Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 89, Supplement 1, pp 39–49 | Cite as

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The Use of Ethics-Related Terms in 10-K Reports

Article

Abstract

We examine the occurrence of ethics- related terms in 10-K annual reports over 1994–2006 and offer empirical observations on the conceptual framework of Erhard et al. (Integrity: A Positive Model that Incorporates the Normative Phenomena of Morality, Ethics, and Legality (Harvard Business School, Harvard) 2007). We use a pre-Sarbanes-Oxley sample subset to compare the occurrence of ethics-related terms in our 10-K data with samples from other studies that consider virtue-related phenomena. We find that firms using ethics-related terms are more likely to be “sin” stocks, are more likely to be the object of class action lawsuits, and are more likely to score poorly on measures of corporate governance. The consistency of our results across these alternative measures of ethical behavior suggests that managers who portray their firm as “ethical” in 10-K reports are more likely to be systematically misleading the public. These results are consistent with the integrity-performance paradox.

Keywords

code of ethics Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cain, D., G. Loewenstein and D. Moore: 2005, ‹The Dirt on Coming Clean: The Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest’, Journal of Legal Studies 34, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Erhard, W., M. Jensen and S. Zaffron: 2007, ‹Integrity: A Positive Model that Incorporates the Normative Phenomena of Morality, Ethics, and Legality,’ Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  3. Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits’, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970Google Scholar
  4. Gompers, P., J. Ishii and A. Metrick: 2003, ‹Corporate governance and equity prices’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 107–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hong, H., and M. Kacperczyk: 2007, ‹The Price of Sin: The Effects of Social Norms on Markets’, Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
  6. Loughran, T. and B. McDonald: 2007, ‹Plain English’, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  7. Merton, R.: 1987, ‹A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information’, Journal of Finance 42, 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meyer, J. and B. Rowan: 1977, ‹Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Paine, L.: 1994, ‹Managing for organizational integrity’, Harvard Business Review 72, 106–117.Google Scholar
  10. Schelling, T.: 1956, ‹An essay on bargaining’, The American Economic Review 46, 281–306.Google Scholar
  11. Trevino, L.: 1990, ‹A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics’, Research in Organizational Change and Development 4, 195–230.Google Scholar
  12. Weaver, G., L. Trevino and P. Cochran: 1999, ‹Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices’, Academy of Management Journal 42, 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Notre DameNotre DameU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations