Insert lo 2-11 Quick Check about here

For many organizations, the solution to ethical problems in the workplace, including those generated by small groups, often involves another dose of small groups: in-house training programs to discuss and analyze corporate values and ethics. Most of these programs use peer pressure and small group dynamics in a positive way to facilitate a better understanding of corporate values and ethics among employees. A survey of 2,000 U.S.-based firms across eight industries indicated that more than one-fourth had ethics training programs.54 The purpose of the training is to create consensus on ethical issues.55 Several organizations provide appropriate information and training materials.56

Organizational Ethics

An organization can be defined as a group of two or more people working together. While it is true that one person can operate as an organization (that’s exactly what many independent public relations consultants do), most organizations are a collection of small groups operating together to achieve a common set of goals. Many people feel pressured to compromise their personal standards in order to achieve organizational goals.57 At the organizational level of analysis, there are a number of factors that affect individual, small group, and system-wide ethical behaviors: the size of the organization, its technology, rules and regulations, rewards and sanctions, hierarchy, roles, superior-subordinate relationships, boundary-spanning relationships, and management strategies for dealing with the environment.

Size Measured in Terms of People and Money 

Two aspects of organizational size impact ethical behaviors. One is the number of employees. The greater the number of employees, the greater will be the diffusion of responsibilities. With more employees, there will be more finger wagging and blame ducking, and a lowering of the morale and morals.58 The fewer the employees, the more easily ethical behaviors can be monitored. Consider two gas stations across the street from each other. One is owned and operated by an independent businessman who manages the station, buys his oil from a variety of places, and uses members of his family as employees. Across the street is a franchised dealership operated by one of the world’s largest oil companies. One has very few employees; the other is linked to an organization employing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The prediction is that there will be more ethical problems—for example, employees embezzling funds or stealing equipment and supplies—at the franchised gas station than at the mom-and-pop shop.

Another aspect of size is the amount of assets, often expressed as assets per employee. The greater the ratio of assets per employee, the more likely ethical behaviors will be monitored closely.59 On the other hand, the greater the assets per employee, the greater the potential rewards for unethical behavior. Back at the franchised gas station, where the assets per employee are very high compared to the smaller station across the street, the potential rewards for unethical behavior are higher because the stakes are higher. Consequently, the behaviors of employees at the franchised gas station will be governed by more bureaucratic rules and regulations than at the family-owned station.

Technology  

In the above example, the technology, the essential work, of the two organizations was the same—pumping gas. Different technologies evoke different ethical behaviors. Sometimes the essential work of an organization is routine; at other times, it is nonroutine. If organizations strive to be rational and ethical, then we can assume that there will be more ethical dilemmas within nonroutine technologies because there are so many exceptions to the rules. The more complicated the technology is, the greater the uncertainty in doing the essential work of the organization will be. There also will be a greater number of ethical problems. For example, consider biogenetic research; not only is it difficult to manipulate genes, it also raises enormously difficult ethical issues. The manufacturer of car tires, a relatively routine technology, generates its fair share of ethical problems (for example, what to do with millions of nonbiodegradable used tires), but the ethical issues are less complex than those generated by nonroutine technologies.

Peripheral communication functions are often viewed as less ethical than centrally located technologies within an organization. These functions—such as marketing, advertising and public relations—are seen as dealing primarily with promotion and not so much with determining the actual form of the organization’s products and services.60 In many organizations, the concept of marketing communications has changed role expectations. As a result, certain communication functions are seen as more central and, therefore, more ethical. For many organizations, however, public relations is not viewed as a core function that helps to determine the final form of the product or service; consequently, the public relations function is viewed as less ethical than others.

Rules and Regulations  

Rules and regulations, red tape, are hallmarks of modern bureaucracies. While larger organizations do have more formal rules and regulations, they are common in all organizations, large and small.61 An unorganized group of people is a bunch of people with nothing to do. For this group of people to do some work, they need to become organized. This means to establish certain procedures, rules, and regulations that help to coordinate activities so tasks can be accomplished. Managers, including public relations managers, have the responsibility of establishing these rules and regulations. These become not only the criteria by which decisions are made within the organization, but also an outward manifestation of corporate ethics.

Rewards and Sanctions  

To enforce rules and regulations, managers use rewards and sanctions. Direct rewards include verbal praise, recognition, increased salary, promotion, and other compensations. More indirect rewards are endorsements and support for projects, access to information, and inclusion in important decisions. Direct sanctions include verbal rebukes, disdain, no change or a decrease in salary, demotion, and other restrictions. More indirect sanctions are being ridiculed, having projects sabotaged, and being ostracized. Direct and indirect rewards and sanctions can be used to modify ethical behavior. Two laboratory studies involving business students indicate that rewarded unethical behavior increased and sanctioned ethical behavior decreased. The reverse was also true: sanctioned unethical behavior decreased, and rewarded ethical behavior increased.62

Hierarchy

One of the most important sets of rules within an organization establishes the hierarchy, or chain of command—who says what to whom, with what effect. An organization’s hierarchy dramatically affects ethical behavior because it defines superiors and subordinates. It gives rise to invisible walls of accurate and inaccurate perceptions that are erected between “us” and “them.” One study of business executives found that most members of lower management felt pressure from upper management to engage in unethical behavior. Furthermore, the study found, the lower the employee was on the chain of command, the more he or she perceived pressure to behave unethically.63

In a study that explored the ethical beliefs and behaviors of public relations professionals, Cornelius Pratt of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University found from self-reports that practitioners’ beliefs are perceived as less ethical than those of management, yet more ethical than those of their peers.64

Another study of business executives found the following factors influenced ethical decision making: (1) personal codes of behavior, (2) behavior of superiors, (3) formal company policy, (4) industry ethical climate, and (5) the behavior of peers.65 The majority of managers who participated anonymously in another study felt pressure to compromise personal ethics to achieve corporate goals. The study of the U.S.-based international corporation found that more pressure was felt by managers who were under the age of thirty-five, earning under $30,000, and stationed at headquarters rather than in the field.66

Roles and Relationships  

The hierarchy defines roles and relationships. There are both formal role descriptions and informal role expectations.67 In public relations, there are scores of possible job descriptions, but essentially two role expectations: to be a technician or to be a problem solver. These different role expectations will be explored in great detail in the last chapter which deals with career strategies in public relations. In terms of ethical behavior, the two role expectations for public relations practitioners have predictable results: technicians experience a limited array of ethical dilemmas, compared to those experienced by problem solvers. Public relations practitioners, regardless of their personal role expectations, are often seen by others as less than ethical. This is because others see them as technicians responsible for the mechanics of communication and not the content.68

How do public relations professionals relate to other professionals within their organization who have had formal training and adhere to independent standards of professional conduct? This raises a number of ethical issues.69 Whose Ethical Code Takes Precedence over the Others?  What are the role expectations these different professions have for each other? Some define professionalism as having the ability, indeed, the responsibility, to work for any worthy client regardless of personal feelings and to perform competently. For example, lawyers and doctors will perform professional services for known criminals and unsavory persons. Should public relations practitioners provide professional services to similar types of despicable individuals who, nevertheless, should receive fair treatment?

Where does the public relations professional turn for authoritative advice on how to handle such ethical conflicts brought on by different role descriptions and expectations—to the employer, the client, the self, or some outside authority?

Boundary-Spanning Relationships  

Another set of relationships at the organizational level generates its own set of ethical questions. These relationships focus on public relations as it is practiced by independent agencies and by in-house specialists.

1. The practitioner-client relationship: Is all information that is shared by the client with the agency confidential? If so, how is it protected? If not, how is this determined? Is all of the client’s information accurate? What if the client is shading the truth or not telling all of the facts? What if the client is late in paying for services? When should an agency terminate a relationship with a client? When should a practitioner not take on a client? Should the agency bill clients for honest mistakes the agency makes? What if the client’s request for market research borders on being industrial espionage?

