A Global Code of Business Ethics

ABSTRACT. The international economy is changingat a rapid rate. The alteration and reduction of bothgeographical and political borders, coupled withthe growing interdependence of socially, politically,economically, and legally diverse countries, havecaused multinational corporate entities to revisevarious policies. These revisions include revisions inmarketing strategies, strategic alliances, product andservice strategies and, perhaps most importantly as itaffects all strategies, a MNC’s approach to ethicalsystems. The truly global company must come togrips with the legal and moral atmosphere in whichit operates. The concept of moral rights, those tran-scending legal or political rights, drives us to reviewfour international codes of conduct and to attemptto develop one international uniform code that might

be applicable to any business, in any country orculture.

Introduction

The international economy is changing throughthe alteration and reduction of geographic andpolitical borders. The substantial direct invest-ment increases by companies in foreign countriesdemands that multinational corporations (MNCs)be aware of the legal, political, and ethical climesof host countries. One estimate of the monetarybenefit to be gained worldwide by less restric-tive trade is more than $500 billion, perhapsmade possible by the acceptance of the WorldTrade Organization (Lenzner, 1994).

Additionally, the growing interdependence ofsocially, politically, economically, and legallydiverse countries has caused multinational cor-porate entities to reexamine a variety of theirexisting policies. These reviews have oftencreated the need for revisions in strategies aboutmarketing, strategic alliances, competitive focus,customer service, and product and service offer-ings and quality. These revisions result from theneed to view the organizational environmentfrom both a domestic and global perspective,with ever-increasing awareness of alternativecultures, governments, and traditions.

In considering the opportunities available andstrategies for competing in the global businessarena, an overriding concern for many MNCs isthe complexity of trying to transfer a domesticethical system to nondomestic operations oradapting to the various ethical perspectives ofhost countries. Is such a transfer possible orwould adaptation of ethical standards, in effect,

A Global Code ofBusiness Ethics

Journal of Business Ethics 16: 1727–1735, 1997.© 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Dinah PayneCecily Raiborn

Jorn Askvik

Dinah Payne is an Associate Professor of Management atthe University of New Orleans. Her teaching andresearch interests include business ethics, the legal envi-ronment of business, international business and interna-tional management. She has published articles in theJournal of Business Ethics, the Labor Law Journal,the Journal of Managerial Issues, and ManagementAccounting.

Cecily Raiborn is a Professor of Accounting at LoyolaUniversity. Her teaching and research interests includemanagerial accounting, cost accounting, business ethics,and international business. She has published articlesin the Journal of Business Ethics, the Labor LawJournal, the Journal of Corporate Accounting, theJournal of Corporate Accounting and Finance andManagement Accounting. She is the author of twoaccounting books: Cost Accounting and ManagementAccounting.

Jorn Askvik graduated from the University of New Orleansin May of 1995. He was awarded a Master of BusinessAdministration degree and is currently working for StiesTermo-Transport, a top 10 Norwegian thermo-trans-portation company.

destroy the ethical base established in the homecountry? According to Ferrell and Fraedrich(1994), the ethical problems of MNCs arisebecause of the conflicting demands made fromopposing viewpoints. Thus, the attitude of aMNC’s management toward ethical decisionmaking and any defined code of ethics will haveimportant effects on the judgments made relativeto all other strategies.

Need for international codes of conduct

Even within a single country, there is alwayssome degree of inconsistency between laws.However, when viewed on a global basis, thelevel of inconsistency among countries is morediverse. Companies that have decided to becometruly global ethical organizations must analyze,assess, and amalgamate the heterogeneous legalatmospheres in the nations in which thosecompanies do business. Not only must MNCsrecognize and comply with each host country’sinternal laws, these same companies must becognizant of the pronouncements, policies, con-ventions, and treaties of the United Nations andvarious economic and regional (such as theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and theEuropean Union) trade organizations.

International agreements between companiesand/or nations are very difficult to initially estab-lish, extremely time-consuming in which toengage, and fraught with dangers to a final suc-cessful disposition. And, once an agreement isdefined, international law also makes non-compliance difficult to enforce. The U.N.’sInternational Court of Justice (World Court) andthe World Trade Organization have limitedpower to enforce judgments that have beenrendered. Countries are bound only by honorto comply with decisions: if a decision is noteconomically or politically expedient for therebuked party, noncompliance is likely. In allinternational agreement cases, however, thepossibility of arbitration (rather than litigation),a choice-of-forum clause (that may not beenforceable), or a choice-of-law clause (that mayhave certain limitations) exists.

