 1990, 1991). In addition, the ethic

of care as a tool for analyzing ethical decision making is a newer approach. Kujala et al. (2011) found that while

utilitarianism (a teleological framework) was a primary

decision criterion, a relational ethic (ethic of care) was the third evaluation criterion utilized in decision making.

The goal of examining the affect in the language of

ethics statements was to examine whether the emotional undertones of the three ethical frameworks would be dif-

ferent. Based on the results of this study, there is some

evidence that an emphasis on deontological ethics creates a more negative affective tone in statements and that state-

ments using teleological and ethic of care have more

positive affective tones. The statements that emphasize deontological ethics were less pleasant, less active, and

contained less imagery than those that mentioned deonto-

logical ethics. It appears that the emphasis on the rules and obligations of deontological ethics creates a different

affective tone than the mention of it. Though there were no

differences in statements that used a teleological frame- work compared with those that did not, statements that

used an ethic of care framework were found to use more

pleasant language than those that did not. Given that ethic of care is based on emotional, interpersonal connectedness,

it is not surprising that statements using the framework

would have a more positive tone than those that do not. If organizations want to build trust with their stakeholders,

the emotional tone of the ethics statement could signal a

more positive focus on the part of the organization. Another interesting finding on the ethic of care was

unrelated to the study’s research questions. Fortune Mag-

azine reports on the percentage of women and minorities working at the organizations on the ‘‘100 Best Companies

to Work For’’ list. Employee diversity has been associated

with an enriched workplace where co-workers broaden one another’s perspectives, form strong, productive teams, and

bring different ideas to problem resolution (Cox 2001).

Further, more diversity among employees is linked to increased sales revenue, more customers, and greater rel-

ative profits (Herring 2006). One of the contributions this

study makes is the inclusion of the ethic of care as a nor- mative ethical theory under consideration. This theory was

614 K. F. Hoover, M. B. Pepper

123

 

 

developed in contrast to a prior construct that had been

originally developed with a sample of males. The ethic of care is considered part of feminist ethics, and as such, this

study reviewed the gender and minority status of employ-

ees for correlations with the use of the ethic of care. In an employee analysis, a comparison of the three ethical

frameworks and the percentage of women and minorities in

the organizations found only one statistically significant difference: Organizations with statements that mentioned

ethics of care had a higher percentage of women (51 %) than organizations without ethics of care in their statements

(40 %). Ethics of care is considered a feminist framework.

While it is impossible to make conclusions about causality from our study, it is interesting to note that organizations

that use a feminist framework in their ethics statement have

a higher percentage of women employees.

Limitations and Future Research

The most important limitations of the current study are its

relatively small sample size and focus on organizations on the ‘‘Best Companies to Work For’’ list. Future research

can expand on the findings by examining more organiza-

tions and organizations beyond the Fortune list. The findings of limited use of a teleological framework

in statements that use a combined (multidimensional)

approach and a singular ethical framework approach calls for future research using a larger sample and a longitudinal

design. The longitudinal study of Kujala et al. (2011) found

that ethical decision criteria can change over time. This may raise the question if the use of ethical frameworks in ethics

statements has changed over time as well. Given that man-

agerial ethical decision making has generally relied on utilitarianism, is the lack of a teleological framework a new

emergence or a relatively stable finding in ethics statements?

What is the impact of the apparent lack of alignment between utilitarianism in managerial decision making and

the lack of a teleological framework in ethics statements?

Given the prevalence of deontological and ethic of care frameworks in the current study, future research should

explore the inconsistency between the ethical frameworks in

managerial decision making and in ethics statements. A further limitation of the current study is that it only

examines ethics statements, it does not connect the state-

ments to the actions of the organizations. Other research might explore whether ethics statements are part of leading

the way for a new trend in ethical decision making where

using a multidimensional approach, including deontologi- cal and ethic of care frameworks, may become more pre-

valent over time. It may be that attention given to the

shortcomings of utilitarianism such as increasing inequal- ities between people, over emphasizing maximization of

wealth, and neglecting other aspects of well-being (Sen

1999) have helped to foster these questions. Findings might add to the understanding of concerns regarding the effec-

tiveness of ethics statements.

Although findings provide information on how these companies approach their ethics statements, future research

should also consider the impact of these statements on

ethical decision making and ethical behavior. Given find- ings about ethical leadership, future research might also

compare the ethical framework of the executive leadership compared to the ethics statements for alignment. It is also

possible that in addition to ethics statements, these com-

panies may use other types of statements to communicate their values, such as diversity statements and mission

statements and these could be further explored. To what

degree are the normative frameworks within the mission, diversity, and ethics statements consistent? The results

from the 100 Best Companies to Work For could also be

replicated with organizations such as those listed on the 100 Best Corporate Citizens, those with high ratings on the

Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the World’s Most Ethical

Companies, and the World’s Most Respected Companies, and compared and contrasted with a sample of those not

identified on any of the previously mentioned lists, but

perhaps still recognized in other ways.

References

Arkansas Children’s Hospital (2010). Code of conduct. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.archildrens.org/Careers/ ACH-Culture/Code-of-Conduct.aspx.

Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social reasonabil- ity: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 339–354.

Bentham, J., Burns, J. H., & Hart, H. L. A. (1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bowen, S. (2004). Organizational factors encouraging ethical deci- sion making: An exploration into the case of an exemplar. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(4), 311–324.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 , 279–307.

Cavanagh, G. F., Moberg, D. J., & Velasquez, M. (1981). The ethics of organizational politics. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 363–374.

Center for Business Ethics. (1992). Instilling ethical values in large corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(11), 863–867.

Chatov, R. (1980). What corporate ethics statements say. California Management Review, 22(4), 20–29.

Cleek, M. A., & Leonard, S. L. (1998). Can corporate codes of ethics influence behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 619–630.

Collier, J. (1998). Theorizing the ethical organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 621–654.

Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

How did They Say that? 615

123

 

 

Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Erwin, P. M. (2011). Corporate codes of conduct: The effects of code conduct and quality on ethical performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 535–548.

Ethisphere Institute (2013). World’s most ethical Scoring and methodology. Retrieved September 18, 2013 from http://ethi sphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/scoring-methodology/.

Ferrell, O. C., Gresham, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (1989). A synthesis of ethical decision models for marketing. Journal of Macromar- keting, 9(2), 55–64.

Fisher, B. (2005). The ethical foundation of PR: An analysis of public relations firms’ codes of ethics. Paper presented at the Interna- tional Communication Association (New York, NY).

Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 21, 123–129.

Fombrun, C., & Foss, C. (2004). Business ethics: Corporate responses to scandal. Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 284–288.

Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 166–175.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C. A., & Moran, P. (1995). A new manifesto for management. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 9–20.

Gilbane (2010).Core values. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from http:// www.gilbaneco.com/meetgilbanebuilding/missionandvalues/.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47(4), 481–517.

Gotsis, G., & Kortezi, Z. (2010). Ethical considerations in organiza- tional politics: Expanding the perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 93 (4), 497–517.

Greenwood, M., & Van Buren III, H. J. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organization-stakeholder relation- ship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 425–438.

Harvey, C. P., & Allard, M. J. (2005). Understanding and managing diversity: Readings, cases and exercises. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Herring, C. (2006). Does diversity pay?: Racial composition of firms and the business case for diversity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006.

Higgs-Kleyn, N., & Kapelianis, D. (1999). The role of professional codes in regulating ethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4), 363–374.

Hite, R. E., Bellizzi, J. A., & Fraser, C. (1988). A content analysis of ethical policy statements regarding marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(10), 771–776.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organi- zational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 20(2), 379–403.

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.

Jones, C., Parker, M., & ten Bos, R. (2005). For business ethics: A critical approach. London, UK: Routledge.

Kaptein, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 13–31.

Ki, E., & Kim, S. (2010). Ethics statements of public relations firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 223–236.

Kimley-Horn and Associates (2010). Our philosophy. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from http://www.kimley-horn.com/about/our- philosophy.

Kujala, J., Lamsa, A., & Penttila, K. (2011). Managerial moral decision-making patterns over time: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 191–2007.

Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (1985). Marketing ethics. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Levitt, A., & Breeden, R. C. (2003). Our ethical erosion (Vol. A16). New York, NY: Wall Street Journal.

Mertens, J. F., & Dhillon, A. (1999). Relative utilitarianism. Econometrica, 67(3), 471–498.

Micewski, E. R., & Troy, C. (2007). Business ethics: Deontologically revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(1), 17–25.

Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 429–453.

Moore, G. (1999). Corporate moral agency: Review and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(4), 329–343.

Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(4), 659–685.

Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., Harris, S. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1995). Measuring emotion in open-ended survey responses: An application of textual data analysis. Journal of Management, 21(2), 335–355.

Murphy, P. E. (1995). Corporate ethics statements: Current status and future prospects. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(9), 727–740.

Pennebaker, J., Mehl, M., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 547–577.

Petrone, B., & Whissell, C. (1988). The dictionary of affective language as a tool for the assessment of affective tone in a descriptive task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67(3), 789–790.

Premeaux, S. (2004). The current link between management behavior and ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 269–278.

Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (1993). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(5), 349–357.

Pruzan, P. (2001). The question of organizational consciousness: Can organizations have values, virtues, and visions? Journal of Ethics, 29(3), 271–284.

Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1988). Some initial steps toward improving the measurement of ethical evaluations of marketing activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 871–879.

Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multi-dimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 639–653.

Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of corporate moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(4), 273–284.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstrac- tion in employees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 379–391.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 393–404.

Rude, S., Gortner, E., & Pennebaker, J. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18(8), 1121–1133.

Sanderson, R., & Varner, I. I. (1984). What’s wrong with corporate codes of conduct? Management Accounting, 66, 28–35.

Schwartz, M. S. (2005). Universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 27–44.

616 K. F. Hoover, M. B. Pepper

123

 

 

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Knopf. Seo, M., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective

experience in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 423–439.

Stevens, B. (1994). An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: Where do we go from here? Journal of Business Ethics, 13 (1), 63–69.

Stevens, B. (2008). Corporate ethical codes: Effective instruments for influencing behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 601–609.

Sweeney, C., & Whissell, K. (1984). A dictionary of affect in language. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 695–698.

Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 16–26.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Velasquez, M. G. (1998). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organization Studies, 27(3), 341–368.

Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics practices in mid-1990s: An empirical study of Fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(3), 283–294.

Whissell, C. M. (1998). A parsimonious technique for the analysis of word-use patterns in English texts and transcripts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 595–613.

Whissell, C. M. (2011a). Challenging an authorial attribution: Vocabulary and emotion in a translation of Goethe’s Faust attributed to Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 358–366.

Whissell, C. M. (2011b). Explaining inconsistencies in Shakespeare’s character Henry V on the basis of the emotional undertones of his speeches. Psychological Reports, 108(3), 843–855.

White, B. J., & Montgomery, R. (1980). Corporate codes of conduct. California Management Review, 23 (2), 80–87.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An introduction (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Winter, S. J., Saunders, C. & Hart, P. (2003). Electronic window dressing: Impression management with websites. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(4), 309–322. http://search. proquest.com/docview/218758038?accountid=1557.

Wright, D. K. (1993). Enforcement dilemma: Voluntary nature of public relations codes. Public Relations Review, 19(1), 13–20.

Yizraeli, D., & Shilo, L. (2000). An ethics program as part of an organizational culture. Jerusalem: The Center for Business Research in Israel.

How did They Say that? 617

123

 

 

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without

permission.