"Global Code of Ethics and Competitive Intelligence"

24

Comai

Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management • Volume 1 • Number 3 • Winter 2003

Global Code of Ethics andCompetitive IntelligencePurposes: an Ethical Perspectiveon Competitors

Alessandro Comai

ESADE Business School, University Ramon Llul

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This article discusses the ethical problems faced inthose investigations where competitors are the centralobjects of the study. A conceptual framework is devel-oped that helps build ethical boundaries betweeninformation collection techniques. The model willemploy four fundamental variables, the analysis ofwhich will lead to the progressive selection of collec-tion techniques. The final outcome will primarilydepend on the strategic purposes of decision-makers.The model helps resolve ethical dilemmas that canarise in the competitor information gathering processin domestic and global markets. In addition, thisarticle will present a new approach to the treatment ofcorporate ethical consciousness.

KEYWORDSbusiness and professional ethics, competitor re-

search, conceptual framework, information gatheringtechniques, internationalism

ABOUT THE AUTHORAlessandro Comai, BSc(Eng.), MBA is currently a

PhD candidate at ESADE business school. He is cur-rently researching competitive intelligence and is alsoa freelance consultant in Barcelona specializing in CI.He has written several articles and given seminars onCI and is a member of the Academic Board of theJournal of Competitive Intelligence and Management. Heis also director of the new Spanish magazine, Puzzle -Revista Hispana de la Inteligencia Competitiva. Email:[email protected]

INTRODUCTIONCompetitive intelligence (CI) is defined as the

systematic process of gathering, classifying, analyzingand distributing information regarding competitors,

25

Global Code of Ethics and Competitive Intelligence Purposes: an Ethical Perspective on Competitors


markets, and industries. CI is secured using ethicaland legal practices and is integrated into the strategicdecision-making process (Sammon, Kurland, &Spitalnic, 1984, Vella & McGonagle 1988, Prescott &Miller, 2001). In this regard, one of the primary objec-tives of this article is to introduce a conceptual frame-work which helps organizations, faced with competi-tive intelligence (CI) research, to establish which col-lection techniques are ethically acceptable in a specificcontext. ‘Intelligence purposes’ will be introduced asa main part of this framework. Another primaryobjective of this article is to discuss approaches to CIthrough which firms can embrace a multinationalcode of ethics. This topic will be explored by using aconductive approach to those individuals displayingethical conduct when faced with a decision on whetherto accept a type of gathering technique in a specificcontext.

This article will commence by defining the way CIand ethics have been approached in the literature andwill identify the types of codes. The intention of thisinitial discussion is to provide a general overview ofCI and ethics, thus providing a starting point fordiscussion of the main subject. Next, four variableswhich establish the elements of a business researchcode of ethics will be described. This article will thendescribe the types of collection techniques that areused in business research and will illustrate the coregroup of variables impinging on the selection of thesetechniques which are culture, principles and moralconsciousness, collection techniques, and purposes.This model will suggest a sequential process that willlead to the selection of the collection techniques. Amodel is then proposed that will integrate all of thevariables in three different levels. To further illustratethis model, the relationship between strategic pur-poses and moral judgment in the method of gatheringinformation is examined. This concept is based on theidea that intelligence purposes interfere with the or-ganization and modify the attitude of the informationgatherer. Finally, the article will discuss how indi-viduals could use the same conceptual model to selecttechniques according to their business principles. Thisarticle will conclude by suggesting a new approachbased on the idea that a structure exists for defining aglobal ethical standard.

Building Blocks

Business, Marketing and CompetitiveIntelligence Ethics: Who are theStakeholders?

Business ethics has received significant attentionin the last two decades. There is considerable litera-ture to be found on this topic. Evidence of the aware-ness of business ethics is provided by the numerouspublications that are dedicated to this topic. Thetraditional focus of business ethics is the firm itself,and how its activities influence the external environ-ment and its stakeholders (Goodpaster, 1991).

Little attention has been dedicated to the idea ofthe competition being regarded as one of these stake-holders of business ethics (Camacho, Fern·ndez, &Miralles, 2002, Manley, 1991). Competitors have beentreated with an unfair perspective, having, for themost part, been excluded from the stakeholder group.Freeman (1984) broadly defined the stakeholder as“any group or individual who can affect or is affectedby the achievement of the organization’s objectives”.According to Spence, Coles and Harris (2001), com-petitors should be included in the broad definition ofa stakeholder group. Several of the business disci-plines, however, view the relationship between ethicsand the firm’s competitors in very different ways.

Instead of broaching the idea of the competitor asa primary focus of ethical discussion, marketing sci-ence has devoted more effort to the relationship be-tween the researcher and the object of the investiga-tion. The discipline of marketing focuses primarily onthe consumer and how the firm can positively ornegatively interact with the customer or end-con-sumer. Ethics in marketing research is focused onstudying the relationship between the researcher andthe respondent (Murphy & Laczniak, 1992) and thecustomer (Ferrell, Hartline & McDaniel, 1998). Aca-demic and professional literature on competitive in-telligence has devoted significant attention to thetopic (Beltramini, 1986; Cohen & Czepiec, 1988; Paine,1991; Hallaq & Steinhorst, 1994; Schultz; Collins &McCulloch, 1994; Trevino & Weaver, 1997; Hamilton& Fleisher, 2001; Prescott, 2001). In the discipline ofCI, the competitor and the competitive arena are themain object of study. Hence, the end-consumer and

26

Comai


business environment are seen as a marginal interest.According to Malhotra and Miller (1998), the eth-

ics models proposed in the literature, concentratemore on business in general as opposed to a specificfocus on the consumer or the competitor. The moralresponsibility of business, marketing, and competi-tive intelligence, however, are not mutually exclusive.All of them are concentrated in three different areaswith different foci and priorities. Moreover, the viewthat there is a distinction regarding the effort that anyone of these disciplines dedicates to each stakeholdercan be reinforced by the idea that moral consciousnessvaries significantly between different types of re-searchers and organizations. The concept was sug-gested by Ferrell, Hartline, and McDaniel (1998) whoconcluded that “marketing research companies en-force their codes of ethics to a greater degree thancorporate research departments.”

Moral conscience develops when firms look at therelationship they have with their environment and theplayers in it, and how this rapport evolves over time.All business research, which uses internal or externalsources, will have a specific group of stakeholders.Tena and Comai (2001) suggested three key objects ofthe company and therefore the three main groups ofstakeholders for any organization:

1. Competitors and firms2. Generic environment3. End-consumers

As discussed earlier, the three perspective of thebusiness ethics discipline can be perceived when theobject of the study is considered. These perspectivesare summarized in Figure 1 which presents the paral-lel between the moral conscience and the focus of aspecific research. For instance, if a firm is focused onthe general environment (e.g. ecology), business eth-ics comes into play. However, if the analysis is concen-trated on the consumer responses of a strategic prod-uct development, the ethics will be dealt with from amarket research perspective.

Code of Ethics: a ClassificationThere are many ways of codifying ethical stan-

dards. A review of the literature indicates that thereare five types of codes:

1. Flexible CodeThe flexible code provides some general guide-

lines for conduct. This type of code is open to inter-pretation and can drive firms in different ways. Forinstance, the Society of Competitive Intelligence Pro-fessionals (SCIP) publishes a code of ethics to beadhered to by members in their professional activity(Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals,1997). Although SCIP members are expected to followthe ethical standards, there is sufficient leeway forinterpretation. Nolan (1999) noted that practitionersadhere to the SCIP code of ethics act in various ways(e.g., by restricting different types of primary andsecondary collection techniques).

2. Rigid or Regulatory CodeThe rigid or regulatory code is a normative type of

code and it is usually referred to in articles or state-ments as “dos and don’ts”. The rigid form can be seenas a contract that the firm signs with its environmentand stakeholders. Once a company’s code of ethicshas been structured, it should formulate a set of

Figure 1: The Relationship between subject, object,and focus in intelligence collection and analysisSource: Adapted from: Tena & Comai (2001).

COMPETITORSAND FIRMS

(CI Ethics)

(Marketing Ethics)(Business Ethics)

ENVIRONMENT END-CONSUMERS

The Observer

The Subject

The Object

Intelligence Activity

27



applicable guidelines that would help practitioners tofollow them in their daily work. “In developing amoral culture, a corporation must formulate clearethical strategies and structures, taking into accountopportunities and risk, resources and competencies,personal values and preferences, and economic andsocial responsibilities” (Andrews, 1980).

3. Storytelling, Case Study, Narrative, orAnecdotal Approach

This type of code is generally applied by educa-tional organizations, which undoubtedly make a sig-nificant contribution to ethical awareness. Studiesregarding conflict of interest and ethical dilemmas arewidely used in business school courses. Frankel (1989)would classify this type of code as an educationalcode, the main purpose of which is to put forwardhow a code can benefit the profession when it isdealing with ethical problems. From practical experi-ence, ethical awareness can be beneficial and veryeffective. For instance, J.C. Penny Company devel-oped many cases and descriptions of dilemmas in its“Statement of Business Ethics” (Society of Competi-tive Intelligence Professionals, 1997).

4. Golden RulesThis approach is based on the following ethic: “I

will not do anything that may now, or in the future,harm, or embarrass, the corporation” (Fuld, 1995) or“don’t’ do what you do not want others to do”. Thisinstinctive code of ethics can be promptly assimilatedfrom practitioners but does not allow any corporationto establish a thoughtful ethical conduct.

5. Question and Answer ApproachSuggested by Nash (1981), this approach relates to

an individual assessing a decision by answering 12questions. This type of process helps individuals whenthey are confronted with a problematical decision.

Each system has pros and cons and can have aspecific aim. Frankel (1989) defined the 3 main pur-poses of a code as:

a) aspiration: which emphasizes self achievementb) educational: which underlines the importance of

ethical wisdom

c) regulatory: which offers guidelines

An organization can embrace one or all threepurposes according to its style. It is generally ac-cepted that restricted codes will offer less flexibilityand interpretation and the individuals who agree tothem will be less likely to get into conflict of interest.Restricted codes of ethics are very useful for peoplewith problematic decisions to make (Kahaner, 1998).

Conversely, Lozano (1999) stressed the differencebetween regulated and self-regulated codes. Theformer may be close to the codes of ethics adopted byspecific professions, which includes competence andresponsibilities. However, this type of code is notsufficient to enhance an ethical maturity and forLozano (1999), it needs a second dimension. The self-regulated or “educative code”, as defined by Frankel(1989), includes a certain degree of interpretation,reasoning, and adaptability to a specific circumstance.

Regardless of which code is chosen, the firmwould need a minimum degree of flexibility in orderto adapt its standard and moral consciousness toexternal and internal conditions. Ethical standards,therefore, must be open to systematic and ad-hocrevisions, which are a part of the corporate learningprocess.

The Four Variables: EthicsDimension

Ethics in CI is not a simple issue. It is complexbecause many factors are in play at the same time. Areview of the specialized and general business ethicsliterature suggests that there are many variables thatinterrelate in any ethical model. An expression of thiswould be the model proposed by Malhotra and Miller(1998) in which the authors integrate all of the mainstakeholders in marketing.

A holistic stakeholder approach to ethics incorpo-rates four main variables that affect competitors’ moraljudgment and relationships with other stakeholders:

• Variable 1: Questionable Methods• Variable 2: The Business Context: Regulation,

Business Rules, and Geography• Variable 3: Cultural and Ethical Principles• Variable 4: Competitive Intelligence Purposes

28

Comai


Variable 1: QuestionableMethods

The first variable includes the collection tech-niques or methods that have been widely discussed inthe specialized literature (Paine, 1991; Parad & Ban-ner, 1997; Schwebach, 1998; Washington Researchers1998; Nolan, 1999; Prescott, 2001).

Since CI was defined as the systematic activity ofgathering, analyzing, and distributing informationabout the competition and the business environment,the area experiencing most difficulty in respectingethical boundaries during the whole process has beenthe collection activity. Sawka (2001) defines the collec-tion activity as “fraught with risk”. Information gath-ering processes make strong use of primary research,which is broadly recognized as the most valuablesource of information in competitive intelligence. Ac-cording to Charters (2001), the collection activity isnot the only one able to deliver competitive advan-tage. In fact, intelligence comes from a process thatemploys many activities. Research is a cyclical activitybetween collection and implicit or explicit analysis ofthe data. We collect information, we analyze it concur-rently, and if we need more information, we search forit, and analyze it again in order to obtain the answerrequired.

Collection techniques can include several classifi-cations. Paine (1991) categorized any suspicious col-lection activity into three groups: misrepresentation,improper influence, and covert surveillance. Prescott(2001) introduced four categories into which companycollection activities can be separated: deception, un-due influence, covert intelligence, and unsolicitedintelligence. By re-examining the content of both ana-lytical models we can make the following observa-tions.

• Legitimate activities are those that are respected,agreed, and accepted either formally or infor-mally by broader society (e.g., the firm, thegovernment, or the stakeholder).

• Misrepresentation or covert intelligence techniquesare those in which the name of the investigatingcompany is not fully disclosed, partially hiddenor distorted. The purpose of using misrepresen-tation is to change the rival consciousness about

the identity of the party interested in securingthe information and, consequently, to reduce thelevel of aggressiveness perceived from the tar-geted company. It can be carried out by anindependent research company, defined as a“smoke-screen” or “screening” (Washington Re-searchers, 1998). Another example is when amanager calls himself a member of the ’market-ing department’ instead of ’competitor intelli-gence’ on his business cards or when he re-moves his name tag when he approaches acompetitor’s stand at a trade fair. Another ex-ample is when a firm hires a student to collectinformation claiming that the research is for theuniversity.

• Similarly, improper influence and undue influencehas a lot in common. This category classifiesthose techniques that use psychological persua-sion. For instance, love affairs, which may beused from intelligence agents to get key infor-mation, can lead to the destruction of thecounterpart’s reputation (Parad & Banner, 1997).

• Improper means or false purposes occurs when theobjective or purposes of an interaction is notclear to the other party. The best example of thisis that of improper job interviewing of acompetitor’s employees where the objective is tocollect competitor information rather than selectand employ professionals. The hotel groupMarriott was faced with this case when it wantedto enter the hotel management business. At thetime, the luxury hotel chain engaged a recog-nized consultant and interviewed various man-agers of a competing chain (Dumaine, 1988).The controversy of elicitation technique can beincluded in this category. “Elicitation is gaininginformation through direct communication,where one or more of the involved parties is notaware of the specific purpose of the conversa-tion.“1 Doubts concerning the subject of elicita-tion, are clearly recognized today and havequite a long tradition. In a 1977 survey byIndustry Week (as reproduced in Porter & Rangan,1992) “camouflaged questioning and drawingout of competitor’s employees at technical meet-

29



ings” was seen as 50% ethical and 50% unethicalbut entirely legal and very effective.

• Unsolicited or accidental intelligence is not really atechnique but the use or the distribution of thisinformation can be open to ethical discussion.An example of accidental intelligence would bethe case of the New York office of Lexis-Nexiswhich received a fax in which a competitor wasdescribing details of a product with the idea ofsending it to a customer (Parker, 2002). Anotherexample is when you are sitting in the sameairplane and at your side you have an employeeof a competitor that is reading her/his nextpresentation.

• Other techniques are those that cannot be classi-fied into any of the above categories. Thesetechniques can be: hiring people away fromcompetitors, industry leaks, garbage-sorting,technological or personal surveillance, interro-gation, persuasion, bribery and so on. Some ofthese are illegal, some unethical.

One of the difficulties that collectors have to dealwith is conflict of interest. The success of getting theinformation needed is directly correlated to the effec-tiveness of the operation and the result of the re-search. “In the day-to-day race for revenue, ethics canget lost” (Kahaner, 1998). The race can be seen, even atstrategic level, in the obsession with achieving thedominant position. Johnson and Maguire (1988) de-fined a list of several ethical research techniques and“dirty” activities that can be classified as businessespionage. This situation, however, is more evident atoperational levels involving tactical activities or short-term projects where both employees and externalcontractors can rub out the ethical boundaries. Whenanalysts have to solve the jigsaw puzzle, they will beunder pressure to find the missing piece (Porter &Rangan, 1992).

The dilemma between ethical techniques and ef-fectiveness is the full satisfaction of decision makerneeds. A contribution in this field was made bySchwebach (1998) in which he compared 59 collectiontechniques by investigating the effectiveness and theethical value that sales people perceived from them.

Similar lists of practices or situations were mentionedby Wall (1974), Beltramini (1986); Cohen and Czepiec(1988) and Parad and Banner (1997).

Conflict of interest becomes more apparent inprojects that are less strategically oriented. For in-stance, if you want to study competitor moves for thenext 5 years, you may be interested in followingsignals of competitors’ intentions and beliefs ratherthan rush to their garbage to get a valuable piece ofinformation. Indeed, Schwebach’s (1998) work wasfocused on the type of information that sales peoplereported to the company and he concluded that whenthe type of intelligence used was from a sales repre-sentative, it was more tactical.

It should be considered whether or not unethicalbehavior (in order to gain more information or to gainit more rapidly) will help in a particular task or in thewhole project. If the project is based on multiple tasks,an unethical collection activity will not add any sig-nificant value. Contrasting with Charters (2001), thisjudgment is a problem because any piece of data candifferentiate enormously in its value. This is the rea-son why some collectors can fall into unethical behav-ior. However, unethical behavior does not pay in thelong term. What would be the risk that a firm couldrun? Kahaner (1998) and Fuld (1995) stressed therelationship between ethics and monetary harm.Kahaner (1998) remarks that “probably the most im-portant reason for good behavior is to keep yourcompany out of court, avoiding legal entanglementsand costs”. Collection activity is one part of a wholeprocess. It does not mean that, by acting illegally, theanswer will be found. In fact, intelligence comes fromthe analysis of information, which manifests eitherconcurrently or after the collection process. The Soci-ety of Competitive Intelligence Professionals (2004)argues, “most information that can’t be found throughopen-source collection and ethical inquiry can bededuced by using a variety of analytical tools”

Professional researchers ought to be well-trainedand must sign a non-disclosure agreement that willinduce respect for both company and competitortrade secrets. The intelligence process would be at agreater disadvantage if it could be proved that it wasa conscious matter rather than a passive activity.Ignorance cannot be tolerated from a professionalengaged in qualitative research activities. Indeed,

30

Comai


“moral blindness does not excuse corporations fromculpability. A corporation, like an individual, has theresponsibility to pay attention to, and seek out, ethicalfacts” (Hoffman, 1986). A CI project, in which knowl-edge of competitors is the main subject of informationgathering, is not the only type that can hold ethicallyquestionable methods that are both tacit and explicit.“Properly trained CI professionals generally knowhow to stay out of legal trouble, though they (a)cannot explain their actions in legal terms and (b)tend to be more conservative than what the lawallows.” (Fuld & Company, 2001).

Variable 2: The Business Context:Regulation, Business Rules, andGeography

The business context represents the second mainvariable in which the following topics can be classi-fied:

Regulation and Business RulesThe term “rules” used in business is a clear ex-

ample that business has long been compared to agame and that this plays a central part in formingbusiness attitudes. Porter (1985) introduced the con-cept of bad and good competitors. Porter’s classifica-tion is based on the behavior of the players: good arethose firms that respect and follow industry rules anddo not reduce industry profitability and bad are thecompanies that do not follow industry rules. How-ever, what are the rules and where do they comefrom? Does the firm accept these rules?

The controversial topic of ethics and its bound-aries in investigation doesn’t have the same limits asthose given as opinions in an open discussion. ForBeversluis (1987) “business is a game and the ordi-nary constraints of morality do not apply and that oneis not able to survive in business if one is too ethical”.This legitimacy in part depends on the culture, beliefs,and experience of the businesspeople. However, regu-lation changes controversial business issues in law. Inthis sense, regulation can help to formalize estab-lished and accepted rules. In the US, when the Eco-nomic Espionage Act (EEA)2 of 1996, was introduced,its function was to protect trade secrets from eco-nomic espionage and it represented the formalization

of investigative conduct rather than bringing in atangible change. Horowitz (1999) argues that the EEA“adds federal criminal penalties to activities whichwere already illegal under state law”.

Law can be seen as the formalization and accep-tance of general business rules such as when aninformal agreement is formalized into an official con-tract. In fact, ethics can be considered as a “gentlemen’sagreement” when referring to business society - con-ferring trust and respect of common rules betweentwo or more parties. If there is an issue regarding aninformation gathering technique, there is no law thatregulates this behavior. “Traditionally, the highest andbest form of competition was thought to reflect astriving for excellence by each competitor. Interferingwith a rival’s efforts, or even taking advantage of aweakness, was regarded as a departure from theideal.” (Paine, 1991). If the rules were accepted by themajority of organizations, there would be less incom-prehension in business and moral attitude. Weiss(2001) argues that “essentially there needs to be abalance between the ideal ethical code, and an ethicalcode that will benefit the industry and as well as theplayers within it so that companies are not encour-aged to take an unfair advantage”. When potentiallyunfair rules are no longer accepted or tolerated bysociety, government can normalize these rules bydeveloping a regulation for them (e.g. competitionlaw).

The theory of contract (ArruÒada, 1998) dealswith this issue by identifying formalized agreementwith the parties involved in a specific issue. Rawls(1971) introduces an interesting conceptual frame-work that allows parties with different interests tobuild a group of rules and principles that respect aminimal level of justice. In the competitive arena, theanalogy could be seen when all competitors and allfirms accept and respect rules and principles thatwould regulate the competitive game. It perhapsforces new entrants to formally accept these agree-ments. Porter’s (1985) concepts of rules must be seenas those characteristics that differentiate one industryfrom another such as channels, standards, barriers,economy of scale, etc. In general, industry rules can bedifferent in their essence but are the same if they areviewed in terms of their acceptance.

31



Information Accessibility and the LawAnother factor that influences ethical attitudes is

the degree of accessibility to specific types of informa-tion. The competitive intelligence community claimsthat between 80-90% of competitive information isfreely available in the environment and the remaining10-20% is not required to understand competitors’activity. Other authors such as Rouach and Santi(2001) believe that 20% of all CI information is col-lected from such “grey areas” and 25% of it will comefrom illegal sources. The issue is that the remaininginformation can sometimes be so critical that it couldchange the outcome of the project. These two aspectsare related to the sources of information used in thegathering process. Through open sources we do notalways get just public information. However, what ispublic information? Schultz, Collins, and McCulloch(1994) define publicly available data as the type ofinformation provided by a “Öcompetitor who haseither chosen or is required to make this informationpublic knowledge”. Is a competitor allowed to getinformation from a rival’s suppliers even if he is notpretending to be another person? To frame the discus-sion, two main classifications can be used.

• The first classification is defined as degree ofconfidentiality accorded to confidential or criticalinformation, which gives to the company a sus-tainable competitive advantage. The loss of thatinformation, which can be defined as trade se-crets, can considerably affect the company. TheEconomic Espionage Act, created in 1996 toprotect US trade secrets, considers prototypes,production processes, or codes as trade secrets.

• The second classification, referred to as degree ofaccessibility, can be related to the ability of a rivalto obtain the information sought. From the per-spective of security, it represents the level ofprotection or countermeasures established bythe company.

Comparing the first and second categories, it ispossible to define four different states. To make thediscussion straightforward, the focus will be on acces-sible but confidential information. Obtaining informa-tion from open sources “is legal in the majority of

instances” (National Counterintelligence Center, 1997).Trade secrets are defined as existing when “the ownerthereof has taken reasonable measures to keep suchinformation secret; and the information derives inde-pendent economic value, actual or potential, from notbeing generally known, and not being readilyascertainable through proper means by the public.”(National Counterintelligence Center, 1997). However,does a firm have the right to collect information evenif the secrets are not properly protected? For instance,in a case in which a photographer was discovered tobe taking aerial pictures of a new chemical plantowned by a leading chemical firm, the photographywas judged to be industrial espionage even though hewas taking the picture from public airspace. DuPontshowed that there was no way of protecting the plantfrom being photographed from the air and that,through the analysis of the picture taken, it wouldhave been possible to have discovered the nature of asecret formula (Johnson & Maguire, 1988).

Geographical ContextThe nation state/country is a further factor that

interferes in an organization’s conduct. For example,American, Swedish, German and Japanese profes-sionals act in different ways and each one will legiti-mize their own techniques (Becker & Fritzsche, 1987).For instance “in France, as in other countries, almostany method used to collect information is consideredmoral and ethical by their standards” (Kahaner, 1998).In Switzerland “any action that could affect the for-tunes of a Swiss firm could be seen as a violation ofthe nation’s industrial espionage statutes” (Porter &Rangan, 1992). The difference can even be seen in theU.S. where laws differ between states. When garbageis ’found’ on public property, it is considered, by thelaw of some states, as abandoned stuff. “In somecountries, bribing company officials to receive con-tracts is considered a standard way of doing busi-ness” (Kahaner, 1998). Whatever the type of standardis, geographical location represents an influential ex-ternal variable in the firm’s business management.

From a corporate social responsibility point ofview, firms are responsible for the changes that caninterfere with the external environment. To a certainextent, both are mutually interacting. This is not onlythe case for those companies acting nationally, but

32

Comai


even for those that develop international informationretrieval systems. Anecdotal evidence reflected thedifference in collection methods that were used bylocal experts in different countries for the same as-signment (Klein, 1998). Firms must restrict the type ofcollection methods to those compatible with theirown code and vice versa. A firm must accept therestrictions that a country imposes.

When a firm goes international, it must obtain athrough understanding of the local business rules andculture and it must respect them. CI professionalshave to revise their codes when they conduct intelli-gence projects around the globe (Prescott & Miller,2001). Establishing international projects is a chal-lenge to avoid getting involved in ethical dilemmas.To a certain extent, flexibility and adaptability isrequired. Setting up an international code of ethicscould be difficult even if (as Prescott & Gibbons (1993)believe) “international codes of conduct must be con-sistent with the consensus of the profession world-wide, and be relevant to professional practice in thecountries in which they operate”. If it seems that it isquite difficult to meet and gain mutual consent re-garding a code of ethics across companies in the samebusiness, what will be even more difficult is its appli-cation in other industries and countries.

Variable 3: Culture and EthicalPrinciples

This third variable directs attention to the indi-vidual culture and principles if these distinctive as-pects are formed by the external and organizationalcontext. First, culture will be discussed and then, thefour imperatives, or categorical ethical principles willbe considered.

Culture: External, Corporate, Group andIndividual

Any business has to deal with a specific andmolded environment that influences individual andcollective values. This concept was introduced byBerger (1963) when defining the cognitive interdepen-dence of two environments, the personal and theexternal. Lozano (1999) identified the way to achievethe conditioned freedom of a person. Three distinctivelevels on which the business ethic can be focused

were set out: the system, the organization, and theindividual. According to Lozano (1999), business eth-ics is more focused on the organization although hiswork suggests that there is an additional intermediatelevel between the corporate and the individual: thecollective or group level which has significant influ-ence on an individual’s attitude, beliefs, and reason-ing. In some aspects, it is possible to define fourdifferent external conditions that affect the individual.

1. External EnvironmentThis condition includes legal, cultural or geo-

graphical determinants. Moreover, the family is aconditioner for a person’s ethical maturity.

2. Corporate The relationship between corporate and indi-

vidual culture was studied by Hoffman (1986) whodefined how a corporation could achieve moral excel-lence when there is moral respect and cohesion ofboth the individual with his moral autonomy, and thecorporation with its policy, objectives, and cultureframework. Both are part of the system and arerelated. For Cohen and Czepiec (1988) “corporateculture has a strong effect on employee attitudestowards gathering corporate intelligence”. However,the recent scandal of ethics that has implicated Procter& Gamble, a major company in the consumer indus-try, with its direct rival Unilever (Prescott, 2001),opens the discussion on the acceptance of ethicalguidelines as opposed to personal code. According toCharters (2001), individual reasoning is not boundlessand there are personal interpretations. To avoid this, across-fertilization between people and groups is highlyrecommended. An interesting influence between groupand individual ethics as related to the type of entre-preneurial environment was explored by Kreuze,Luqmani, and Luqmani (2001).

3. Group Behavior This condition has been studied for a long

time by means of group theory which defined therelationship between individuals and the group.Etzioni (1988) studied the “I” and “We” paradigm andargued that individuals are “deeply affected by howwell they are anchored within a sound community”.

33



4. Individual Moral ConductThe moral conduct of an individual can differ due

to religion, education, attitude, etc. Individualbehaviour also differs with demographic characteris-tics such as age, sex, or place. Hallaq and Steinhorst(1994) asserted that rural people seem to assimilateethical attitudes better than urban people. Moreover,they asserted that the group of practitioners that hadless professional experience would employ lower ethi-cal standards than those that had more work experi-ence. In support of the study, Wall (1974) observedthat older executives were less likely to approvesuspicious collection activity than the younger ones,even if there were no significant differences when theexecutives were asked to provide an opinion forextreme cases. Once the constraining codes of ethicsare ignored, individual codes play a significant role inthe definition and limitation of collection techniques.“CI practitioners feel very much on their own, relyingon personal background and intuition to make toughethical decisions” (Trevino & Weaver, 1997). Schultz,Collins, and McCulloch (1994) argued that the investi-gations are usually performed using personal judg-ments rather than following a corporate code.

The more ethics form a part of a company’straining, the more the company’s culture will achievea higher moral state. Kohlberg (1981) established thatmoral maturity goes through 6 different stages, hier-archically interrelated and divided into three levels:pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.A prerequisite for reaching the next level is to havebeen through the one before. The genesis of a moralconsciousness in a company is an egocentric way ofthinking and the highest level will be achieved whencategorical principles are applied.

By looking at how people think about competitorsand business in general, it is possible to see how acompany perceives its competitive role in the indus-try. Broadly speaking, the artifacts or mottos thatpersist in today’s manager’s mentality influence theirbusiness behavior. CI seems culturally in line with the’warfare’ concept and sees the competitors as anenemy. Calof (2000) discussed the concept in that CIserves as a threat evaluation rather than an opportu-nity detection. Indeed, anecdotal observation showsthat there are companies that believe that business is

warfare or similar to a ’jungle’ and fighting is a’weapon’ employed to survive rather than to collabo-rate. In Kohlberg’s (1981) work, this idea would beclassified as the first stage of moral maturity, the pre-conventional level.

In contrast, the cooperative strategy of some firmswill be categorized as the second stage, the conven-tional level. A rule can emerge, be defined, and maybeaccepted when an organization (person or group ofpeople) views its own activity by using the counter-part perspective. This exercise allows companies torethink its own attitude and relationship with anycounterparts, partners, and actors that can be influ-enced and affected by the company. Brandenburgerand Nalebuff (1996) suggested that “putting yourselfin the other players’ shoes and playing out the game”is a useful approach to understanding the conse-quence of a firm’s decision and action. The competitorcentre perspective requires an extraordinary aptitudein those practicing it because CI practitioners, oftenperceive that competitors engage in espionage morethan their own company (Cohen & Czepiec, 1988).

In the second level, the conventional stage, trustand behavior positively affect the relationship be-tween stakeholders and other companies. In this stagecompetitive rules are formally defined as well as therelationship between the competition. For instance,the “co-opetition” relationship suggested byBrandenburger and Nalebuff (1996), can lead to asynergistic growth of the industry between competi-tors and partners.

The third level of Kohlberg’s (1981) moral matu-rity levels, the post-conventional, will be achieved whenpeople create contracts with society; or in the case ofCI, with their competitors. Wilson (2000) argues that“the public standing of a corporation rests fundamen-tally on the execution of its social purpose - to servesociety by providing needed goods and services -rather than on its ability to maximize profits”.

The Four ImperativesAt present, ethics is largely discussed in biological

and clinical research where interesting lessons can belearned. The relationship between bioethics and busi-ness ethics was studied by Fisher (2001), who claimedthat bioethical principles “provide a common frame-work that individuals who hold differing normative

34

Comai


positions can adopt when debating the issues.”The four imperatives can be seen as the formal

expression of personal culture. This article will usethis specific group of imperatives as a way of signifi-cantly manifesting the potential limitation of the col-lection technique under restricted categorical prin-ciples of ethics. However, there may be other differentprinciples that could be applied to the issues of ethics.For instance, an interesting contribution in this areawas suggested by Charters (2001) with the CHIPmodel. The model defines four areas of study: com-munity virtues, harm, individual, and personal vir-tues. However, to emphasize the critical perspective,it may be useful to employ the principles that areapplied in biological and psychological science:

• principle of harmlessness• principle of beneficence• principle of autonomy• principle of justice

These four universal principles can be applied toCI inquiry, although they are fairly rigid and theycould considerably restrict the action of investiga-tions. However, as discussed previously, the aim ofthis application is to develop awareness and criticalreasoning regarding information acquisition meth-ods. When firms use people as sources for obtaininginformation, ethics comes into discussion.

1. HarmlessnessThis principle seeks to safeguard competitor, envi-

ronment, and consumer dignity and their rights. Thisutilitarian perspective emphasizes the safety of theobject studied by restricting the inquiry. The mainidea is not to damage the competitor’s position andnot to obtain critical or confidential data from them. Itis generally accepted that the investigator has theright to study the competitive environment but, at thesame time, he/she has the obligation to preserve it.For instance, industrial property protection formulasuch as the Economic Espionage Act or the WorldPatent Office are created to protect companies fromtrade secrets misappropriation.

2. BeneficenceThis principle can be seen as a reinforcement of

the first principle. It means that the researcher shouldnot only pursue the objective to avoid damage butalso to improve his/her competitor’s situation. Coop-erative activities or partnerships are well appreciatedbut if relationships are too strong they may createsome conflicts in other areas. Intelligence used forbuilding industry barriers will lead to negative effectsfor consumers in the form of, for instance, priceincreases or lower quality. Anti-trust laws, for in-stance, can be seen as the result of this principle bypreserving economic freedom and avoiding monopolycompetition. Anti-trust can be also included withinthe next two principles.

3. AutonomyThis principle gives the investigated elements the

freedom of decision. This perspective seeks to give thefirm complete information regarding the investiga-tion. As previously discussed, the idea of autonomycan be seen at the moment firms agree to play thegame by accepting implicit and explicit business rules.Theoretically, firms make contracts within the busi-ness environment as well as with the competition.

4. JusticeThis principle is concerned with the type of inves-

tigation used. Firms should use the same investiga-tion techniques, independently of the object studied.An application of this concept is the internationalprinciple of conduct. For example, is a country or aregion right to carry out economic intelligence activi-ties for a particular group of firms by using publicfunds?

These principles are quite strict for CI applicationsand therefore it can be concluded that there are fewcollection techniques able to respect all four prin-ciples. However, the argument in the following sec-tion shows that a collection technique can encompassdifferences not in nature but in purpose.

35



Variable 4: CompetitiveIntelligence Purposes

This final section will focus on the strategic rea-sons of decision-makers for their intelligence gather-ing processes. The concept of the four purposes incompetitive intelligence was introduced by Tena andComai (2001) and relates to the reasons that decisionmakers have for requesting information. Intelligencepurposes can be defined as the way in which informa-tion is employed or used in the company, in accor-dance with top management’s objectives and priori-ties (Tena & Comai, 2001). Sometimes, purposes an-nounce the strategic objective of the company at aspecific time. The four purposes are:

1. Neutral IntelligenceThis type of intelligence is collected by scanning

the environment for a general purpose. When firmsstart exploring a new market, or when they want todetect possible changes in an unknown environment,they will adopt a neutral or general posture. Usually,neutral intelligence is the first to be used in anexplorative phase and will be followed by other typesof intelligence gathering as shown below.

2. Rival IntelligenceThis type of intelligence focuses on competitors.

In this scenario, the information that decision makersneed can be very specific. Firms collect informationbecause they want to “outsmart, outmaneuver, oroutwit the other contenders” (Fahey, 1998).

3. Collaborative IntelligenceThis type of intelligence tends to support a mutual

enrichment with the other party. Intelligence is usedprimarily to understand if the other competitor orfirm is suitable for a possible partnership. A goodexample is when the firm’s intelligence unit is en-gaged to help a due diligence activity.

4. Defensive IntelligenceDefensive intelligence deals with a type of collec-

tion activity where the company wants to preserve itsposition in the competitive environment according torules, laws, and business activities. Here the defensiveintelligence is a proactive gathering process where the

information collected will be used for defensive pur-poses. Defensive intelligence can have three mainobjectives: forecasting a threat, maintaining the statusquo, and protecting the firm from illegal/unethicalaction. It represents a sort of protective but activecommitment of a company to its environment.

Independent of the objective, intelligence pur-poses can vary over time and the type of project. Forinstance neutral intelligence can change to collabora-tive intelligence when it detects that the study inquestion may deal with opportunity. In contrast, neu-tral intelligence can evolve into defensive intelligenceor morph into rival intelligence when management’sperception of the environment becomes more com-petitive.

Building the ModelThis next section of this article introduces a frame-

work that selects the collection techniques accordingto the variables previously discussed. To accomplishthis, two main assumptions are first discussed andsubsequently the framework that will generate a spe-cific code of ethics will be discussed.

AwarenessIntelligence purposes will have a significant influ-

ence on moral consciousness and attitude. Paine (1991)observed that “the traditional ideal (business practice)recognizes a fine but important distinction betweenusing competitor information constructively to guidestrategy formulation and using it destructively toundo the competition. This distinction is largely amatter of the attitude or spirit in which economicrivalry is undertaken rather than its results.” Oncestrategic purposes are converted into intelligence pur-poses and formally declared or maybe perceived bythe collector, they will have a significant influence onthe individuals gathering information. CI analystshave to identify the strategic implication of the infor-mation and the reasons why internal clients need thattype of information. By evaluating these needs andapplications, purposes become promptly available tothe researcher. Once purposes are identified they willstart to play an important role. Here the assumption isthat once the purposes are understood, people will

36

Comai


have a different posture/attitude in the intelligenceprocess. Imagine you are a professor of a graduatecourse in CI in which the final project for a student isto monitor and analyze a company. Consider the samesituation in which a student is told that the researchwill serve not only for an examination, but for infor-mation input to a competitor. Would the student actand plan the research differently? When Berger (1998)had to deal with his first collection effort on a com-petitor retail price list, he was able to test directly howlying makes people nervous. Berger’s example dem-onstrated that research behavior can be affected bypersonal moral consciousness about what is right orincorrect.

InducementOne of the main objectives for the discussion of

this assumption is to understand how far intelligencepurposes play a key role as selection criteria. Thefamous statement “The ends justify the means” thatNiccolÚ Machiavelli coined in his 1513 book, Il Principe(Anselmi, Menetti, & Varotti, 1993), provides the start-ing point for a discussion of the relationship that mayexist between purposes and mediums. Entirely againstthe principle of autonomy, the “Machiavellian” ideasuggests how far or closed this thinking could be inthe mind of the practitioner. The discussion of whatthe different implications are between the intelligencepurposes comes from questions that are not easy toanswer. For instance, do I have the right to addresscompetitors’ employees, without resorting to directquestions? Do I have the right to sit outside a com-pany and observe their movement? Do I have theright to use technological instruments to acquire manu-facturing processes? Each purpose will now be dis-cussed in a specific context

Defensive IntelligenceDefensive intelligence is a good starting point to

introduce the discussion. As defined previously, de-fensive intelligence represents the active engagementof a company to find information regarding hostile,unethical and illegal rival activities. There are severalexamples that can illustrate the concept. For instance,surveillance instruments such as cameras are used for

defensive purposes. It would be slightly different ifthese instruments were used to detect competitors’activity with no defensive or security purpose. Theapproval of the Economic Espionage Act in 1996,which authorizes agents of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation to investigate and fight trade secretcrimes, shows how far government investigation canbe applied under defensive purposes. To a certainextent, defensive purpose seems to support morepermissive arguments to legitimize the action. Assuch, this infers greater permissiveness for a companyto adopt some aggressive techniques when faced witha defensive situation rather than any other type ofsituation.

Rival PurposesOn the other hand, there is rival purpose. An

example of rival purposes can be seen in the case ofthe U.S. Court of Appeal where a judge decided not tocondone photos of a chemical plant taken from the airbecause it was supposed that the photos were takenfor purposes of industrial espionage even if the pilotclaimed that the air space was free (Johnson & Maguire,1988). The judge recognized that, even if the firm hadbeen aware of the threat and its vulnerability and theimpossibility of taking countermeasures, the otherfirm did not have the right to get that information. Insome aspects, this activity deals with the previousprinciple of harmlessness. “Once you start trying tofind information that your competitors are protecting,then you enter risky territory” (Fuld, 1988). Therefore,rival purposes induce less permissiveness regardingcollection processes.

Cooperative PurposesCooperative purpose may offer more permissive-

ness to the researcher rather than rival intelligence.The idea is that, in this game, the two companieswould add greater value and mutual benefit fromtheir involvement in the research. Due diligence is agood example to illustrate a case where the intentionis to build a partnership and so the researcher isallowed to directly reach the company and ask forreferences and detailed information.

37



Neutral PurposesNeutral purpose is used constantly in systematic

intelligence activity. A good example of neutral intelli-gence is when firms investigate three foreign marketsfor selling their product. Neutral purpose does notseem to induce collectors into a conflict.

The Ethical Framework: CombiningVariables and the Code of Ethics

It is postulated that a sound base for an ethicaldiscussion on competitor intelligence starts when per-sonal and corporate moral codes apply to more thanone issue at a time. Indeed, Kohlberg’s (1981) post-conventional level will only be achieved when peopleapply moral consciousness to more complex issues.The intention here is to integrate some of the keyvariables previously discussed into a single modelthat establishes a selective process that will help anorganization to define its own collection techniques.The starting point of the model is the recognition thatany possible collection technique available for com-petitive research will be accepted by the companyaccording to its business environmental, its culturalcontext and its intelligence purposes. The final out-come corresponds to a set of collection techniqueswhich will be sanctioned by the corporation.

Figure 2 shows a process that employs 3 differentfilters to achieve the final outcome. First, all possiblecollection techniques are considered in the model(Level 0) and are compared with the business context.Those collection techniques that are considered ac-ceptable according to a country’s regulatory and legalstandards will pass through to the next filter (Level 1).The second filter is to compare the remaining collec-tion techniques with the second variable: culture.Once the collection techniques are selected and mor-ally accepted (Level 2), the final filter compares themwith reference to the strategic purposes of the organi-zation. This step gives a set of accepted and legitimatecollection techniques that can be applied according tothe type of intelligence activity (Level 3).

This model requires an adaptive approach to theorganization, in accordance with the four intelligencepurposes. Even if the organization adopts a rigid codeof ethics, purposes allow the company four choices inany situation. There are several implicit purposes that

are difficult to perceive from an external and eveninternal perspective. In any project, there could besome hidden purposes that the investigator does notsee immediately.

An Approach to a Multinational Code: theCommon Mental Spectrum

This last section deals with the way an individualclassifies a collection technique and how this coulddiffer with regard to the degree of permissiveness.This difference could be the same when the chosentechniques are compared between two parties. Inother words, individuals will have proportional dif-ferences in their evaluation of collection techniqueseven if they have different backgrounds in businesscontexts and culture. This debate originated fromvarious studies where attitudinal variables ware com-pared between different groups of respondents(Furash, 1959; Wall, 1974; Hallaq & Steinhorst, 1994).

A graphical explanation is illustrated in Figure 3

FIGURE 2: THE ETHICAL COLLECTIONTECHNIQUE FILTER

Level 0 All Collection Techniques

Business Context

Level 1 Context 1st Set of Collection Techniques

Cultural Context

Level 2 Acceptance 2nd Set of Collection Techniques

Purposes

Level 3 Decision & Action Support

3rd Set of Collection Techniques

38

Comai


which presents four main collection techniques: nor-mal, aggressive, unethical, and illegal. The areas aredelineated by three boundaries. Figure 3 also pro-poses 3 people, A, B, and C that have to evaluate a setof techniques according to their own beliefs. Thesegments (1), (2) and (3) will represent the collectiontechnique. All three people now classify the collectiontechniques by marking a point on the area that theybelieve to be convenient and afterwards, draw a linethat combines all solutions.

On the horizontal axis of the matrix shown inFigure 3, it can be observed that the solutions from A,B, and C are different. However, each solution differsproportionately as illustrated from the segments a-b,b-c and a-c that connect A with B, B with C and A withC. In other words, between A, B, and C there is adifferent degree of permissiveness (a-b, b-c and a-c),however, this degree will remain constant in any ofthe situations. For example, the degree between A andB, when the answer is given to question 1 (a1-b1), willbe the same for the answer of question 2 (a2-b2).Person A will be the most permissive individual and,in contrast, C will be the individual with the mostmoral restraints. Moreover, A, B, and C can also referto homogenous groups of people.

The supposition of this article is that the spectrumwill be the same. This does not mean that people willaccept similar techniques but, rather, they will haveproportional divergences in the way they classify collec-tion techniques. This last assumption can give rise to afew speculations. One is the idea that multinationalswill now have access to a new framework prior to thebuilding of a global code of ethics. The way that multi-national firms can accomplish this is by trying to edu-cate their various country level units that have morepermissiveness to alienate their degree of permissive-ness to the level expected from headquarters. Once theeducation has been achieved to a satisfactory level, allcountry level units will act by using the same frame-work. Hence, the code of ethics will be accepted by thewhole corporation. In this way, the universal companyethical codes will be able to include cultural and socio-economic factors as discussed early in the article andintroduced by Cohen, Pant, and Sharp. (1992).

ConclusionThe primary objective of this article was to de-

velop a framework to guide development of ethicalcodes of conduct for CI activity. The article concludeswith three summary points:

Robust Codes Reduce Conflicts.Codifying what the company is or is not allowed

to do, is often the traditional starting point for thelong journey into the rough terrain of legal and ethicalcode building. This approach, however, will not helpsolve the entire spectrum of conceivable ethical dilem-mas that invariably arise. For this reason, companiesrequire a holistic ethical structure that permits theintroduction of an ethical conscience to resolve ethicaldilemmas. Indeed, even if ethical standards are welldefined and legitimized by the company’s legal de-partment, collectors will inevitably be confronted withnew dilemmas. Therefore, an adaptive model is neededand a continuous learning process should be adoptedby firms who aspire to be highly ethical.

FIGURE 3 – COMMON MENTAL SPECTRUM

Normal Aggressive Unethical Illegal

Technique 1

Technique 2

Technique 3

b-c2

a-c3

a-b2

a-b1

Different Sample: A, B and C

Degree of Permissiveness

39



Purposes as Key Variables in SolvingDilemmas

This model applies several variables to the selec-tion process of the final collection technique. Theselection can follow a normative process (step by step)to a conclusion with a restricted set of collectionactivities that will be validated by the entire organiza-tion (see Figure 2). Intelligence purposes, the lastvariable of the model, play a central role: first, byselecting the technique according to the context andsecond, by solving possible ethical conflicts.

Common Mental Structures Induce theUniversal Nature of the Code.

People have a common path when they choosebetween collection techniques. They will differ in thepermissiveness which induces their thinking regard-ing the variable to work on. When a company wantsto establish a universal code, however, the very per-missiveness variable itself becomes the key driver. Inother words, to elevate the grade of ethical awareness,a corporation should work to reduce the grade ofpermissiveness. By using cultural awareness trainingprograms, which have been shown to be an influentialinstrument (Delaney & Sockell, 1992), firms can ac-tively reduce unethical behavior.

If collection techniques are included in the code ofethics as examples, employees will have a betterguide to follow through which to put corporate ethi-cal policy into practice. To encourage better ethicalattitudes, the collection activity should be developedinternally by the firm’s own personnel. If interna-tional research is done using external recruiters, it isimportant to examine their ethical beliefs. Klein (1998)asserts that it is convenient to establish ethical guide-lines and discuss them with the consultancy firmbefore starting the project. A code of ethics should notbe merely adopted as a protective perspective butshould also enhance the morals and values of theorganization. Although the first perspective is themost persuasive argument for establishing a code ofconduct, the second perspective should also be con-sidered as equally important. Ethics should be part ofthe corporate learning scheme as suggested by Lozano(2002). It should be integrated in the whole organiza-tion and should employ systematic processes for re-

viewing, correcting, and enhancing higher ethicalvalues of the firm.

As the issue of business ethics illustrates, corpo-rate social responsibility is not only focused on actionbut on significant corporate strategic positioning.Therefore, ethics cannot be thought of only at thesecond level of “If a competitor would do it, I will dothe same”. Cohen and Czepiec (1988) argue thatpractitioners assume that they could legitimize dis-honest gathering techniques only to the extent thatcompetitors are adopting the same or more aggressivetechniques. A global ethical conduct enhances a cor-porate identity not only for the organization whenthought of as “aims by itself” but it also increases itscompetitive standing. Horowitz (1999) argues that“seeking competitive information in a legal and ethi-cal manner is an integral component of healthy com-petition”. A positive attitude is representative forother players and may prevent future unethical atti-tudes.

Implications for the Future of CIThis article offers a new conceptual framework

that helps build ethical boundaries between informa-tion techniques and helps resolve ethical dilemmasthat can arise in competitive intelligence and/or com-petitor information gathering. Moreover, this articlepresents a new approach to the treatment of a globalcorporate ethical consciousness by identifying simi-larities in individual behavior. Possible implicationsof this model for the future of CI are an improvedprotection of competitor stakeholders, improved pro-tection of firms and CI professionals from legal action,and an improved protection of the firm’s reputationas well as that of the CI profession.

Notes1. FM 34-60, Appendix A, Counter-Human Intelli-

gence Techniques and Procedures. (see the point: “A-I-6. Elicitation”). The term “interview” is the legalcorrespondent of interrogation. It is illegal to compel aperson to talk. This military “field manual” can beobtained from: <http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-37/ref.htm>.

40

Comai


2. Economic Espionage Act of 1996 can be ob-tained from the National Counterintelligence Cen-ter < http://www.ncix.gov/nacic/reports/fy97.htm#rtoc24>.

ReferencesAndrews, K.R. (1980). The Concept of Corporate

Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Anselmi, G. M., Menetti, E, and C. Varotti, (1993)Niccolú Machiavelli: Il Principe la Mandragola ealtre opere Itlay, Milano: Edizioni B. Mondadori.

ArruÒada, B. (1998). TeorÌa contractual de la empresa.Madrid, Spain: Marcial Pons.

Becker, H. and D.J. Fritzsche. (1987). “BusinessEthics: A Cross-Cultural Comparison ofManagers’ Attitudes,” Journal of Business Ethics6(4): 289-295.

Beltramini, R.F. (1986). “Ethics and the Use ofCompetitive Information Acquisition Strategies,”Journal of Business Ethics 5(4): 307-311.

Berger, P.L. (1963). Invitation to Sociology. AHumanistic Perspective. New York, NY: AnchorBooks.

Berger, A. (1998). “Being Honest in a DishonestWorld: Lessons Learned as a CompetitiveIntelligence Analyst,” Competitive IntelligenceMagazine 1(2): 38-40.

Beversluis, E.H. (1987). “Is there ‘No Such Thing asBusiness Ethics’?” Journal of Business Ethics 6(2):81-89.

Brandenburger, A.M. and B. J. Nalebuff, (1996). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Calof, J. (2000). “Opportunity Intelligence: TheMissing CI Tribe,” Competitive IntelligenceMagazine 3(3): 35-37.

Camacho, I., Fern·ndez, J.L. and J. Miralles. (2002).…tica de la Empresa. Bilbao, Centro Universitariode la CompaÒÌa de Jes˙s, DesclÈe De Brouwer.

Charters, D. (2001). “The Challenge of CompletelyEthical CI and the CHIP Model,” CompetitiveIntelligence Review 12(3): 44-54.

Cohen, W. and H. Czepiec. (1988). “The Role ofEthics in Gathering Corporate Intelligence,”Journal of Business Ethics 7(3): 199-203.

Cohen, J.R., Pant, L.W. and D.J. Sharp. (1992).“Cultural and Socioeconomic Constraints onInternational Codes of Ethics: Lessons fromAccounting,” Journal of Business Ethics 11(9): 687-690.

Delaney, J.T. and D. Sockell. (1992). “Do CompanyEthics Training Programs Make A Difference? AnEmpirical Analysis,” Journal of Business Ethics11(9): 719-728.

Dumaine, B. (1988). “Corporate Spies Snoop toConquer,” Fortune 118(November 7): 66-70.

Etzioni, A. (1988). The Moral Dimension: Toward aNew Economics. New York, NY: Simon andSchuster.

Fahey, L. (1998). Competitors: Outwitting,Outmaneuvering, and Outperforming. New York,NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Ferrell, O.C., Hartline, M.D. and S.W. McDaniel.(1998). “Codes of Ethics Among CorporateResearch Departments, Marketing ResearchFirms, and Data Subcontractors: An Examinationof Three-Communities Metaphor,” Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17(5): 503-516.

Fisher, J. (2001). “Lessons for Business Ethics fromBioethics,” Journal of Business Ethics 34(1): 15-24.

Freeman, E.R. (1984). Strategic Management: AStakeholder Approach. Boston, MA.: Ballinger.

41



Furash, E. E. (1959). “Problem in Review: IndustrialEspionage,” Harvard Business Review 37(6): 6-8.

Fuld, L.M. (1988). Monitoring the Competition: FindOut What’s Really Going On Over There. NewYork, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Fuld, L.M. (1995). The New Competitor Intelligence:The Complete Resource for Finding, Analyzing, andUsing Information about Your Competitors. NewYork, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Fuld & Company (2001). Intelligence Gathering on GutInstinct Rather Than on Knowledge: Survey onEthical and Legal Intelligence Gathering Shows US-Europe Cultural Bias. Cambridge, MA: Fuld &Company Inc. and The Academy of CompetitiveIntelligence.

Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). “Business Ethics and StakeHolder Analysis,”

Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1): 53-73.

Hallaq, J.H. and K. Steinhorst. (1994). “BusinessIntelligence Methods - How Ethical,”

Journal of Business Ethics13(10): 787-794.

Hamilton, S. and C.S. Fleisher. (2001).“Understanding the Ethical Aspects ofCompetitive Intelligence,” pp. 264-273 in C.S.Fleisher and D.L. Blenkhorn [eds.] ManagingFrontiers in Competitive Intelligence. Westport, CT:Quorum Books.

Hoffman, M.W. (1986). “What is Necessary forCorporate Moral Excellence?” Journal of BusinessEthics 5(3): 233-242.

Horowitz, R. (1999). Competitive Intelligence and theEconomic Espionage Act. Alexandria, VA: Societyof Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP)White Paper. <http://www.scip.org/ci/legal_issues.asp>.

Johnson, W. and J. Maguire. (1988). Who’s StealingYour Business? How to Identify and PreventBusiness Espionage. New York, NY: AmericanManagement Association (AMACOM).

Kahaner, L. (1998). Competitive Intelligence: How toGather, Analyze, and Use Information to Move YourBusiness to the Top. Carmichael, CA: TouchstoneBooks.

Klein, C. (1998). “Cultural Differences inCompetitive Intelligence Techniques,”Competitive Intelligence Magazine 1(2): 21-23.

Kohlberg, L. (1981,)Essays on Moral Development: The Philosophy of Moral

Development (Vol. 1). New York, NY:HarperCollins.

Kreuze, J.G., Luqmani, Z. and M. Luqmani. (2001).“Shades of Gray,” Internal Auditor 58(2): 48-54.

Lozano, J.M. (1999). …tica y empresa. Madrid, Spain:Editorial Trotta.

Lozano, J.M. (2002). “Organization Ethics as anOpportunity for Learning and Innovation,”pp.165-185 in L. Zsolnai [ed.]. Ethics in theEconomy: Handbook of Business Ethics. Berlin,Germany: Peter Lang Publishers.

Malhotra, N.K. and G.L. Miller. (1998). “AnIntegrated Model for Ethical Decisions inMarketing Research,” Journal of Business Ethics17(3): 263-280.

Manley, W.W. (1991). Executive’s Handbook of ModelBusiness Conduct Codes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Murphy, P.E. and G.R. Laczniak. (1992). “TraditionalEthical Issues Facing Marketing Researchers,”Marketing Research 4(1): 8-21.

42

Comai


National Counterintelligence Center. (1997). AnnualReport to Congress - Foreign Economic Collectionand Industrial Espionage. < http://www.ncix.gov/nacic/reports/fy97.htm>.

Nolan, J.A. (1999). Confidential: Uncover YourCompetitors’ Top Business Secrets Legally andQuickly - and Protect Your Own. New York, NY:HarperBusiness.

Nash, L.L. (1981). “Ethics without the Sermon,”Harvard Business Review 59(6): 78-90.

Paine, L.S. (1991). “Corporate Policy and the Ethicsof Competitor Intelligence Gathering,” Journal ofBusiness Ethics 10(6): 423-436.

Parad, B. and M.T. Banner. (1997). CommercialEspionage: 79 Ways Competitors Can Get AnyBusiness Secrets. Skokie, IL: Global ConnectionInc.

Parker, B. (2002). “CI at Lexis Nexis,” Presentation.Cincinnati, OH: Society of CompetitiveIntelligence Professionals (SCIP) InternationalConference. April 3-6.

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creatingand Sustaining Superior Performance. New York,NY: The Free Press.

Porter, M.E. and U.S. Rangan. (1992). EthicalDimensions of Competitive Analysis. Case StudyNo. 9-792-088. Boston: MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Prescott, J.E. and P.T. Gibbons. [eds.] (1993). GlobalPerspectives on Competitive Intelligence.Alexandria, VA: Society of CompetitiveIntelligence Professionals.

Prescott, J.E. (2001). “The P&G Dilemma: Espionageand Ethics,” Competitive Intelligence Magazine4(6): 22-24.

Prescott, J.E. and S.H. Miller [eds.] (2001). ProvenStrategies in Competitive Intelligence. New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons and Society ofCompetitive Intelligence Professionals.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Rouach, D. and P. Santi. (2001). “CompetitiveIntelligence Adds Value: Five IntelligenceAttitudes,” European Management Journal 19(5):552-559.

Sammon, W.L., Kurland, M.A. and R. Spitalnic.[eds.] (1984). Business Competitor Intelligence:Methods for Collecting, Organizing and UsingInformation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Sawka, K. (2001). “The Analyst’s Corner: The Ethicsof Analysis,” Competitive Intelligence Magazine4(6): 38-39.

Schultz, N O., Collins, A. B. and M. McCulloch.(1994). “The Ethics of Business Intelligence,”Journal of Business Ethics 13(4): 305-314.

Schwebach, G. D. (1998). Sales Person Reporting ofCompetitor Intelligence in the United States: TheEffect of the Collection Method’s Effectiveness andEthicality on the Likelihood of Reporting theInformation. Indiana University, Graduate Schoolof Business, Thesis, No. AAT 9906458

Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals.(1997) Navigating through the Gray Zone: ACollection of Corporate Codes of Conduct and EthicalGuidelines. Alexandria, VA: Society ofCompetitive Intelligence Professionals.

Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals(SCIP). (2004.). “Is CI Espionage?” SCIPFrequently Asked Questions web page. <http://www.scip.org/ci/faq.asp>.

43



Spence, L.J., Coles, A-M. and L. Harris. (2001). “TheForgotten Stakeholder? Ethics and SocialResponsibility in Relation to Competitors,”Business and Society Review 106(4): 331-353.

Tena, J. and A. Comai (2001). “Los PropÛsitos de laInteligencia en la Empresa: Competidora,Cooperativa, Neutral e Individual,” El profesionalde la InformaciÛn 10(5): 4-10.

Trevino, L.K. and G.R. Weaver. (1997). “EthicalIssues in Competitive Intelligence Practice:Ambiguities, Conflicts, and Challenges,”Competitive Intelligence Review 8(1): 61-72.

Washington Researchers (1998). How CompetitorsLearn Your Company’s Secrets. Washington, DC:Washington Researchers Ltd.

Wall, J.L. (1974). “What the Competition is Doing:Your Need to Know,” Harvard Business Review,52(6): 22-38, 162-166.

Weiss, A. (2001). “Competitive Intelligence Ethics:How Far Can Primary Research Go?” CompetitiveIntelligence Magazine 4(6): 18-21.

Vella, C.M. and J.J. McGonagle. (1988). ImprovedBusiness Planning Using Competitive Intelligence.Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Wilson, I. (2000). The New Rules of Corporate Conduct:Rewriting the Social Charter. Westport, CT:Quorum Books.

Documents

"Global Code of Ethics and Competitive Intelligence"