In addition to the above mentioned issues, as

has often been noted, the law and ethics are notalways in accord. The Foreign Corrupt PracticesAct is a good example of this: the United Stateshas made it illegal to give bribes to high levelforeign officials to obtain or maintain businessin foreign countries. Many countries, however,do not accept the underlying ethical premise ofthis law nor its legal restraint. As of October1995, Congress was informed that foreign com-panies used bribes to eliminate U.S. competitorson approximately $45 billion in internationalbusiness (Greenberger, 1995). This exampleexhibits the need to formulate some mutuallyrespected and agreeable solution to the MNCethical dilemma.

Simultaneously with issues of divergent lawsand adherence (or lack thereof ) to multinationaltrade agreements or dispute resolutions, MNCmanagement must be aware of the effect ofculture on behavior. Culture has been describedas the collective mental programming that dis-tinguishes one group from another and that isevidenced in the values and beliefs of a society(Hofstede, 1980). Vines and Napier (1992) defineculture as “. . . that complex whole whichincludes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law,custom and any other capabilities and habitsacquired by man as a member of society.” Grosseand Kojawa (1992) provide some additionalclarification:

Culture affects what people see in a situation, whatthese observations may mean in terms of imputedintentions or motives, and the responses deemedappropriate. Culturally distinctive groups are notnecessarily countries. And, individuals may belongto several different culturally defined groups simul-taneously – with any single cultural influence vary-ing depending on the time, the issue, and so forth.

The vast differences in culture generate a hostof managerial issues, including ethical ones, suchas avoiding ethnocentrism and recognizing thatno one culture is better as a matter of course thanany other culture. Unfortunately, the mere recog-nition of cultural differences and use of culturalsynergy within organizations are not sufficient toconducting a successful (in terms of both profitand ethics) enterprise. Recognition of the inter-play among the political, economic, and cultural

1728 Dinah Payne et al.

aspects confronting a MNC is, however, a solidbase from which to understand the need forinternational codes of conduct for firms doingbusiness globally.

A review of four international codes ofconduct

Ethical behavior transcends the legal, political, oreconomic climate established by a culture orcountry. A 1987 Conference Board survey of 300companies worldwide provides some help inselecting issues to address in an international codeof conduct for MNCs. This survey identified thefollowing seven items as having widespreadagreement (80 percent or more saying “yes”) asbeing ethical issues for business: employee con-flicts of interest; inappropriate gifts to corporatepersonnel; sexual harassment; unauthorizedpayments; affirmative action; employee privacy;and environmental issues (Brooks, 1989;Berenheim, 1987). In addition to these issues, wealso believe that human rights and whistle-blowing should be addressed by the moralmultinational corporation and the internationalethics code under which it operates.

The concept of having international codes ofethics is not new: a variety of such documentscurrently exists. Getz (1990) analyzed interna-tional codes of conduct of the following fourentities: the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD); theInternational Chamber of Commerce (ICC); theInternational Labor Organization (ILO); and theCenter for Transnational Corporations (CTC).

The Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD) is the primarypolicy-determining organization for industrial-ized nations. A code of conduct for MNCs wasdrafted as a response to third world demands forcontrol of MNC activities. OECD non-bindingguidelines for MNCs focus on five major issues:competition, financing, taxation, employment/industrial relations, and science/technology.These guidelines apply to MNCs and govern-ments alike. One drawback, however, is thatdeveloped and developing nations cannot agreeon interpretation of the guidelines.

The ICC is an employers’ federation operatingon an international level and serves as a liaisonwith the United Nations. This organization isconcerned with both fair treatment of MNCsand conditions promoting the international flowof capital and skills. ICC guidelines addressinvestment policies, ownership and management,finance, fiscal policies, legal framework, laborpolicies, technology and commercial policies.The ICC also created the International Courtof Arbitration as a forum for dispute settlements.

The remaining two entities are UnitedNations’ agencies. The ILO issued conventionsthat do not become applicable until ratified bynational governments. One declaration focuseson eight main issues concerning direct invest-ments in developing countries: equality ofopportunity and treatment, security of employ-ment, wages, benefits/conditions of work,safety/health, freedom of association, and col-lective bargaining. The CTC drafted a code thatincludes forty-five instructions to MNCs in fivecategories: general/political, economic, finan-cial/social, disclosure of information, national-ization/compensation, and jurisdiction. TheCTC’s intention was to “maximize the contri-butions of transnational corporations toeconomic development and growth and tominimize the negative effects of the activities ofthese corporations (Proposed Text of the DraftCode of Transnational Corporations).”

