Advertisement

Classifying Ethics Codes Using Natural Language Processing

  • Zachary Glass
  • E. Susanna Cahn
Chapter

Abstract

Business ethics scholars have varied opinions of corporate ethics codes. Many advocate them as a way to contribute to an organizational environment in which ethics will be a regular consideration in the decision-making process. Critics assert that codes of ethics are mere window dressings written to protect the company from litigation or to comply with regulations. The authors maintain that language is a key to distinguishing between these two properties and an aid to how employees and other stakeholders should view a code’s intent. However, language is often ambiguous to the reader and results of research on ethics codes are often in conflict. This chapter addresses the issue of intent by quantifying the content of ethics codes. Methodologies from natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning are applied in a novel way to classify ethics codes. Codes from companies selected from lists of “Ethical” companies are compared with codes from the Fortune 500 companies. The model’s findings indicate that ethics codes for some of these groups of companies can be distinguishable.

Keywords

Ethics codes Codes of conduct Natural language processing Machine learning Corporate social responsibility 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Adam Meyers of New York University for his invaluable advice on this project.

References

  1. Bird, S., Loper, E., & Klein, E. (2009). Natural Language Processing with Python. Beijing: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Cahn, E. S. (2014). Measures of Corporate Social Business Performance and Ethical Decisions: A Review and Critique. Southern Journal of Business and Ethics, 6, 142–152.Google Scholar
  3. Coughlan, R. (2005). Codes, Values and Justifications in the Ethical Decision-Making Process. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erwin, P. M. (2011). Corporate Codes of Conduct: The Effects of Code Content and Quality on Ethical Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 535–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrell, H., & Farrell, B. J. (1998). The Language of Business Codes of Ethics: Implications of Knowledge and Power. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 587.Google Scholar
  6. Gaumnitz, B. R., & Lere, J. C. (2004). A Classification Scheme for Codes of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harris, H. (2004). Performance Measurement for Voluntary Codes: An Opportunity and a Challenge. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaptein, M. (2011). Toward Effective Codes: Testing the Relationship with Unethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Scoring, Term Weighting, and the Vector Space Model. In Introduction to Information Retrieval (p. 100). Delhi: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.Google Scholar
  12. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., & Duchesnay, É. (2011). Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.Google Scholar
  13. Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2016). Rhetorical Structure and Argumentation Structure in Monologue Text. ACL, 103.Google Scholar
  14. Porter, M. F. (1980). An Algorithm for Suffix Stripping. Program, 14(3), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynolds, S. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2004). A Kantian Perspective on the Characteristics of Ethics Programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rodrigues, U., & Stegemoller, M. (2010). Placebo Ethics. Virginia Law Review, 96(1), 1–68.Google Scholar
  17. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Schwartz, M. S. (2002). A Code of Ethics for Corporate Code of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1–2), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spencer, B. A., & Taylor, G. S. (1987). A Within and Between Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 18(3), 7–18.Google Scholar
  20. Stede, M. (2016, October 7). Argumentation and Discourse Structure: Some Relationships. NLP Talk Presented at Columbia University.Google Scholar
  21. Wartick, S. L. (1992). The Relationship Between Intense Media Exposure and Change in Corporate Reputation. Business & Society, 31(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weaver, G. R. (1993). Corporate Codes of Ethics: Purpose, Process and Content Issues. Business & Society, 32(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winkler, I. (2011). The Representation of Social Actors in Corporate Codes of Ethics: How Language Positions Internal Actors. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zachary Glass
    • 1
  • E. Susanna Cahn
    • 2
  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Pace UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations