Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 283–294 | Cite as

Corporate Ethics Practices in the Mid-1990's: An Empirical Study of the Fortune 1000

  • Gary R. Weaver
  • Linda Klebe Treviño
  • Philip L. Cochran


This empirical study of Fortune 1000 firms assesses the degree to which those firms have adopted various practices associated with corporate ethics programs. The study examines the following aspects of formalized corporate ethics activity: ethics-oriented policy statements; formalization of management responsibilities for ethics; free-standing ethics offices; ethics and compliance telephone reporting/advice systems; top management and departmental involvement in ethics activities; usage of ethics training and other ethics awareness activities; investigatory functions; and evaluation of ethics program activities. Results show a high degree of corporate adoption of ethics policies, but wide variability in the extent to which these policies are implemented by various supporting structures and managerial activities. In effect, the vast majority of firms have committed to the low cost, possibly symbolic side of ethics management (e.g., adoption of ethics codes and policies, etc.). But firms differ substantially in their efforts to see that those policies or codes actually are put into practice.


Program Activity Management Responsibility Wide Variability Departmental Involvement Ethic Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beneish, M. D. and R. Chatov: 1993, 'Corporate Codes of Conduct: Economic Determinants and Legal Implications for Independent Auditors', Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 12, 3–35.Google Scholar
  2. Berenbeim, R.: 1987, Corporate Ethics (The Conference Board, New York).Google Scholar
  3. Berenbeim, R.: 1992, Corporate Ethics Practices (The Conference Board, New York).Google Scholar
  4. Center for Business Ethics: 1986, 'Are Corporations Institutionalizing Ethics?', Journal of Business Ethics 5, 85–91.Google Scholar
  5. Center for Business Ethics: 1992, 'Instilling Ethical Values in Large Corporations', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 863–867.Google Scholar
  6. Chatov, R.: 1980, 'What Corporate Ethics Statements Say', California Management Review 22(4), 20–29.Google Scholar
  7. Cressey, D. R. and C. A. Moore: 1983, 'Managerial Values and Corporate Codes of Ethics', California Management Review 25(4), 53–77.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, D. R., M. B. Metzger and J. W. Hill: 1994, 'The “New” U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines: A Wake-up Call for Corporate America', Academy of Management Executive 8(1), 7–13.Google Scholar
  9. Fernandes, M. F. and D. M. Randall: 1992, 'The Nature of Social Desirability Response Effects in Ethics Research', Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 183–206.Google Scholar
  10. Hambrick, D. C., M. A. Geletkanycz and J. W. Fredrickson: 1993, 'Top Executive Commitment to the Status quo: Some Tests of its Determinants', Strategic Management Journal 14, 401–418.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, J. M., J. E. Murphy and W. M. Swenson: 1993, Compliance Programs and the Corporate Sentencing Guideline (Clark Boardman Callaghan, Deerfield, Illinois).Google Scholar
  12. Mathews, M. C.: 1988, Strategic Intervention in Organizations: Resolving Ethical Dilemmas (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).Google Scholar
  13. National Directory of Corporate Public Affairs: 1994 (Columbia Books, Washington, D.C.).Google Scholar
  14. Paine, L. S.: 1994, 'Managing for Organizational Integrity', Harvard Business Review, March–April, 106–117.Google Scholar
  15. Pfeffer, J.: 1981, 'Mangement as Symbolic Action', Research in Organizational Behavior 3, 1–52.Google Scholar
  16. Randall, D. M. and M. F. Fernandes: 1991, 'The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research', Journal of Business Ethics 10, 805–817.Google Scholar
  17. Sweeney, R. B. and H. L. Siers: 1990, 'Ethics in Corporate America', Management Accounting, June, 34–40.Google Scholar
  18. Trevino, L. K.: 1990, 'A Cultural Perspective on Changing and Developing Organizational Ethics', Research in Organizational Change and Development 4, 195–230.Google Scholar
  19. Weaver, G. R.: 1993, 'Corporate Codes of Ethics: Purpose, Process, and Content Issues', Business and Society 32(1), 44–58.Google Scholar
  20. Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran: 1995, 'Environmental and Managerial Influences on the Intensity and Integration of Corporate Ethics Programs: An Empirical Study', presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, August 1995.Google Scholar
  21. Weaver, G. R., L. K. Trevino and P. L. Cochran: 1996, 'Defining and Explaining the Character of Corporate Ethics Programs', Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society.Google Scholar
  22. White, B. J. and R. Montgomery: 1980, 'Corporate Codes of Conduct', California Management Review 23(2), 80–87.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Weaver
    • 1
  • Linda Klebe Treviño
    • 2
  • Philip L. Cochran
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of DelawareNewarkU.S.A
  2. 2.Department of Management and OrganizationPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkU.S.A

Personalised recommendations