The four codes place different emphasis on theMNC-host government relationship. TheUN/CTC code includes more principles on thistopic than the other codes. That is clearly under-standable given that one goal of the code is to facil-itate a change in the international economic systemtoward the establishment of a New InternationalEconomic Order. (Getz, 1990)

Many MNCs do not feel obligated to behaveaccording to the guidelines set forth in thesecodes. First, the OECD and the CTC guidelineswere written by governmental representativeswho obviously had some vested interest in thecodes’ constructs. Second, although some MNCsdid participate in composing the ICC and ILOcodes, there is no urge to adhere to the codes

A Global Code of Business Ethics 1729

because of a lack of governmental ratification oracceptance of the conventions/instructions.

MNC relationships and responsibilities

A MNC has the ability to shift resources on aglobal scale and, thus, has great discretion relativeto location and ease of movement. If a MNCbelieves that more profit could be made in onenation versus another, constraints based upon thelegal or political climate, wages, workplace safety,taxes, environmental standards, and productioncosts can often be circumvented (Desjardins andMcCall, 1990). Depending on the size of andpower held by the MNC, its influence maydramatically affect a nation’s public policy issues.Such effects will, of course, be more heavily feltin relationships with developing, rather thandeveloped, nations.

After reviewing the codes developed by theinternational organizations discussed in theprevious section, Getz (1990) derived a list ofMNC relationships and their associated respon-sibilities (duties) and rights. She stated that aMNC has three categories of relationships: thosewith the host government(s), with the generalpublic(s), and with individual persons. Relativeto the host government(s), the MNC mustconsider its responsibilities relative to economicand developmental policies, laws and regulations,and political involvement. Duties in these areasinclude (but are not limited to) the provision oflocal equity participation, preferential treatmentto local sources for components and raw mate-rials, and local reinvestment of some profits. TheMNC is subject to the laws, regulations, andjurisdiction of the host and should use appro-priate international dispute resolution mecha-nisms. Finally, MNCs should not interfere withintergovernmental relations, engage in illegal orimproper local political activities, nor pay bribesto public servants. In conclusion, Getz suggeststhat sovereignty of the host is the basic right thatmust be recognized and respected by the MNC.

The relationship between MNCs and thepublic has two major categories: technologytransfer and environmental protection issues(Getz, 1990). With regard to technology

transfers, the MNC should develop and adapttechnologies to the needs and characteristics ofthe host country. Research and developmentactivities should be conducted in the hostcountry (especially if the country is a developingone), using local resources and personnel to thegreatest extent possible. MNCs should also grantlicenses, based on reasonable terms and condi-tions, for usage of intellectual property rights.Relative to environmental protection, MNCsshould cooperate with the host country increating and expanding national and internationalenvironmental protection standards, as well asinforming the host of any potential environ-mental impacts of the products manufactured,services performed, and/or processes utilized.

Lastly, the relationship between MNCs andpersons revolves around consumer protection,employment practices and human rights issues.MNCs should respect consumer protection lawsand preserve the safety and health of consumersthrough proper labeling and accurate advertising.MNC should also enact nondiscriminatoryemployment policies, provide adequate trainingfor local employees, respect workers’ rights toorganize for collective bargaining, consult withworkers’ representatives on labor matters, andhave a goal of stable employment. Human rightsresponsibilities require that MNCs not discrim-inate on the basis of race, religion, or gender andthat these organizations respect the social andcultural objectives, values, and traditions of thecountries in which they operate (Getz, 1990).

A good example of a multinational corpora-tion’s ethics code that is remarkably complete inits recognition of stakeholders and the impliedrelationships between these various publics andthe company is the Johnson and Johnson’s (J&J’s)Credo:

We are responsible to our employees, the men andwomen who work with us throughout the world.Everyone must be considered as an individual. Wemust respect their dignity and recognize theirmerit. They must have a sense of security in theirjobs. Compensation must be fair and adequate, andworking conditions clean, orderly and safe. Wemust be mindful of ways to help our employeesfulfill their family responsibilities. Employees mustfeel free to make suggestions and complaints. There


must be equal opportunity for employment, devel-opment and advancement for those qualified. Wemust provide competent management, and theiractions must be just and ethical.

We are responsible to the communities in whichwe will live and worked and to the world com-munity as well. We must be good citizens – supportgood works and charities and bear our fair shareof taxes. We must encourage civic improvementsand better health and education. We must maintainin good order the property we are privileged touse, protecting the environment and naturalresources.

Model codes of ethics

The J&J Credo is only one example of thegrowing awareness among corporations thatadopting a corporate code of ethics (or conduct)is one way of recognizing both their ethical andlegal behavior. Given an increased number ofMNCs and a greater dependence of countries oneach other, cultures are being affected by eachother and, as a result, ethical values are influ-enced. Substantial research efforts have beenundertaken to establish the foundations necessaryfor and points of coverage in developing ethicscodes that would be useful in a multinationalorganizational environment. A summary of someof this research follows.

In a 1992 article, Vines and Napier discuss amodel of cross-cultural ethics that includes issuesof moral values, ethics, culture, managerialvalues, and religion. Using the work of Owens(1983) as a base, Vines and Napier’s model (1992)demonstrates the relationship between moralvalues and managerial decisions, as moderated bythe political and economic framework. Themodel begins as a three-layer set of circles: thecore represents a manager’s decisions; the middlelayer symbolizes the political and economicframework; and the outer layer illustrates moralvalues, beliefs and public opinion, includingimportant cultural elements. The model can beextended to compare two or more cultures andillustrate them within these three dimensions. Asa result, the model may show that culturesoverlap each other or “interface” when a cor-poration does business in a country other than

its own, thus easing the understanding andresolution of cultural, social, and ethical issues.The authors further suggest that this modelshould address several levels of values within thecorporate/firm culture, including values in thepredominant culture or subcultures within asociety (Vines and Napier, 1992).

Kohls and Buller (1994) discuss internationalethics in terms of conflict situations on a con-tinuum of values. A description of a conflictrequires examination of four factors: centrality;social consensus; the ability to influence thesituation (power); and the need for immediateaction (urgency).

Centrality acknowledges a culture’s essentialvalues or a manager’s opinion of what is impor-tant in life. Such specification results in adichotomy of core values that are of utmostimportance and peripheral values of secondaryimportance. As stated by Kohls and Buller(1994),

Donaldson (1989) proposes ten natural humanrights. Among these are the right to freedom fromtorture, the right to nondiscriminatory treatment,the right to freedom of speech and association, andthe right to political participation. These proposedrights may be debated, but if they are natural rightsthey would qualify as core values. They could notthen be sacrificed or compromised unless topreserve other core values, even if they are notrecognizable in some nations and cultures.

In regard to social/cultural consensus, Kohlsand Buller (1994) espouse the premise that valuesthat have not obtained consensus and, thus, arenot widely shared in the host country “may beconsidered less important and therefore moreeasily sacrificed by a manager.” Relative to poweror influence, the more held by the MNC, thegreater the temptation to force the corporation’sview on others. However, according to centrality,such coercion would only be appropriate if theethical scenario dealt with core or near-corevalues. Lastly, the degree of urgency limits thenumber of options available and, therefore, thechoice of action will depend upon how quicklythe issue requires resolution.

Donaldson (1992) developed a list of six“different languages of ethics.” The first three


languages (virtue and vice, self-protectionthrough self-control, and maximization of humanwelfare) have difficulty in expressing globallyrelevant conceptions of corporate responsibilityand, thus, are not truly suitable as bases for com-prehensive international business codes of ethics.The last three languages provide more suitablefoundations. The language of avoidance ofhuman harm is a good measure for the minimalresponsibilities owed by MNCs. The conceptsinherent in the language of rights/duties affordespecially appropriate guidance because thoserights and duties can be identified with legalconstraints understood by, although perhapsdisliked and not adhered to, all MNCs. Finally,the language of the social contract is a suitablefoundation for a code: it emphasizes mutualagreement - an excellent tool for disgruntledparties to achieve a solution acceptable to both.

Building a code of ethics for international business

A company operating in the internationalbusiness arena is subject to a multiplicity of ethicscodes. Brooks (1989) showed that a Canadiancorporation might be affected by a total of twelvecodes of ethics, all of which exist within the legalenvironment. Thus, any code of ethics for amultinational corporation should be reflective ofthe critical issues embedded in the previously-discussed codes developed by various interna-tional groups and should consider individualauthors’ research.

The “perfect” code, to be applicable to anybusiness and in any country or culture, shouldconsider ethical, cultural, and managerial issues.There are procedural and substantive aspects ofbuilding such a code. Procedurally, to be useful,an ethics code needs to meet certain minimalstandards of construction. It should be: clear andunderstandable to the average person; compre-hensive in indicating the extent of its provisions;and enforceable by specifying the ramificationsof improper actions (Raiborn and Payne, 1990).Additionally, codes should be positive in tone. Assuggested by the Theory Y management style,treat the actors as though they naturally would

do the right thing. Do not automatically assumethe worst behavior and insult the actors byaddressing them only with a sense of “don’t dothis; don’t do that.” Lastly, as indicated by Ferrelland Fraedrich (1994), the code should help theMNC achieve its objectives while benefitting thecountries in which production facilities arelocated or products/services are sold.

Raiborn and Payne developed a model codeof ethics that, at the time, was not specificallyenvisioned as being applicable for nondomesticas well as domestic operations. However, uponreview of the other model codes, the guidelinesare suitable for operating in the internationalarena. This outcome is reasonable, given that theunderlying premise of the code was that it couldbe applied to any situation at any time to ascer-tain an appropriate solution.

The model code envisioned four specifiedstandards (derived from a set of standards devel-oped in accounting) of behavior in four areasof values. Using Kohls and Buller’s continuumconcept, the four specified and named levels ofbehavior are merely points of a continuous wholeas shown in Figure 1. The theoretical standard ofbehavior reflects the highest potential for good,reflecting the spirit of morality. The practicalstandard represents an extreme diligence towardmoral behavior. The currently attainable standardreflects behavior deemed basically moral bysociety; this standard is not the mere letter ofthe law, but rather compels adherence to the lawas well as good faith use of common sense as itrelates to the law and what is deemed by societyto be ethically sound. Lastly, the basic standarddemands adherence only to the letter of the lawand, thus, reflects minimally acceptable behavior.These standards reflect Donaldson’s languages ofavoidance of human harm, rights/duties, and thesocial contract in that the standards encompassnot only minimal responsibilities owed by MNCsand compliance to legal constraints, but alsomutual agreement between the MNC andsocietal concerns.

These standards are combined with four values(integrity, justice, competence, and utility) thatshould be considered core, regardless of thesociety in which the MNC operates. Integritymeans to be of sound moral principle, to have


the characteristics of honesty, sincerity, andcandor. Justice reflects impartiality, sound reason,correctness, conscientiousness, and good faith.Competence is defined as capable, reliable, andduly qualified. Utility indicates the quality ofbeing useful and, philosophically, providing thegreatest good for the greatest number (or theleast harm for the greatest number) (Raiborn andPayne, 1990). While the breadth or depth ofthese values could differ from society to society,the core values themselves are still present.

As can be seen through a review of Exhibit I,the values, combined with the standards ofbehavior, can easily and reasonably be used in thedevelopment of international standards of ethics.Given these fundamental standards, a code ofethics should address the following five majorissues, consolidated from the various internationalcodes previously discussed:

• organizational relations (including competi-tion, strategic alliances, and local sourcing),

• economic relations (including financing,taxation, transfer prices, local reinvestment,equity participation, and fiscal policies),

• employee relations (including compensa-tion, safety, human rights, nondiscrimina-tion, collective bargaining, whistleblowing,training, and sexual harassment),

• customer relations (including pricing,quality, and advertising),

• industrial relations (including technologytransfer, research and development, infra-structure development, and organizationalstability/longevity), and

• political relations (including legal compli-ance, bribery and other corrupt activities,subsidies, tax incentives, environmentalprotection, and political involvement).

It cannot be expected that all multinationalcorporations would have the same standard ofbehavior for each of the issues nor that a singleMNC would have the same standard of behaviorin different locales. Differences would probablybe most pronounced between operations indeveloped and developing countries as well asbeing dependent on the degree of power theMNC wields in a given locale. However, byacknowledging that the lowest end of the con-tinuum is adherence to the letter of the law,MNCs would agree to accept a defined minimalethical stance. It would then be up to eachMNC’s management team to seek to move closerto the upper end of the ethical continuum.

The difficulty with any code of ethics,whether organizational or international, isenforcement. To encourage adherence to ethicscodes, MNCs first must institutionalize adher-ence into the employee performance rewardsystem. Deviations from the code should beencouraged to be reported; after investigation,


Fig. 1. Ethical behavior continuum.

the problem, its solution, and the reason theconduct was considered unethical should thenbe communicated to all employees. Additionally,because the most horrific of the violations arerelated to human rights issues, enforcementefforts must be conducted by each MNC: visi-

tations to nondomestic and supplier operationsmust be conducted by management from thehome country – especially if the home countryis a developed one and the nondomestic/supplieroperations are in developing countries. Theethics code should not be used as “public-rela-


Integrity

Theoretical standard The firm will adhere to a code of values including, but not limited to, thedefinitional values of integrity.

Practical standard Members of the firm will understand and support (both in spirit and to theletter) the codal values established by the firm.

Currently attainable standard Members of te firm will support the code established by the firm to the bestof their abilities.

Basic standard Members of te firm should attempt to perform their duties within the boundsor structure of the code.

Justice

Theoretical standard The firm will treat all with whom it deals in an equal and just manner.

Practical standard Members of the firm have credible and legitimate reasons for any disparity ordeviation from equal and just treatment among those with whom they deal.

Currently attainable standard Members of the firm will use their best judgment to ensure the equal and justtreatment of all with whom they deal.

Basic standard Members of the firm will be able to defend any disparity or deviation in thetreatment accorded to those with whom they deal.

Competence

Theoretical standard The firm will initiate and maintain a competent workforce.

Practical standard Members of the firm will ensure that they keep up with the state of the artof their particular industry and job

Currently attainable standard Members of the firm will strive to maintain competency in their jobs and workfunctions.

Basic standard Members of the firm will be able to perform their jobs without harm to others.

Utility

Theoretical standard The firm will actively seek information on the impact of its decisions will haveon all parties and it will weigh this information equally.

Practical standard Members of the firm will consider as much information as is readily/reasonably accessible, giving all aspects equal consideration.

Currently attainable standard Members of the firm will consider all readily accessible information in makingdecisions.

Basic standard Members of the firm will subjectively select information to consider in makingdecisions.

Exhibit I. Hierarchical propositions.

tions gambits, designed to coax [people] intobelieving they can shop with a clear conscience(Ortega, 1995).”

Conclusion

The need for a comprehensive, cohesive, anduniversal code of conduct for MNCs, as well assmaller organizations doing business internation-ally, is paramount. The increase of world tradeamong global partners and the increase of foreigndirect investment mandate that everyone worktowards a better understanding and a commonground of precepts upon which to base decisionscan help foster and further business and socialcontacts around the world. The result should bea facilitation of trade, and increase in profit anda heightened standard of living.

References

Berenheim, R. E.: 1987, Corporate Ethics (TheConference Board, Inc., New York).

Brooks, L. J.: 1989, ‘Corporate Codes of Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics 8, 117–129.

Desjardins, J. R. and J. J. McCall: 1990, ContemporaryIssues in Business Ethics (Wadsworth PublishingCompany, Belmont, CA), pp. 422–424.

Donaldson, T.: 1992, ‘The Language of InternationalCorporate Ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2,481–488.

Ferrell, O. C. and J. Fraedrich: 1994, Business Ethics:Ethical Decisoin Making and Cases (HoughtonMifflin, Boston), p. 197.

Getz, K. A.: 1990, ‘International Codes of Conduct:An Analysis of Ethical Reasoning’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 9, 567–577.

Greenberger, R. S.: 1995, ‘Foreigners Use Bribes toBeat U.S. Rivals in Many Deals, New ReportConcludes’, Wall Street Journal (October 12), A3.

Grosse, R. and D. Kojawa: 1992, International Business(Irwin, Boston).

Hofstede, G.: 1980, Culture’s Consequences (SagePublications, Beverly Hills, CA).

Kohls, J. and P. Buller: 1994, ‘Resolving Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflict: Exploring AlternativeStrategies’, Journal of Business Ethics 13, 31–38.

Lenzer, R.: 1994, ‘Looming Threat to World Trade’,Forbes (December 5), 46–47.

Ortega, B.: 1995, ‘Conduct Codes Garner Goodwillfor Retailers, But Violations Go On’, Wall StreetJournal ( July 3), p. A1.

Owens, J.: 1983, ‘Business Ethics in the CollegeClassroom’, Journal of Business Education (April),258–262.

Proposed Text of the Draft Code of TransnationalCorporations. Pream, U.N. DOC. E/1988.

Raiborn, C. and D. Payne: 1990, ‘Corporate Codesof Conduct: A Collective Conscience andContinuum’, Journal of Business Ethics 9, 879–889.

Vines, W. A. and N. K. Napier: 1992, ‘Toward anUnderstanding of Cross-Cultural Ethics: ATentative Model’, Journal of Business Ethics 11,831–841.

University of New Orleans,Department of Management,

LA 70148,New Orleans,

U.S.A.


Documents

A Global Code of Business Ethics