2. The practitioner-as-agency-employee relationship: What if the agency takes on a controversial client, or a client who is engaged in questionable, possibly illegal, practices? Should the agency force all of its employees to work on the account? (This is a hot question not only in public relations, but also in advertising.70)

3. Practitioner-as-in-house-specialist relationship: To whom does the practitioner owe the greatest loyalty? Is it the immediate superior, members of the dominant coalition (which ones?), employees, or other stakeholders?

4. Practitioner-media-representative relationship: When do free passes, lunch, dinner, gifts, or junkets become bribes? When do awards for outstanding reporting from a client’s industry become bribes for more good coverage? When can friends go off-the-record?

5. Practitioner-consumer relationship: Is puffery ethical? Is hype ethical? What is owed to the distant consumer in terms of truth in advertising and public relations?

Management Strategies for Dealing with Internal and External Publics

 In the next chapter, we will discuss in detail the impact of external publics, groups, other organizations, government agencies, institutions, and cultures on the ethical behavior of public relations practitioners. These are factors outside the immediate control of the focal organization. In this chapter, where the focus is on factors within an organization’s control, we will discuss different management strategies for dealing with internal and external publics--the organization's environment. Often it is management’s attitude, expressed as a strategy—more than the reality of what is going on in the environment—that affects the ethical performance of the organization and its employees, including public relations practitioners.71 Depending on their perception of the environment, most managers adopt a combination of one or more of the following strategies: competition, co–optation, and/or coalition building. Each of these strategies has ethical implications.

Competition means considering publics, groups, and organizations in the environment as striving to outdo one another for scarce resources. Competition is a win-lose proposition that assumes most players will not be winners. Competition encourages aggressive, ego-centered actions on the part of individuals and organizations. Competition does not require cooperation, although eliciting cooperation undoubtedly helps the aggressive competitor win.

Co-optation, on the other hand, is based on cooperation and coercion. It uses subtle and, sometimes, not-so-subtle forms of coercion to bring together certain publics, groups, and organizations into a temporary arrangement so that scarce resources can be used selfishly to the advantage of one party. Co-optation is a preemptive strategy used primarily to bring weak parties within the strong party’s sphere of control. Even when the weak finesses the strong into compliance, co-optation has to use coercion to elicit cooperation because those being co-opted do not win as much out of the arrangement as the initiating party. Co-optation is a form of exploitation because it is a strategy for selfishly taking advantage of others, even though those being co-opted may benefit from the arrangement.

Coalition building also is based on cooperation, but without coercion. Building coalitions means forming alliances, often temporary, among various publics and organizations so that their collective power can be used to secure scarce resources and achieve common goals. However, unlike co-optation, coalition building is not necessarily exploitative; it is a negotiated arrangement based on a win-win assumption that all who cooperate will benefit.

Cooperation As a Strategy  Cutting across all three strategies of competition, co-optation, and coalition building is this question: Under what conditions will cooperation emerge? Robert Axelrod, a political scientist, developed a computerized version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma to determine the answer to this question.72 The essence of the dilemma is that two parties have been forced into a relationship where they have two choices: cooperate or not. The dilemma is that they are isolated from each other and can’t communicate; they have to guess at what the other will do. If there is mutual cooperation, both win. If both choose not to cooperate, both lose big. If one chooses to cooperate and the other doesn’t, then one ends up feeling like a sucker, while the other gets some kind of benefit from fooling the other into cooperating. However, neither gets exactly what he or she wants. The dilemma is that neither knows in advance what the other is going to do. As Axelrod explained,

The original story is that two accomplices to a crime are arrested and questioned separately. Either can defect from the partnership by confessing and hoping for a lighter sentence. If both confess, though, their confessions are not as valuable. On the other hand, if both cooperate with each other by refusing to confess, the district attorney can only convict them on a minor charge. Assuming that neither player has moral qualms about, or fear of, squealing, the payoffs can form a Prisoner’s Dilemma. From society’s point of view, it is a good thing that the two accomplices have little likelihood of being caught in the same situation again soon, because that is precisely the reason why it is to each of their individual advantages to double-cross the other.73

The Prisoner’s Dilemma represents a situation where what is best for each person individually leads to less than desirable results, whereas all persons could receive exactly what they wanted if they would cooperate. The artificial aspects of the Prisoner’s Dilemma are that the two participants are isolated from each other and that the payoffs are significantly different and ranked in order. The least desirable payoff is given for mutual lack of cooperation, modest payoffs are given for suckering someone else into cooperating, and the highest payoff is given for mutual cooperation.

An example of how the Prisoner's Dilemma might be applied to integrated communication (IC) would be how the oversight committee might operate within an organization that is pooling its resources in marketing, public relations, advertising and human resource management. It has asked the members of the IC oversight committee to negotiate a new budget for next year based on a zero-based budgeting strategy that asked each manager to present his or her list of priorities activities. The dilemma is: Should they cooperate with each other by sharing all facts and expected costs; or, should they withhold certain information until they have seen the plans of the others revealed? On the one hand, if each fully discloses, then the best possibly budget may be developed. On the other hand, if one unit does not fully disclose and other others do, then that one unit may have an advantage over the others.

An example of the Prisoner’s Dilemma applied to a strategic public relations situation would be two lobbying organizations finding out through mutual contacts that each is preparing to make a presentation in a few days to an important legislative committee. The organizations do not have time to meet to discuss the matter. Instead, they fax to each other the prepared discussion points of the experts who will be making the presentations to the committee. The dilemma is this: Should they cooperate with each other by changing the discussion points of their respective experts or not? If they both cooperate and make copy changes, then a more persuasive presentation is possible. If one makes the changes but the other doesn’t, the combined effect is not as great, and the side that makes the changes will feel suckered. The other side will benefit by having its discussion points reinforced. If both refuse to cooperate, then two separate and, possibly, disjointed presentations are made.

In the computerized version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, thousands of iterations of options were explored to identify conditions in which mutual cooperation would or would not emerge. Axelrod identified two general sets of conditions:

(1) when the participants were locked into a situation they could not change, and (2) when the participants were able to change their options and environment,

primarily because they were able to communicate with each other.

If the participants could not change the situation and the relationships were short-term, then not cooperating paid off best. If the participants could not change the situation and the relationships were long-term, then cooperation paid off best. The implication is that to facilitate cooperation in situations that cannot be readily changed, the participants should know for sure that they will see each other again and that they will, in time, have a long-term relationship. A facilitator should help them to see each other as colleagues.

Of course, the opposite implication is true if the purpose is to suppress cooperation. For example, public relations executives for the world’s largest oil companies would not want to coordinate their public relations campaigns because this could be construed as restraint of trade. Consequently, the strategy should not be to meet frequently or to establish long-term relationships with each other. When participants are able to communicate and change the environment in which they are operating, there are a number of actions that can be taken to improve the possibilities for cooperation:74

1. Enlarge each participant’s view of the world so that each sees many options and a long, prosperous future together.

2. Make the relationships among participants more durable and frequent.

3. Keep others from interfering in the relationships: establish a territory in which the participants feel safe.

4. Organize the relationship: establish a hierarchy so that participants have predictable roles.

5. Break down joint activities so that the cooperating parties can witness, as they progress from one small stage to the next, that each is cooperating as planned. This will establish a greater sense of confidence in their relationship.

6. Change the payoffs.

7. Teach participants to care about each other: explain the value of altruism.

8. Teach reciprocity by reminding the participants that being cooperative at all times leads to being exploited and that being uncooperative at all times is selfish and dysfunctional. Explain that reciprocity need not be coercive and unethical; it can be a mutual exchange of corresponding advantages and privileges.

9. Help participants to see how they can verify that others are cooperating with them, so they will know, before it is too late, when they are being suckered.

10. Help others to recognize cooperative possibilities by explaining how others have established cooperative arrangements and succeeded.

The combined effect of these actions is effective public relations—facilitating understanding and relationship between publics. The implication for public relations managers is that campaigns designed to foster cooperation can be more effective, (1) if they educate the publics about the value of cooperation, (2) if they explain the histories and successes of cooperative arrangements, particularly among participants, and (3) if they provide forums that facilitate the publics' getting to know each other and establishing long-term relationships.

Organizational Strategies for Improving Ethics

Three strategies for institutionalizing corporate ethics have become increasingly common in the past decade: (1) establishing a corporate code of ethics (2) designating an ethics committee on the board of directors, and (3) conducting ethics training programs. 75 One survey of U.S.-based firms found that 67 percent had ethics codes, 6 percent had ethics committees on boards, and 3 percent had management training programs that specifically dealt with ethics. 76 Another survey of 2,000 American corporations found that 85 percent had codes of ethics, 9 percent had ethics committees on boards, and more than 28 percent had ethics training programs.77

According to the Ethics Resource Center, a comprehensive, enforceable code of ethics has four parts: (1) a credo, which is an overarching statement of corporate philosophy and values, (2) general guidelines for decision making, (3) specific rules that prohibit certain actions and require others, and (4) definitions, rationales, and illustrations.

The content of credos vary dramatically from company to company, but most link general guidelines and specific rules to higher ethical principles and statements of management philosophies. Here are sample statements from two credos:

We will conduct our business honestly and ethically wherever we operate in the world. To live up to this commitment, we will turn away from business, if getting the business means to operate illegally or unethically. We will not compromise our principles for short-term advantage. No illegal or unethical conduct is in the company's interest. No employee will ever be asked by a supervisor to compromise his or her own ethical standards. (Rexnord)

One of a company's most valuable assets is a reputation for integrity. If that is tarnished, customers, investors, suppliers, employees, and those who sell our products will seek affiliation with other, more attractive companies. We intend to hold to a single high standard of integrity everywhere. We will keep our word. We won't promise more than we can reasonably expect to deliver; nor will we make commitments we don't intend to keep. The ethical performance of the enterprise is the sum of the ethics of the men and women who work here. Thus, we are all expected to adhere to high standards of personal integrity. (Caterpillar Inc.)

Guidelines sometimes offer advice about specific situations—for example, explaining the prohibition against insider trading, or warning employees not to disclose confidential information. (See LO 2-13 for a list of topics most often addressed in corporate codes of ethics.) When specific advice is difficult to give for a certain situation, guidelines often offer basic principles, for example:

No "code of conduct" can hope to spell out the appropriate moral conduct and ethical behavior for every situation with which we will be confronted. In the last analysis we must rely on our own good judgment. Whenever we find ourselves with a hard decision to make, we must seek counsel—either from our colleagues, from our management, the Company Ethics Committee, and most importantly, our own conscience (Eastman Christensen)

The antitrust law s are general and in some respects vague; their exact interpretation is often uncertain. Therefore, legal advice should be obtained whenever there is any doubt as to the lawfulness of any contemplated course of action or of a proposed transaction. (Eli Lilly and Company)

Ethics guidelines also require certain behaviors in specific situations—for example, disclosure and approval of actions taken in particular areas, such as conflict of interest:

Any employee who feels that he or she may have a conflict situation, actual or potential, should report all pertinent details in a memorandum to his or her supervisor. The supervisor will be responsible for referring the matter to the legal department. (Martin Marietta Corporation)

Another area where guidelines may need to be established is that of political contributions:

When permitted by law, state and local political contributions may be made after approval by the company's government affairs, communications, and law departments. (FMC Corporation)

Guidelines may also present basic criteria for individuals to use when confronted with any ethical dilemma:

If you have to make an immediate decision and have any doubts about what you're doing, don't do it. (Xerox)

Employees should not do anything—or be expected to take any action—that they would be ashamed to explain to their family or close friends. (Eli Lilly and Company)

What questions should one ask in an ethical dilemma? Here are some suggestions:

What is company policy?

Who exactly will be helped and who will be hurt?

Would this violate someone's expectations?

How would this decision look on the front page of The Wall Street Journal?

(Citicorp)

Some code of ethics stop with a comprehensive set of guidelines. Others go on to list specific rules that outlaw specific actions—such as price-fixing—or that require certain actions—such as blowing the whistle on code violators.

Some codes of ethics define terms, such as trade secrets, insider information, antitrust, gifts and gratuities. Some provide rationales and illustrations of recommended ways of dealing with ethical situations:

It has long been IBM's policy to sell products and services on merits, not by disparaging competitors, their products or their services. False or misleading statements and innuendos are improper. Don't make comparisons that unfairly cast the competitor in a bad light. Such conduct only invites disrespect from customers and complaints from competitors. (International Business Machines Corporation)

Reciprocal deals are understandings that one firm will buy another firm's products or services only if the favor is returned. Attempts to coerce a customer into reciprocal deals are usually illegal and certainly unethical. (Hewlett-Packard Company)

Whether you call them fees or commissions, kickbacks are morally wrong and legally criminal. The price for accepting kickbacks is high: your job, and even criminal prosecution. (Hughes Aircraft Company)

Imagine that you are required to submit a report and discover that one of the requirements you were supposed to have completed has not been done. However, it can be completed in a few days. The report is due immediately. Should you, out of loyalty, keep the company from looking bad by falsifying the report, since you should have the task completed prior to anyone having to check it? No. Martin Marietta sincerely expects that all employees be completely honest, irrespective of the consequences. (Martin Marietta Corporation.)

Steps in Preparing and Communicating Codes of Ethics

Based on its survey of 2,000 firms, the Ethics Resource Center identified certain steps most organizations to through to develop and communicate a corporate code of ethics. Here, briefly, is what would happen:

1. Senior management initiated the process by establishing a high-level task force with representation from all significant business units.

2. The task force was charged with the responsibility of gathering statements from members of management and others about hat they considered to be the organization's ethical principles.

3. The various statements were analyzed, edited and combined into a single set of principles, rule, and guidelines, with definitions, and so on. In addition, a credo, or overarching set of principles, was written for the document. It normally took many months for this iterative process to generate consensus and well-written documents.

4. With senior management's approval, the document was published. Most were published as brochures, some as attractive, large posters, and a few as reports. About half of those surveyed distributed the code to all employees; the other half distributed it only to members of management.

5. Beyond the initial distribution of the basic document, many other communication activities were engaged in, such as preparing videotapes of corporate executives explaining the purpose of the code an its basic principles; placing articles in company magazines and trade publications; sending copies to suppliers, vendors, and customers; writing speeches for executives to give to community groups, civic and trade associations; and conducting training programs.

Two Approaches to Corporate Ethics Training

To educate employees abut the purpose and usefulness of its code of ethics, an increasing number of organizations (more than 25 percent) conduct training programs that range from intensive one-and two-day workshops to relatively short staff meetings, lectures, and small group discussions. Two basic approaches are used in conducting most of these training programs:

1. Make employees more aware of ethics by helping them to recognize everyday ethical dilemmas and improve their ethical decision making, giving them a framework (in particular, a corporate code of ethics) for dealing with ethical situations.

2. Make employees more aware of how and why they should comply with the law and other regulations governing such areas a antitrust, insider trading, and government contracting.

Compliance training is useful for many companies, specifically those in highly regulated industries. However, it has its weaknesses: it tends to equate compliance with ethical behavior; it assumes there are rules governing all situations; and it implies that if an action is not illegal, it must be ethical.

According to the Ethics Resource Center,

… the employee misconduct most harmful to a firm is usually not eh result of ignorance of the laws or regulations, but is often driven by the company's own management style, aggressive goal-setting and incentive and reward systems. Mot of the headline-making business scandals of the past decade have been caused not by employees who did not know the rules but by employees who chose to disregard the rules because the reward was so great, or because they felt that the company expected them to do whatever was necessary to meet budgets, schedules, sales quota, or the quarterly financial figures. Compliance training alone may neglect to address these pressures, which can lead ordinarily honest employees to behave unethically.

Monitoring and Enforcing Codes of Ethics

Many codes included provisions requiring managers and supervisors to explain the code to their employees:

All managers must annually take appropriate action to insure that persons reporting to them are fully informed of our ethics policy. (Xerox)

Supervisors who fail to instruct their employees on the Code of Ethics may be subject to disciplinary action. (Learjet)

Beyond "open door" policies and expecting managers to inform employees and make periodic reports about ethics, many organizations monitor and enforce their code of ethics by conducting audits that identify ethical problems, and by establishing whistle-blowing mechanisms, such as hotlines for anonymous tips, ethics committees, and designated individuals who serve as ethics advocates:

The director of internal auditing of the company and the company's independent certified public accountants will report immediately any violations or suspected violations of this policy on business ethics which come to their attention as a result of conducting audits of the company. (The Kroger Company)

In no event is action to be taken or threatened against you by the company as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information in good faith… However, if you were involved in improper activity, you may be appropriately discipline even if you are the one who discloses the matter to the company; but your voluntary act of disclosure will be given favorable consideration in any ensuing decisions. (McDonnell Douglas Corporation)

Ethics Program Directors have been designated for each of he various company locations and are available for employee counseling and assistance … [they] may be reached by way of regular telephone, hotline, letter or personal visit. Inquiries will be treated with courtesy and discretion. (General Dynamics)

Whether or not an organization is profit-oriented or not-for-profit apparently affects whether or not it will strictly monitor and enforce its code of ethics. Probably because they are anxious to avoid accusations of being overzealous by employees and of violating antitrust regulations by competitors, less than half of the profit-making corporations in a survey of U.S.-based organizations, and a significantly smaller percent of nonprofit associations, reported that they rigorously monitored and enforced their code of ethics.78

U.S. Defense Industry Initiatives on Business Ethics

Scores of U.S. defense companies have signed pledges to promote ethical business conduct not only within their own organizations, but also throughout the defense industry.79 The written pledges were one of the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management. This group was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and chaired by David Packard, head of Hewlett-Packard Corporation. The recommendations, called the Defense Industry Initiatives (DII), stated that corporations signing the DII Pledge wee to adhere to the following six principles:

1. Each company will have and adhere to a written code of business ethics and conduct.

2. The company's code establishes the high values expected of its employees and the standard by which they must judge their own conduct and those of their organization; each company will train its employees concerning their personal responsibilities under the code.

3. Each company will crate a free and open atmosphere that allows and encourages employees to report violations of its code to the company without fear of retribution for such reporting

4. Each company has the obligation to self-govern by monitoring compliance with federal procurement laws and adopting procedures for voluntary disclosure of violations of federal procurement laws and corrective actions taken.

5. Each company has a responsibility to each of the other companies in the industry to live by standards of conduct that preserve the integrity of the defense industry.

6. Each company must have public accountability for its commitment to these principles.

The last principle means that participating organizations will pay for certified public accountant to conduct audits of their written responses to eighteen questions which are asked annually of all companies signing the DII pledge.80 Some of the key points of the ethics audit areas follows:

Is the code of ethics distributed to all employees?

Does the code assign responsibility to operating management and other for compliance with the code?

Is there a corporate review board, ombudsman, corporate compliance or ethics office, or similar mechanism for employees to report suspected violations to someone other than their direct supervisor, if necessary?

Does the mechanism for letting employees know the result of any follow-up into their reported charges?

Is there an ongoing program of communication to employees, spelling out and reemphasizing their obligations under the code of conduct?

Call for Multinational Corporate Communicator Codes of Ethics

Dean Kruckeberg of the University of Northern Iowa has called for all multinational corporations to regularly review and revise their corporate codes of ethics "as these relate specifically to professional communicators."81 According toe Kruckeberg,

…it would seem both instructive and beneficial to examine the feasibility of attempting to develop and apply a unified and comprehensive code of ethics for professional communicators representing transnational corporations. Ideally, this code would be capable of guiding behavior which attempts to resolve the inherent moral dilemmas of such widespread and diverse issues (as) … graft and corruption issues … consumer issues … environmental/human safety issues … and, political/humanitarian issue.82

LO 2-14 Call out should go here.

A Contingency Model of Ethical Decision-Making