A trascendent Code of Ethics for Mktg professionals pdf

Vista previa del material en texto

A transcendent code of ethics for
marketing professionals
Dinah Payne and Milton Pressley
University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a single code of ethics that could be used
regardless of the venue or specialty of the marketing professional. The paper first provides a literature
review of research in the areas of ethics pertaining to marketing professionals. Then a review of a wide
variety of codes of business ethics, marketing ethics, model codes, and professional ethics produces the
idea that, while there are some differences in how the codal principles are presented, there are
sufficient similarities in the codes’ principles of professional conduct to merit the consideration of a
single code of marketing ethics – one that can be used regardless of the venue or specialty of the
marketing professional.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper introduces a broad literature review followed by the
development of a transcendent code of ethics for all marketers.
Findings – Using the above as well as: historically and more broadly known theories of ethics, and
currently-used codes of professional marketing ethics, including those from the American Marketing
Association (AMA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), and the Sales and
Marketing Executives International (SMEI), the authors make an attempt to determine the most
prominent, efficacious principles of ethics and to shape a single code of professional conduct for
marketing students, educators and practitioners – regardless of their area of specialty.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed code is subject to debate and will likely not be
the model eventually used. The authors hope that the code proposed will stimulate further research,
discussion and formulation.
Practical implications – A single code of ethics that could be utilized by anyone confronted with an
ethical marketing issue would be useful in easing the difficulties associated with challenging ethical
dilemmas in marketing.
Social implications – Drawing on traditional frames of ethics and combining those principles with
principles found in the marketing ethics literature, the authors generate a single code of ethics that not
only marketers can use, but that others in society can also identify with and feel confidence in – thus
alleviating concerns of mistrust or misunderstanding between those marketing products and services
and the stakeholders in the society in which those products and services are being marketed.
Originality/value – No transcendent code of marketing ethics currently exists. The three most
prominent are unique to their fields – each leaving out portions necessary to be transcendent. Thus,
the proposed code is original and has the practical social implication values noted above.
Keywords Ethics, Marketing, Business ethics, Codes of ethics, Marketing ethics, Model codes,
Professional ethics
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
This article is an attempt to provide a brief review of the most prominent and salient
research in the areas of business ethics, codes of ethics, marketing ethics, model codes,
and professional ethics, with a view to development of a single code of ethics that could
be used regardless of the venue or specialty of the marketing professional. This code of
ethics will be derived from the thoughts/principles found in the literature review,
including historically and more broadly known and valued theories of ethics.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-243X.htm
A transcendent
code of ethics
55
International Journal of Law and
Management
Vol. 55 No. 1, 2013
pp. 55-73
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1754-243X
DOI 10.1108/17542431311303822
Further, we will review and include salient portions of the codes of three marketing
professionals’ organizations: the American Marketing Association (AMA), the
American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), and the Sales and
Marketing Executives International (SMEI). The development of a single code of
ethics that could be utilized by anyone confrontedwith an ethical marketing issuewould
be useful, not only in terms of sparkingmore debate and discussion on ethical marketing
standards, but, also, perhaps in easing the difficulties associated with challenging
ethical dilemmas in marketing.
Working towards the development of a single code of ethics, the authors also utilize
and/or incorporate ideas derived from examinations of the needs for marketing ethics
standards and the profession of marketing itself regarding the dilemmas marketers
confront and the stakeholders who are affected by marketing decisions. Functions of
professional codes of ethics are also examined to assure that, whatever the codal
provisions are, they will serve the marketers who use them well. Finally, drawing on
traditional frames of ethics and combining those principles with principles found in the
marketing ethics literature, the authors were able to generate a single code of ethics
that not only marketers can use, but that others in society can also identify with and
feel confidence in – thus alleviating concerns of mistrust or misunderstanding between
those marketing products and services and the stakeholders in the society in which
those products and services are being marketed.
Why this effort?
The Hunt and Vitell (1986, 2006) Theory of Ethics, which, on paper, appears to be a
potentially over-complicated model to implement, provided the spark for the current
effort. The original model was developed for the use of marketing professionals,
professors teaching marketing ethics and general business ethicists. The 2006 article
focused on the value of using normative ethical theory in developing ethical mores,
whether the elements of the original Hunt-Vitell model were measureable and whether
this theory can be used to teach marketing and general business ethics. It could be
considered a quite complicated model, as could others (Brinkman, 2002; Kennedy and
Lawton, 1993). There are many other frameworks or constructs, as well, to not only
describe the process of ethical (or unethical) decision making, but that also provide
guidance in the form of positive statements to assist those confronted by ethical issues.
The Hunt-Vitell model is excellent in many ways, not the least of which is that it has
provided fodder for enormous amounts of research, both empirical and theoretical. The
difficulty, however, with the model is its complicated structure. The model has
32 elements and 30 causal connections. Our concern with the model as a really useful
tool for the resolution of marketing ethics problems is twofold. First, the complicated
nature of the model might be intimidating to potential users of the model, with the
result that it will indeed not be referenced, obviating its own existence. And, second, for
the business professional brave enough to attempt the model’s use, our concern is that
those who are not familiar with ethical debate would not have sufficient background
information on some of the model’s 32 elements to make effective and/or efficient use of
the construct effectively.
It is satisfying to know that others, with known, well-respected reputations,
supported by years of their own and others’ empirical research, are so interested in the
field of business ethics and marketing ethics in particular. It would be even better if
IJLMA
55,1
56
any marketing professional, in any area of specialty, could reference a single source of
ethics that she/he could understand and apply without corresponding reference to the
complicated Hunt-Vitell model or those presented by Brinkman (2002), Kennedy and
Lawton (1993), or any of the others and all they represent. Those sources have an
enormously valuable place in teaching and learning among marketing educators,
students, and professionals in the initial stages of inquiry. However, a single source forall stakeholders may be efficacious in bringing to the public and to marketing
professionals a single message or “image” – marketing professionals have high
professional standards of ethics and abide by them.
Existing models of marketing ethics
Many models have been developed to aid the decision-maker confronted by a
marketing ethics dilemma. The Hunt and Vitell (1986, 2006) model is divided into two
kinds of categories: the substantive and the procedural. The “substantive” category
include elements that form the basis for the decision in ethical principle, such as
religion, the political and legal systems, formal and informal codes of conduct, one’s
value and belief systems, the strength of moral character, the level of moral
development, and one’s ethical sensitivity. The procedural category includes elements
relating to the mechanisms by which the decisions are made: the perception of the
ethical problem, potential solutions, and associated consequences. The model is “used”
by uniting deontological norms and evaluations with teleological evaluations, all based
on the substantive and procedural elements listed above, to achieve ethical judgments,
judgments that lead to action. Hopefully, the utilization of model will yield moral
judgments that can be justified, morally, and practically.
Laczniak (1983) and Laczniak and Murphy (1991) proposed two sets of rules for
making justifiable moral judgments. First, their “rules of thumb” are very standard in
terms of popular ideals of ethics. There are five such rules. The “golden rule” is simple:
treat others the way one wants to be treated oneself. The second rule is the utilitarian
approach: the morally correct course of action is the one that provides the greatest good
for the greatest number or the least harm for the greatest number of those affected. The
Kantian analysis, the third “rule of thumb,” stipulates that the morally correct action is
one that is universally consistent. The professional ethic approach dictates that the
reception by the public of behavior is a guide towhat ismorally acceptable or not; actions
should only be done if they would be deemed proper by disinterested professional
colleagues. Finally, the “TV” test was articulated as “Would I feel comfortable
explaining to a national TV audience why I took this action (Laczniak, 1983, p. 7)?”
The second set of rules of making ethical marketing decisions proposed by Laczniak
and Laczniak and Murphy is a more general theory of marketing ethics. This more
general theory was presented as a series of questions, some of which were deontological
in nature, while some were teleological. Deontologically-oriented questions included
whether a political/social law would be violated and whether a moral law would be
violated. Teleological questions included were whether evil results were likely to accrue
as a result of taking the action andwhether otherswould be better orworse off as a result
of the action being taken.
Brinkman’s (2002) model is based on professional roles, pertinent professional
codes, professional and business norms, and social and economic environments.
Standards of morally correct behavior are a result of interrelated decisional processes
A transcendent
code of ethics
57
found in the socio-economic, socio-cultural, and natural environments. The
“professional environment” is prescribed professional and business practices. The
natural environment is represented by the “more or less role-free, individual
psychological environment.” Into this decision making process, the moral climate
must be considered: existing legal and professional structures, organizational rules
and procedures, and personal morality. All these elements must be considered to make
morally defensible business, and more specifically marketing, decisions. Combined
with the moral climate, professional codes and roles, and morally relevant behavior
unite to resolve moral conflicts successfully.
Another approachwith a fairly complicated structure was that provided byKennedy
and Lawton (1993), who took the approach that interorganizational factors are most
important in determining the moral correctness of the firm’s behavior. The key element
in thismodel is uncertainty: the greater the firm’s environmental uncertainty is, themore
likely the firm will engage in unethical behavior. Other elements in this model include
resource control, coercive, reward and expert power, and strategic vulnerability. Again,
these models are complex, not necessarily in the number of elements used to represent
the moral decision making process, but certainly in terms of assessment of whether one
is doing the right thing or not.
Other authors have generated frameworks upon which to base moral analysis, as
well. Holley (1987) proposed three major tenets for marketing ethics. First, the parties
to the transaction, the buyer and seller, must be sufficiently informed regarding the
goods/services being sold and the price at which they are sold. The parties to
the transaction should not be forced into the transaction in any way, even through the
reduction or elimination of alternative transactions. Finally, both the buyer and seller
should be capable of making rational decisions about the transaction.
Robin and Reidenbach (1987) used deontology and utilitarianism as the bases of their
work to develop a strategy to effectively implement marketing ethics into the firm’s
real-life strategic marketing planning. Kant (1964) and Rawls (1971) were cited as
providing deontological frameworks that a rational person could use to make good
moral decisions about any ethical dilemma, not just those found in the field ofmarketing.
The basic idea here is that all rules should be constructed such that everyone, including
the rule-maker, would be willing to be bound by that rule. It would make no difference
who the rule-maker was or who would be required to follow the rule, as no rule would be
anathema to any following it. The utilitarian approach is one based on the consequences
of the action: the alternative that provides the greatest good for the greatest number or
the least harm for the greatest number is the appropriate alternative.
O’Boyle and Dawson (1992) based their six-pronged framework on principles of
equivalence, distributive, and contributive justice. Their principles include concepts of
accountability, honesty, service, and autonomy. Further, O’Boyle and Dawson would
require the highest professional standards to be formulated and followed and would
allow sanctions to be placed for failure to follow such standards.
Gaumnitz and Lere (2002) identified nine categories of principle in their review of
fifteen codes of ethics. Confidentiality was described as an obligation not to disclose or
use confidential information, while honesty and integrity included obligations not to
make misrepresentation through commission or omission. Responsibilities to
employees/clients, the third category of codal edict, included concepts of good faith
and commitment. Obligations to the profession incorporated ideals of support for the
IJLMA
55,1
58
professional society, as well as its goals to maintain competence and garner
improvement of the field. The fifth category was that of independence, or the obligation
to avoid conflicts of interest. Category 6 stipulated that marketers are to obey the law,
while category 7, closely related, required that the marketer not commit discreditable
or harmful acts. The category of social values comprised the ideals of public interest
and non-discrimination. Finally, marketers should resolve ethical conflicts in light of
fairness and honesty. The following list is a broad summary of the basic ideals found
in these sources, as well as in many others:
(1) Deontological values of duty:
. The golden rule.
. Kant’s categorical imperative.
. Use of reason in decision making.
. Use of Aristotelian ethics.
(2) Recognition of duties owed to stakeholders.
(3) Teleological constructs:
. Development of possible/permissiblealternatives.
. Adherence to efficiency.
. Utility of efforts.
. Service to society/stakeholders.
(4) Legal and moral accountability to society/stakeholders:
. Public acknowledgement of behavior.
(5) Honesty/integrity.
(6) Autonomous decision-making ability.
(7) Adherence to one’s own norms of ethical behavior:
. Respect for religious belief systems.
(8) Adherence to one’s firm’s standards of ethical behavior:
. Respect for one’s firm’s and co-workers’ interests.
(9) Adherence to highest standards of professional conduct.
(10) Adherence to formal/professional codes of conduct.
(11) Submission to appropriate sanction of wrongful professional conduct.
(12) Confidentiality in relationships.
(13) Do no harm.
Thus, the current proposal is to make use of the vast array of materials associated with
marketing ethics reviewed here, to generate a model code of ethics for students of
marketing ethics, marketing educational professionals and those actively engaged in
the business of marketing products or services to consumers. To do so, several
predicate questions must be asked and answered. Among these questions are: what is
the need for marketing standards of ethics; who is affected by marketing decisions
with ethical overtones; is the field of marketing a profession, which should properly
have a professional code of ethics? Further, upon what constructs would a single code
A transcendent
code of ethics
59
of marketing be based? How similar would a code founded on basic concepts of ethics
be compared to basic codes of business conduct regardless of field of study/practice?
Need for marketing ethics standards
The first question in progression and in importance is whether there is a need for
marketing ethics. The resounding answer is an emphatic yes. Murphy and Laczniak
(1981, p. 251) concluded that “the function within business firms most often charged
with ethical abuse is marketing.” According to Hensel and Dubinsky (1986, p. 64),
marketers may be perceived to be lacking in ethics because their actions are deemed to
be at the outer limits of what societal standards would be:
[. . .] many marketing activities are in a gray area with respect to how they are viewed by
segments of society (e.g. the use of bribery as a source of marketing influence in international
business).
Lund (2000) found that, on the contrary, marketing professionals tended toward
making more ethical than unethical decisions, but that they appeared to be using an
evaluation process imbedded in the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the
activities, rather than whether the activities themselves were right or wrong. Vitell et al.
(2003), citing Tsalikis and Fritzsche (1989), suggested that marketing is the functional
area in business that is most subject to social criticism and surmise that that makes the
field of marketing most suitable to socially responsible business practices: the
implication is that in implementing socially responsible business practices, society will
look more favorably on marketing activities.
Marketing professionals, dilemmas, and stakeholders
Marketers are without doubt members of a profession. Ethicist De George (1999)
identified several characteristics that mark a profession. Professionals are full time
employed in their chosen field, earning compensation for expertise, and are expected to
maintain higher professional standards for themselves. Professionals garner a higher
level of prestige and respect as a result of their specialized knowledge. Associated with
this respect is the idea that professionals are granted a higher level of autonomy
regarding admission into and regulation of the profession. Many average consumers
believe that marketing is only and simply advertising, failing to appreciate that the
“Four Ps” of marketing exist. Their ignorance, though certainly reasonable, highlights
that the field of marketing is clearly populated by professionals in the areas of
research, development, pricing, distribution, and promotion: the experts in the fields of
marketing. The “take-away” point here is that, as professionals, marketers have
specialized knowledge and a corresponding heightened responsibility to use their
knowledge to the benefit of society, as well as to the benefit of their firms’ “bottom
line.” Thus, the development of a workable code of ethics for marketing professionals
is clearly an end to be desired.
Chonko and Hunt (2000) identified six ethical problems faced by marketers
most often: bribery, fairness, honesty, pricing strategy, product strategy, and personnel
decisions. Any code of ethics, whether a more informal one derived from one’s
religious or educational background or a more formal one derived from, for example,
a professional code of ethics, should address these issues. Chonko and Hunt’s literature
review spans decades of work concerning the most troublesome of ethical quandaries
IJLMA
55,1
60
for marketers. Baumhart (1961) found that the majority of ethical challenges in business
are associated with marketing, including bribery, pricing issues, dishonest advertising,
and cheating the customer. Other marketing ethics issues include blame passing and
authorized rule violations (Akaah and Lund, 1994), the use of false information (Dawson,
1997), and inequitable treatment of advertising suppliers, inter alia (Hunt and Chonko,
1987). The list goes on and is a long one; it only serves to emphasize that a code of ethics
that all these professionals can turn to at a moment’s notice and find a useful set of
principles, based in well known ethical principle, is a desirable end.
It is appropriate to address the possible stakeholders that may be impacted by
marketing decisions, both ethical and less so. “A stakeholder is any individual, group,
organization, or institution that can affect, as well as be affected by, an individual’s,
group’s, organiztion’s, or institution’s policy or policies (Wood-Harper et al., 1996, p. 9).”
For our purposes, stakeholders ofmarketing decisions include, according to Lund (2000),
those involved in the exchange process: organizational members, customers,
competitors, and the general public. These are described as parties to whom rights are
given and responsibilities owed. Also acknowledging the concept of rights and
responsibilities or duties as a definitive factor, Chonko and Hunt (2000) identified
stakeholders as customers, the marketing professional him/herself, society as a whole
and subordinates. Vitell et al. (2003) marked customers and special interest groups, as
well as those internal to the firm and its supply chain, as being impacted by the moral
correctness of the marketing decision. Finally, Gaumnitz (2002), citing Langlois and
Schlegelmilch (1990), identified stakeholders as employees, the community
and environment, customers, shareholders, suppliers, contractors, political liaisons,
and those involved in research and development. Finally, marketing codes of ethics list
stakeholders. The AMA (2011) code of ethics includes customers, employee, investors,
peers, channel members, regulators, and the host community. The AAAA (2011) list
clients, the public, the media they use and each other. The Sales and Marketing
Executives International Code ofEthics (SMEICE) offers customer, suppliers, colleagues,
competitors, governmental agencies and the public as its stakeholders (SMEICE, 2011).
Figure 1 is a representation of the pressures felt by themarketing professional facedwith
an ethical dilemma: each of these groups has rights and are owed responsibilities by the
marketing professional. The number of stakeholders alone is sufficient to make making
ethicalmarketing decisions a challenge. But, to compound the problem, each stakeholder
may have different rights and be owed different responsibilities.
Functions of professional ethics codes
Both sets of literature, general business and marketing in particular, address the need
to develop codes of ethics. A preliminary question to the determination of the functions
of codesis what is a code of ethics? A code of ethics has been defined as “written,
distinct, and formal documents which consist of moral standards used to guide
employee or corporate behavior (Schwartz, 2001, p. 248).” Further, a code has been
defined as a visible and explicit articulation of professional norms or a written
statement of guiding principles of right and wrong (Frankel, 1989; Molander, 1987).
For business ethics in general, Raiborn and Payne (1990) and Payne and Landry
(2005) suggested that companies establish codes for a variety of reasons. Among these
reasons are a desire to positively affect the firm’s stakeholders by making more ethical
decisions, to calm public concern about the ethicality of decisions made and to
A transcendent
code of ethics
61
communicate the firm’s decisions to assure stakeholders that ethics have been
considered during the decision making process. Frankel (1989) provided
a comprehensive list of eight functions of codes of ethics. Codes provide group
guidance in ambiguous circumstances, as well as a being a basis of understanding
for public expectation and evaluation. The sense of commonality among members of
the organization or profession can be established or strengthened by a code. The
establishment and utilization of a code can enhance the organization’s or profession’s
reputation in the community. Codes can also preserve well-established professional
practices. When there is a question as to the morality of an action, the code can help in
three ways: it can prevent unethical behavior by the potential imposition of sanctions
for wrongdoing, it can provide a defense mechanism for embattled individuals
confronted with pressure to do the wrong thing and it can aid in the adjudication of
disputes arising out of arguably unethical behavior.
In the marketing specific literature, many authors have cited reasons for developing
codes of ethics, which reasons also serve to reveal the functions of codes of ethics.
Laczniak andMurphy (1991) indicated that codes help vitalize the firmand are perceived
to be the most effective way to encourage ethical corporate behavior. O’Boyle and
Dawson (1992) stated that codes promote the common good, for the professional, as well
as for society. Maes et al. (1998) found that codes are designed to influence employee
behavior and can be used tomanage changemore effectively. Codes also require a higher
standard of professional conduct than the law. Chonko and Hunt’s (2000) literature
Figure 1.
Marketing professionals’
stakeholders
MARKETING
PROFESSIONALS
Customers and Clients
Management
End-Users
of Products
Personal
Standards
of
Employees/
Marketers
Shareholders of
all firms
involved
The
Community
Society At
Large
Current and
Future
Financial
Backers of
Projects
Professional
AssociationsGovernmentalRegulatory
Agencies
Source: Adapted from Payne and Landry (2005)
Competitors
The
Environment
The
Marketing
Profession
Suppliers
Employees
of all firms
involved
IJLMA
55,1
62
review found that codes are used to influence behavior by raising the consciousness of
the ethical element in the decision-making process. Codes are used to guide behavior and
add validation to themoral decisionsmade. Brinkman (2002) suggested that codes aid in
conflict handling and addressing acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Valentine and
Barnett (2002) suggested that codes are utilized by organizations to curry community
recognition, to conform to the law, to internalize firm values and to prevent unacceptable
behavior of its members. Dobson (2003) suggested that codes provide guidelines for
behavior. Vitell et al. (2003, p. 79) also provided a good reason to develop codes of
professional conduct: “organizations can positively influence the moral thinking of their
employees by providing a clear set of ethical values and policies, and enforcing these
policies.” A review of the general business ethics code functions with the functions of
marketing codes of ethics reveals that the reasons to develop codes and codes’ functions
are similar enough between the two to promote the idea that one single code of ethics
should work regardless of the field of business at issue.
It is important to understand that an infinite amount of research by innumerable
authors will not force the development or adherence to a code of ethics. Akaah and
Riordan (1989), with many others, have suggested that codes will only be as effective
as they are enforced. Akaah and Riordan (1989, p. 119) found that “if these codes are to
enhance ethical standards, they must not only exist, but also be enforced [. . .]”
Although we have not chosen this article as a forum for debate about that issue,
it would be foolish to ignore it as a real challenge to the development, implementation
and daily use of a code of ethics. Our approach is that “if you build it, they will come”:
only if a firm or profession develops a code, can anyone make use of it. If the code is not
developed or implemented by a firm or a profession, it cannot be used, even by good
faith decision makers desirous of sound moral guidance. Again, the point is that codes
of ethics must be workable codes that any well educated marketer, or even a poorly
educated one, should be able to pick up and reference when assaulted by a marketing
dilemma. The code must exist, it must be enforced and it must be usable by the average
seeker of aid for an ethical marketing question.
Defining the common concepts of morality
The effort to generate a single code of marketing ethics requires an understanding and
comparison of the myriad marketing ethics codes and general codes of ethics. If there is
sufficient commonality between the two, as there should be as marketers are merely a
more specifically focused type of business person, then we should be able to find
principles and protocols that would work for both the marketing specific professional
and the more generic business professional or even the average person. We have
reviewed the basic ideals proposed in a variety of marketing ethics codes; we must now
define the concepts of ethical interest to the broader based business professional:
values, ethics, and specialized ethics, such as business ethics and marketing ethics.
Any discussion of ethics, whether general or business, must begin with the concept
of values, which can be defined in different ways. According to Velasquez (1999),
values are views expressed as statements describing objects or features of objects that
have worth. Values may also be defined as socially or personally desirable elements
( Joyner and Payne, 2002; Joyner et al., 2002). Andrews (1987) and Mason (1992) define
values as the core set of beliefs and principles deemed to be desirable (by groups) of
individuals. Values originate from one’s community and culture and aid in a person’s
A transcendent
code of ethics
63
determination of the important considerations in their decision making processes.
Adler (1999) defined values as the amalgamation of the learning that occurs from
childhood as a result of interaction with family, friends, church, and school. When
values are added to attitudes, beliefs and behavior, a continuous spiral of values,
culture, behaviors, etc. is formed (Payne and Landry, 2005). According to the AMA
(2011) code of ethics, values represent the collective conception of what communities
find desirable, important and morally proper. Values are also the criteria upon which
basis we evaluate our own actions (Figure 2).
In this study, we are concerned with the spirit of the law (ethics, values, morality),
rather than the letter of the law (statutes, ordinances, and administrative agency
regulations). Promulgated laws are designed to reflect a society’s attitudes and desires
about the state of acceptable activity(ies) of its people, not necessarily what is morally
right or wrong. Crane and Matten (2004) suggest that the law is a definition of the
minimum acceptable standards of behavior. Many issues confronted by business are
not legalissues, but rather moral issues. That the law and ethics are not necessarily the
same thing is recognized and this recognition prompts the need to fully understand and
be able to utilize workable codes of ethics.
Relative to business ethics, several authors defined ethics as anunderstanding ofwhat
is right and fair conduct or behavior (Carroll, 1991; Freeman and Gilbert, 1988). Ethics is
the “study ofmorality (Velasquez, 1999, p. 7).”Makingmoral or ethical judgments implies
that the decision-maker is concerned with the moral rightness or wrongness of the
decision, rather than the legality of the decision. Noted business ethicist DeGeorge (1999)
defined business ethics, as well, as the interaction of ethics and business is business
ethics, a field of “special” ethics. Business ethics are principles utilized to resolve ethical
dilemmas arising from engaging in business transactions. Velasquez (1999, p. 13),
another prominent business ethicist, has defined business ethics in similar terms:
(B)usiness ethics is a specialized study of moral right and wrong. It concentrates on moral
standards as they apply particularly to business policies, institutions, and behaviors [. . .]
(B)usiness ethics is a study of moral standards and how these apply to the systems and
organizations through which modern societies produce and distribute goods and services.
Figure 2.
Spiral of developing
culture
Beliefs
Values
Behaviors
Attitudes
Source: Payne (2003)
IJLMA
55,1
64
In the field of marketing ethics, a number of authors have defined ethics. Robin and
Reidenbach (1987, p. 45) define business ethics as “requir(ing) that the organization or
individual behave in accordance with the carefully thought-out rules of moral
philosophy.” Writing about marketing professionals’ ethics, Lund (2000), Akaah and
Riordan (1989), and Akaah (1992), all citing Taylor (1975), define ethics in terms of the
nature and grounds of morality involving judgments, standards, and rules of conduct.
Marketing ethics is derived from the marketing professionals’ relationship with the
parties in the exchange process, including a variety of stakeholders. Brinkman (2002)
provided both a broader definition of ethics, as well as a more narrowly focused
definition of marketing ethics. He suggests that marketing ethics is an extension of the
basic definition of ethics. His categorization of marketing ethics supports the proposal
that general business ethics are a suitable base for constructing a single marketing
ethics code that everyone in the fields of marketing could utilize:
Marketing ethics examines systematically marketing and marketing morality, related to
4P-issues such as unsafe products, deceptive pricing, deceptive advertising or bribery,
discrimination in distribution [. . .] If business ethics as an academic field is about moral
criticism and self-criticism of business and business education, this would include criticism
and self-criticism of marketing as well, as its most out-going and aggressive part, with its
specific tools and tricks and its specific acceptable and unacceptable choices and
consequences (p. 159).
Stoll (2002), citing Holley (1987), suggested that marketing ethics includes at least three
major tenets. The buyer and seller must be adequately informed as to the transaction.
Neither the buyer nor the seller should experience any force in engaging in the
transaction and they must both be capable of engaging in rational thought. Precepts of
marketing ethics definition are characterized by knowing, willing and rational behavior,
characteristics to be seen in other very basic and well-known ethics standards
(Kant, 1964). Again, the greater part of the literature here addresses marketing
professionals, rather than a transcendent approach to all business professionals,
regardless of profession.
Established frameworks of business ethics
The authors used several frameworks as the basis for a determination that societal and
marketing ethics are similar enough to be used to develop a uniform code of ethics of
business people and marketing professionals: the Kantian (Kant, 1969) analyses, the
approach taken by Raiborn and Payne (1990), and the Aristotelian virtues. These
approaches are classified as deontological approaches to ethics, which are duty-based:
an action is morally right or wrong based on the action itself.
The Kantian analysis (Kant, 1969) can be simplified into three questions, the
answers to which must all be positive for a moral duty to exist. The questions are: is
the action universally consistent, does the action respect the person acted upon as
inherently valuable and does the action respect the freedom of the person acted upon.
Using the example of non-job based discrimination as a business practice, one answers
the questions in a negative way, with the conclusion that discrimination on the basis of
non-job related criteria is immoral. First, would the actor accept the possibility that he
himself would be discriminated against for a non-job related reason: no, the rational
person would not accept such treatment. Second, does non-job related discrimination
value the prospective employee as inherently valuable? No, discrimination is a blind
A transcendent
code of ethics
65
response to non-job related criteria, making the inherent merits of the prospective
employee immaterial to the decision maker. Finally, the freedom of the prospective
employee is forfeited without his acceptance: the non-job related criteria are criteria
that are a part of the person, like race or ethnic origin, and cannot and should not
be changed to satisfy someone else’s notions of what is acceptable. Thus, the
Kantian analysis would deem that there is a moral duty not to discriminate on the basis
of non-job related criteria. The Kantian analysis can be reduced even further to the
simple statement that one should do unto others as they would have others do
unto them.
Raiborn and Payne (1990) proposed a code of ethics that takes into account both
levels of morality and ethical values deemed important to society. The values identified
in that article as being important were the values of integrity, justice, utility, and
competence. At the highest level of morality, these values can be described in the
following ways. Integrity is an ideal combining the values of sincerity, honesty, and
candor. The concept of good faith is critical in this value. Justice entails the use of
equality and fairness in decision-making. Competence is the value that forces workers
to be competent, to maintain state of the art knowledge in their fields. The concept of
utility dictates that the decision-maker will “actively seek information on the impact its
decisions will have on all parties and it will weigh this information equally
(Raiborn and Payne, 1990, pp. 885-6).” An application of this theory to the business
practice of non-job related discrimination reveals that this theory denies that practice
as a morally acceptable one, just as the Kantian analysis does. Good faith, honesty and
candor are not found among people who discriminate on the basis of non-job related
criteria; they cannot be honest and hope to avoid resultant lawsuits because they
refused to hire a candidate on the basis of non-job related criteria. There is no justice on
non-job related discrimination, as justice implies equality and fairness among choosing
employees: choosing on the basis of non-job related criteria cannot provide equal or fair
access to employment opportunities. Competence and utility are also denied when
non-job related discrimination takes place: favoring an employee on a non-job related
criterion does not assure that the best, most qualified candidate will be hired.
The Aristotelian virtues (Aristotle, 1984; Bragues, 2006) also provide a construct
upon which to base our proposed code. There are seven Aristotelian virtues arguably
related directly to business. The seven virtues are: courage, self-control, generosity,
magnificence, magnanimity, justice, and sociability.Courage is the ability to regulate
fear, which should be present in reasonable measures for the marketing professional
when considering a questionable action, such as marketing products that may be
dangerous, like alcohol or even automobiles. Self-control is also applicable to actions of
the marketing professional and his customer; it reflects attitudes towards pleasure and
self-gratification. The marketing professional should have the self-control to limit his
activities that incite, encourage, or foster unreasonable pleasure-seeking:, i.e. the
marketing professional should stop advertising that is targeting inappropriate
audiences, as in the example of advertising cigarettes to young people. The customer
must also curb his appetite to engage in inappropriate consumption habits, like smoking
at the age of 12. As we live in a consumption-oriented society, both the marketing
professional and the consumer are tempted to succumb to excess, a temptation which
can be tempered with care and the use of reasonable codes of ethical conduct for the
marketing professional.
IJLMA
55,1
66
The third virtue is generosity, which deals with the concept of the attainment of
wealth. The marketing professional and his customer both want the best value for their
expenditures: the marketing professional wants to sell the optimal amount, while the
consumer wants to purchase things he needs or desires. In either case, there should be a
median path that will suit the needs of each of the parties: the marketing professional
should make a reasonable return on his investment and the consumer should have
access to the products or services he wishes to consume.
Magnificence is closely related to the concept of generosity: it implies the expenditure
of large sums in the right way for a good reason. It is not the way of the Pharisee with
bells on his sleeves for conspicuousness, dropping large sums of money that were only a
very small percentage of his wealth into the collection plate at services. It is the idea that
marketing professionals are a part of our community and, as symbiotic partners with
consumers, have obligations to generously give of themselves, for example, by being
involved with the community. Magnanimity, closely related to magnificence, is the idea
that one should have value and respect for great honors, in this case, the receipt of trust
from the community and its business and consumer members.
Sociability is the ideal that one should act pleasantly and professionally with others.
Clearly, this attribute should permeate business dealings regardless of what the nature
of those dealings is. It is especially important for this virtue to be present in marketing
efforts, as we have seen the negative perceptions the consuming public has about the
marketing profession as a whole. Finally, the virtue of justice, in its most simplistic
form, reflects the idea of proper allocation of goods. Although there are many levels to
Aristotle’s discussion of justice, it is appropriate to use this easily understandable
definition of justice and to apply it to actions of marketing professionals:
Aristotle wants people to value things at their real worth in their exchanges, but he
recognizes the cultivation of proper tastes is the task of moral education on the part of the
state or parents [. . .] (Bragues, 2006, p. 350).
Thus, both the marketing professional and his consumer should make an informed
effort to understand the position and needs of the other party and act courageously,
responsibly, generously, magnificently, magnanimously, and sociably. Using the
Ethical Ideals Summary and Tables I and II as a way to more clearly define the most
important ethical principles of the ethics of marketing professionals, we can construct
a model code that all marketing professionals might use to assure that their needs to
Author
Concepts Kant (1969)
Raiborn and
Payne (1990)
Aristotelian virtues
(Aristotle, 1984)
Consistency Universally consistent actions Self-control
Respect individuals Respect individuals as
inherently valuable
Generosity
Autonomy for all Respect autonomy of all
rational beings
Sociability
Integrity Integrity Courage
Justice Justice Justice
Utility Utility Magnificence
Competence Competence Magnanimity
Table I.
Frameworks of ethical
concepts
A transcendent
code of ethics
67
make a reasonable profit are met while meeting the needs of the stakeholders. Table I is
a summary of the frameworks presented here; the far left column represents a
synthesis of the concepts of the frameworks that can then be compared with marketing
codes of ethics. Such a comparison will provide the basis for our single code of
marketing ethics.
Prominent marketing codes of ethics
The ethical concepts derived from the three codes of marketing ethics developed
by marketing professionals’ organizations are not prevalent in the literature of
marketing ethics. We thought, however, that to assure a practical approach to the
issue of the utilization of marketing codes of ethics, we should turn to the codes
developed by several prominent professional associations: the AMA’s (2011) code, the
SME’s (SMEICE, 2011) code and the code generated by the AAAA (2011). Such a
review reveals that the values and pledges held by the members of these
organizations are very similar to those deemed important to the authors/researchers
in the academic field of marketing ethics, as well as those in the field of business
ethics as a whole.
The AMA’s code is constructed of four parts: the preamble, ethical norms, ethical
values, and implementation. The preamble describes norms as established standards
of conduct, expected and maintained by professional organizations, while values are
what society finds generally as morally proper; values also allow the evaluation of
behavior as ethical or unethical. Stakeholders are identified and a pledge is made to
utilize the highest ethical standards in interactions with stakeholders. The ethical
norms identified by the AMA are: do no harm, foster trust in the marketing system,
and embrace ethical values. Ethical values included honesty, responsibility, fairness,
respect, transparency, and citizenship. Finally, the implementation of the code of ethics
is the pledge to abide by this code and the values the code represents. Interestingly,
there are no sanctions listed specifically for violations of the code of ethics,
a problematic issue with all codes of professional responsibility.
Synthesized
concept AMA code SMEI code AAAA code
Consistency Recognize established
standards of conduct
Eschew knowing,
detrimental behavior
towards stakeholders
Recognize societal legal
and ethical frameworks
Self-control
Magnanimity Adhere to societal values of
morality
Promote mutual benefit
of buyers and sellers
Be a constructive,
positive force in businessGenerosity
Respect
Utility Utilize highest ethical standards Utilize highest ethical
standardsMagnificence
Integrity
Justice
Courage
Autonomy
Do no harm
Foster trust
Utilize honesty, responsibility,
fairness, respect, transparency
and citizenship
Do no harm
Utilize honesty and
truthfulness
Avoid harmful
marketing practice
Utilize honesty,
confidence and respect
towards stakeholders
Competence Pledge to uphold ethical
standards
Execute pledge to act in
good faith
Adhere to codal
provisionsSociability
Table II.
A synthesis of principles
found in codes of
marketers’ professional
ethics
IJLMA
55,1
68
The SMEI’s international code of ethics sets forth a creed wherein 11 pledges.
Accountability to stakeholders is acknowledged, although, as with the AMA code,
there are no discernable sanctions that would be exacted for violation of any of the
pledges made. The selling concept recognizes the importance of consumers and the
mutual benefits to be had by buyers and sellers. SME members pledge to protect
freedom of consumers and competitors to chose and innovate. They will not knowingly
engage behavior detrimental to stakeholders. They make pledges in relation to
channelsof distribution, productivity, and pricing; they vow to protect stakeholders
from harm attributable to the marketing of products or services. The group
acknowledges honesty and truthfulness, as well. Finally, they promise to cooperate
fully in the execution of the pledges of good faith made in the code.
The AAAA’s (2011) code is constructed in lines similar to the AMA’s code: there is a
policy statement section, followed by their creative code. In this code, unlike the
previous two, there are sanctions to be imposed if the member violates the codal
provisions, though the “teeth” of the sanctions is but the possible annulment of
membership from the group, what could be perceived as a fairly mild sanction.
Stakeholders are identified and the code addresses advertising issues specifically.
Honesty and decency seem to be the most important elements of this code. “These
standards [. . .] come from the belief that sound and ethical practice is good business
(AAAA, 2011, 6 September 2010).” Table II is a comparison of the three codes of
professional conduct reviewed here; the far left column is a synthesis of the elements of
the codes.
Conclusion: a single code of professional ethics for the business community
Table III is a compilation of several figures and tables herein and the introduction of
a proposed uniform professional code of ethics for marketing professionals,
academics, and students that any business professional and indeed any
well-educated and well-meaning person should be able to understand and use to
good effect when confronted by difficult moral choices. The right-hand column is a
beginning of the construction of such a uniform code of ethics, directed specifically
at the field of marketing. If the professionals who inhabit that field would rely on the
basis of societal and business ethics as a foundation for making sound moral
marketing decisions, society as a whole, business and marketing professionals will
benefit. A review of the proposed guidelines makes it ever more clear that a single
code of ethics for all business professionals, including marketing professionals, is
reasonable and may be a good solution for those professionals confronted with
ethical dilemmas.
Future research
The code in Table III will likely not be the model eventually used. However, the inability
of themarketing decisionmaker to understand that theremaybe ethical components to a
decision being made must be overcome. Moreover, the complexity involved in looking
throughmore than one code may prevent ethical decisions – and obviously undesirable
situation. The authors believe that a single code would be useful to all involved in
making decisions in any aspect of marketing and hope that the code in Table III will
stimulate further research, discussion and formulation.
A transcendent
code of ethics
69
References
AAAA (2011), American Association of Advertising Agencies, available at: http://ams.aaaa.org/
eweb/upload/inside/standards.pdf (accessed 9 May 2011).
Adler, N. (1999), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Southwestern, Cincinnati.
Akaah, I.P. (1992), “Social inclusion as a marketing ethics correlate”, Journal of Business, Vol. 11,
pp. 599-608.
Akaah, I.P. and Lund, D. (1994), “The influence of personal and organizational values on
marketing professionals’ ethical behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13, pp. 417-30.
Akaah, I.P. and Riordan, E.A. (1989), “Judgements of marketing professionals about ethical
issues in marketing research: a replication and extension”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26, pp. 112-20.
AMA (2011), American Marketing Association, available at: www.Marketingpower.com/
AboutAMA/Pages/Statement%20of %20Ethics.aspx (accessed 9 May 2011).
Andrews, K.R. (1987), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., New York, NY.
Concepts derived from
synthesized frameworks and
consolidated as to principle
Proposed uniform professional code of business ethics for marketing
professionals
Consistency
Self-control
Use self-control in treating all consumers and stakeholders in a
consistent manner avoiding detrimental actions towards all
stakeholders
Magnanimity Treat all stakeholders with respect, in a fair and openhanded manner
Generosity Avoid the use of coercion or any tactics that harm consumer trust
Respect Provide a variety of options in a competitive environment
Develop mutually beneficial and open relationships by assuring
freedom of choice and providing information that is accurate, relevant
and complete to all appropriate parties
Utility
Magnificence
Utilize the highest ethical standards in decisions effecting all
stakeholders
Be involved with all relevant communities and stakeholders through
public service of significance
Autonomy
Integrity
Justice
Courage
Recognizing the autonomy that comes with specialization and
professionalism, utilize reasonableness and honesty in making
decisions that affect stakeholders
Ensure that consumers have the opportunity to voice concerns and
complaints about products in such a manner that the issue is handled
responsively and proficiently
Ensure that consumers receive a reasonable settlement of just claims
Be courageous in all decisions ensuring that justice is achieved
Avoid dehumanizing actions
Competence Adhere to all codal and ethical provisions
Sociability Act pleasantly and professionally with others
Act in good faith to fulfill the economic, legal, philanthropic, and
societal responsibilities to all stakeholders
Recognize your commitments to vulnerable market segments
Ensure that your products cause no harm to users or society so long
as they are used and disposed of as directed
Ensure that all actions promote a healthy environment
Table III.
Transcendent code of
ethics for marketing
professionals
IJLMA
55,1
70
Aristotle (1984) in Barnes, J. (Ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ (The Revised Oxford Translation).
Baumhart, R.C. (1961), “How ethical are businessmen?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39
Nos 6-9, pp. 156-7.
Bragues, G. (2006), “Seek the good life, not money: the Aristotelian approach to business ethics”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67, pp. 341-57.
Brinkman, J. (2002), “Business and marketing ethics as professional ethics: concepts, approaches
and typologies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 159-77.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of CSR”, Business Horizons, July/August.
Chonko, L.B. and Hunt, S.D. (2000), “Ethics and marketing management: a retrospective and
prospective commentary”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50, pp. 235-44.
Crane, A. and Matten, D. (2004), “Questioning the domain of the business ethics curriculum”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 357-69.
Dawson, L.M. (1997), “Ethical differences between men and women in the sales profession”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 1143-52.
De George, R.T. (1999), Business Ethics, Simon & Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Dobson, J. (2003), “Why ethics codes don’t work”, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 59 No. 6,
pp. 29-34.
Frankel, M.S. (1989), “Professional codes: why, how, and with what impact?”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 109-15.
Freeman, R.E. and Gilbert, D.E. Jr (1988), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach,
Pitman Publishing Inc., Marshfield.
Gaumnitz, B.R. and Lere, J.C. (2002), “Contents of codes of ethics of professional
business organizations in the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 35-49.
Hensel, P.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1986), “Ethical dilemmas in marketing: a rationale”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-7.
Holley, D.M. (1987), “A moral evaluation of sales practices”, Business and Professional Ethics
Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 3-21.
Hunt, S.D. and Chonko, L.B. (1987), “Ethical problems of advertising agency executives”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 16, pp. 16-24.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (1986), “The general theory of marketing ethics”,Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 6, Spring, pp. 5-15.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2006), “The general theory of marketing ethics: a revision and three
questions”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D. (2002), “Evolution and implementation: a study of values,
business ethics and corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41,
pp. 297-311.
Joyner, B.E., Payne, D. and Raiborn, C.A. (2002), “Building values, business ethics and corporate
social responsibility into the developing organization”, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 113-31.
Kant, I. (1964), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Harper & Row, New York, NY
(translation by H.J. Paton).
Kant, I. (1969), “Foundations of the metaphysics of morals”, in Wolff, R.P. (Ed.), Foundations of
the Metaphysics of Morals, with Critical Essays, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis, IN.
A transcendent
code of ethics
71
Kennedy, E.J. and Lawton, L. (1993), “Ethics and services marketing”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 785-95.
Laczniak, G.R. (1983), “Framework for analysing marketing ethics”, Journal of Macromarketing,
Spring, pp. 7-18.
Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (1991), “Fostering ethical marketing decisions”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 259-71.
Langlois, C.C. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1990), “Do corporate codes of ethics reflect national
character?”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 519-39.
Lund, D.B. (2000), “An empirical examination of marketing professionals’ ethical behavior in
differing situations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 331-42.
Maes, J.D., Jeffery, A. and Smith, T.V. (1998), “The American Association of Advertising
Agencies (4As) standards of practice: how far does this professional association’s code of
ethics’ influence reach?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 1155-61.
Mason, D.E. (1992), “Values for ethical choices: rate yourself”, Nonprofit World, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 23-5.
Molander, E.A. (1987), “A paradigm for design, promulgation, and enforcement of ethical codes”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 619-31.
Murphy, P.E. and Laczniak, G.R. (1981), “Marketing ethics: a review with implications for
managers, educators and researchers”, in Enis, B.M. and Roehring, K.J. (Eds), Review of
Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 251-66.
O’Boyle, E.J. and Dawson, L.E. Jr (1992), “The American Marketing Association Code of Ethics:
instructions for marketers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, pp. 921-32.
Payne, D. (2003), “Engineering ethics and business ethics: commonalities for a comprehensive
code of ethics”, paper presented at IEEE Annual Regional Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Payne, D. and Landry, B.J.L. (2005), “Similarities in business and IT professional ethics: the need
for and development of a comprehensive code of ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62,
pp. 73-85.
Raiborn, C.A. and Payne, D. (1990), “Corporate codes of conduct: a collective conscience and
continuum”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, pp. 879-89.
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Robin, D.P. and Reidenbach, R.E. (1987), “Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy:
closing the gap between concept and application”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 44-58.
Schwartz, M. (2001), “The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and
behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 32, pp. 247-62.
SMEICE (2011), Sales and Marketing Executives International Code of Ethics, available at: www.
smei.org/displaycommon.cfm?an¼1&subarticlenbr¼16 (accessed 9 May 2011).
Stoll, M.L. (2002), “The ethics of marketing good corporate conduct”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 121-9.
Taylor, P.W. (1975), Principles of Ethics: An Introduction, Dickensen Publishing Company,
Encino, CA.
Tsalikis, J. and Fritzsche, D.J. (1989), “Business ethics: a literature review with a focus on
marketing ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 695-743.
Valentine, S. and Barnett, T. (2002), “Ethical codes and sales professionals’ perceptions of their
organization’s ethical values”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 191-200.
IJLMA
55,1
72
Velasquez, M.G. (1999), Business Ethics: Cases and Concepts, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vitell, S.J., Paolillo, J.G.P. and Thomas, J.L. (2003), “The perceived role of ethics and social
responsibility: a study of marketing professionals”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 63-86.
Wood-Harper, A.T., Corder, S., Wood, J.R.G. and Watson, H. (1996), “How we profess: the ethical
systems analyst”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 69-78.
Corresponding author
Milton Pressley can be contacted at: mpressle@uno.edu
A transcendent
code of ethics
73
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproducedwith permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibitedwithout permission.