Journal of Business Ethics

, 90:607 | Cite as

A New Generation of Corporate Codes of Ethics

  • Cynthia StohlEmail author
  • Michael Stohl
  • Lucy Popova


Globalization theories posit organizational convergence, suggesting that Codes of Ethics will become commonplace and include greater consideration of global issues. This study explores the degree to which the Codes of Ethics of 157 corporations on the Global 500 and/or Fortune 500 lists include the “third generation” of corporate social responsibility. Unlike first generation ethics, which focus on the legal context of corporate behavior, and second generation ethics, which locate responsibility to groups directly associated with the corporation, third generation ethics transcend both the profit motive and the immediate corporate environment. Third generation ethics are grounded in responsibilities to the larger interconnected environment. The results of the study suggest convergence, insofar as Codes of Ethics are becoming standard communication features of corporations across region and industrial sector but still manifest a primary concern with profits and those behaviors which are mandated by law. Only corporations headquartered in the European Union demonstrate a significant degree of global consciousness and reflexivity. However, there is some evidence that third generation ethics and thinking are becoming part of the corporate landscape. More then three quarters of the corporations made at least some reference to third generation ethics.


Codes of Ethics globalization  corporate social responsibility first generation rights second generation rights third generation rights 


  1. Academics Studying Nike, Reebok, Adidas, and Athletic & Campus Apparel Industry: (n.d.), Accessed 15 Oct 2006.
  2. Altadis Group: 2004, ‹Code of Conduct’, Accessed 31 Oct 2006.
  3. Apodaca, C., Stohl, M., & Lopez, G.A.(1998). Moving norms to political reality: Institutionalizing human rights standards through the United Nations system. In C. F. Alger (Ed.), The Future of the United Nations System (pp. 185-221). New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Areva: 2005, ‹Values Charter’, Accessed 30 Oct 2006.
  5. Carasco, E., & Singh, J. (2003). The content and focus of the Codes of Ethics of the world’s largest transnational corporations. Business and Society Review, 108, 71–94. doi: 10.1111/1467-8594.00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities: 2006a, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Implementing the partnership for growth and jobs: Making Europe a Pole of Excellence on Corporate Social Responsibility, Brussels, Acc- essed 17 Mar 2006.
  7. Commission of the European Communities: 2006b, Implementing the Partnership for Growth and Jobs. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from
  8. Cressey, D.R., & Moore, C.A. (1983). Managerial values and corporate Code of Ethics. California Management Review, 25, 53–77.Google Scholar
  9. Edelman and Intelliseek.(2005). Talking from the Inside out: The Rise of Corporate Bloggers. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from
  10. Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, The New York Times Magazine, Accessed 15 Oct 2006.
  11. Garfield, E.: 1989, ‹The English Language: The Lingua Franca of International Science’, The Scientist 3(10):12. Accessed 15 Oct 2006.
  12. Gaumnitz, B., & Lere, J. (2004). A classification scheme for Codes of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 329–335. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000021053.73525.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. General Mills: 2003, ‹The Company of Champions’, Accessed 30 Oct 2006.
  14. Haas, E.B. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kaptein, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 13–31. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000021051.53460.da.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 111–127. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9305-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krasner, S. (Ed.). (1983). International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Langlois, C.C., & Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1990). Do corporate Codes of Ethics reflect national character? Evidence from Europe and the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 4, 519–539. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lefebvre, M. and J. Singh: 1996, `A Comparison of the Contents and Foci of Canadian and American Corporate Codes of Ethics', International Journal of Management 13, 156–170Google Scholar
  20. Levi Strauss & Co.: 2006, ‹Global Sourcing and Operat- ing Guidelines’, Accessed 30 Oct 2006.
  21. Maignan, I. and D. Ralston, 2002, Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-Presentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33, 497–514. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028
  22. Marks, S. (2004). The human right to development: Between rhetoric and reality. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 17, 137–168.Google Scholar
  23. May, S., Cheney, G., & Roper, J.(2006). The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mitrany, D.: 1943/1966, A Working Peace System (Quadrangle Books, Chicago).Google Scholar
  25. O’Dwyer, B., & Madden, G. (2006). Ethical codes of conduct in Irish companies: A survey of code content and enforcement procedures. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 217–236. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-3967-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmisano, S.J. (2006). The globally integrated enterprise. Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations), 85, 27–136.Google Scholar
  27. Payne, D., Raiborn, C., & Askvik, J. (1997). A global code of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1727–1735. doi: 10.1023/A:1005877726316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfizer: 2003, Summary of Pfizer Policies on Business Conduct. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from
  29. Rittberger, V. (ed.): 1993, Regime Theory and International Relations (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK)Google Scholar
  30. Robertson, R. (1990). Mapping the global condition: Globalization as the central concept. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 15–30. doi: 10.1177/026327690007002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz, M.S. (2002). A Code of Ethics for corporate Code of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 27–43. doi: 10.1023/A:1021393904930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Townsley, N (2006). A new generation of global corporate social responsibility. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.). The Debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Townsley, N., & Stohl, C. (2003). Contracting corporate social responsibility: Swedish expansions in global temporary agency work. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 599–605. doi: 10.1177/0893318902250238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations Global Compact: 1999, Retrieved April 1, 2009, from
  35. United Nations Procurement Service: 2005, ‹The Global Compact’, Accessed 1 Oct 2006.
  36. Weaver, G.: 1993, `Corporate Codes of Ethics: Purpose, Process and Content Issues', Business and Society 32, 44–58Google Scholar
  37. Wong, M., A. Leong and J. Yimprasert: 2006, ‹A Critical Guide to Corporate Codes of Conduct: Voices from the South Asia Monitor Resource Centre’, Accessed 30 Oct 2006.
  38. Wood, G. (2000). A cross cultural comparison of the contents of Codes of Ethics: USA, Canada, and Australia. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 287–298. doi: 10.1023/A:1006034209956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication, University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations