Contents Page

1.0 Background information..................................................................................................................1

1.1 Company History in Brief.............................................................................................................2

1.2 Vision...........................................................................................................................................2

2.0 Objective of the assignment............................................................................................................3

3.0 What is ethical behaviour?..............................................................................................................3

4.0 Unethical Behavior: Why Does It Occur In Organizations?..............................................................4

5.0 Organizational Culture And Ethical Behavior...................................................................................9

6.0 Ethical behaviour at DSI.................................................................................................................16

7.0 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................17

8.0 References.....................................................................................................................................18

1

1.0 Background information

The subject of this assignment is D Samson & Sons (Pvt) Ltd. (DSS), which is the leading

footwear trading organization in Sri Lanka.

1.1 Company History in Brief

DSS was established on 12th May 1967. The founder chairman at the time was Mr. D.

Samson Rajapaksa, JP. The current chairman is Mr. Nandadasa Rajapaksa alongside which

Mr. R Nugaliyadda and Mr. Thusitha Rajapaksa act as the Managing Director and Joint

Managing Director of the company respectively. The company is part of the DSI Samsons

Group.

The annual turnover of the company exceeds Rs. 10 Billion, and its core business is footwear

trading. DSS handles the sales and marketing of well known local footwear brands such as

DSI, Ranpa and Samsons via its island-wide showroom network, spanning to over 180 in

number, and diversely expanded dealer network.

DSS engages in the sale of 09 ‘categories’ of footwear which has been categorized based on

the target market. These include rubber slippers, gents’ sandals and slippers, ladies’

slippers, infants, children, boys’ school shoes, girls’ school shoes, sportswear and gents’

shoes.

The company has also opened a series of ‘International Brand’ showrooms with the

objective of catering to the top end customers. These showrooms handle foreign brands

such as Reebok, Fila, Proline, Pepe Jeans, Benetton, Liberty etc. DSS also sells footwear

accessories such as socks, belts and polish.

2

1.2 Vision

“To be the leading footwear marketing organization in Sri Lanka & also be associated with

life style related products, to complement the footwear marketing.”

Picture: Showrooms managed by DSS

2.0 Objective of the assignment

The objective of the assignment is to ascertain as to whether there is a relationship between

ethical behaviour and corporate performance with specific application to DSI.

3.0 What is ethical behaviour?

The imperatives of day-to-day organizational performance are so compelling that there is

little time or inclination to divert attention to the moral content of organizational decision-

making. Morality is a very qualitative concept in that it lacks substantive relation to

objective and quantitative performance.

The word "ethics" is often in the news these days. Ethics is a philosophical term derived

from the Greek word "ethos" meaning character or custom. This definition translates into

effective leadership in organizations in developing a code of conduct conveying moral

integrity and consistent values in service to the public. Certain organizations will commit

3

themselves to a philosophy in a formal pronouncement of a Code of Ethics or Standards of

Conduct.

Formally defined, ethical behavior is that which is morally accepted as "good" and "right" as

opposed to "bad" or "wrong" in a particular setting. Is it ethical, for example, to pay a bribe

to obtain a business contract in a foreign country? Is it ethical to allow your company to

withhold information that might discourage a job candidate from joining your organization?

Is it ethical to ask someone to take a job you know will not be good for their career

progress? Is it ethical to do personal business on company time?

The list of examples could go on and on. Despite one's initial inclinations in response to

these questions, the major point of it all is to remind organizations that the public-at-large is

demanding that government officials, managers, workers in general, and the organizations

they represent all act according to high ethical and moral standards. The future will bring a

renewed concern with maintaining high standards of ethical behavior in organizational

transactions and in the workplace.

In addition, we hear about illegal and unethical behavior on Wall Street, pension scandals in

which disreputable executives gamble on risky business ventures with employees'

retirement funds, companies that expose their workers to hazardous working conditions,

and blatant favoritism in hiring and promotion practices. Although such practices occur

throughout the world, their presence nonetheless serves to remind us of the challenge

facing organizations.

The effective management of ethical issues requires that organizations ensure that their

managers and employees know how to deal with ethical issues in their everyday work lives.

Therefore, organizational members must first understand some of the underlying reasons

for the occurrence of unethical practices.

4.0 Unethical Behavior: Why Does It Occur In Organizations?

The potential for individuals and organizations to behave unethically is limitless.

Unfortunately, this potential is too frequently realized. Consider, for example, how greed

4

overtook concerns about human welfare when the Manville Corporation suppressed

evidence that asbestos inhalation was killing its employees, or when Ford failed to correct a

known defect that made its Pinto vulnerable to gas tank explosions following low speed

rear-end collisions (Bucholz, I989). Companies that dump dangerous medical waste

materials into our rivers and oceans also appear to favor their own interests over public

safety and welfare. Although these examples are better known than many others, they do

not appear to be unusual. In fact, the story they tell may be far more typical than we would

like, as one expert estimates that about two-thirds of the 500 largest American corporations

have been involved in one form of illegal behavior or another (Gellerman, 1986).

Unfortunately, unethical organizational practices are embarrassingly commonplace. It is

easy to define such practices as dumping polluted chemical wastes into rivers, insider

trading on Wall Street, overcharging the government for Medicaid services, and institutions

like Stanford University inappropriately using taxpayer money to buy a yacht or to enlarge

their President's bed in his home as morally wrong. Yet these and many other unethical

practices go on almost routinely in many organizations. Why is this so? In other words, what

accounts for the unethical actions of people in organizations, more specifically, why do

people commit those unethical actions in which individuals knew or should have known that

the organization was committing an unethical act? An example recently provided by Baucus

and Near (1991) helps to illustrate this distinction.

Recently, a federal court judge found Allegheny Bottling, a Pepsi-Cola bottling franchise,

guilty of price fixing. The firm had ended years of cola wars by setting prices with its major

competitor, Mid-Atlantic Coca-Cola Bottling (New York Times, 1988). Since evidence showed

most executives in the firm knew of the illegal price-fixing scheme, the court not only fined

Allegheny $1 million but also sentenced it to three years in prison--a sentence that was

suspended since a firm cannot be imprisoned. However, the unusual penalty allowed the

judge to place the firm on probation and significantly restrict its operations.

In another case, Harris Corporation pleaded no contest to charges that it participated in a

kickback scheme involving a defense department loan to the Philippines (Wall Street

Journal, 1989). Although this plea cost the firm $500,000 in fines and civil claims, Harris's

chief executive said the firm and its employees were not guilty of criminal conduct; he

5

Be open and honest vs. Be secretive and deceitful

Follow the rules at all costs vs. Do whatever it takes to get the job done

Be cost-effective vs. Use it or lose it

Take responsibility vs. Pass the buck

Be a team player vs. Take credit for your own actions

maintained that top managers pleaded no contest because the costs associated with

litigation would have been greater than the fines, and litigation would have diverted

management attention from firm operations.

Although both cases appear to be instances of illegal corporate behavior, there is an

important distinction between them. In the first case, Allegheny's executives knew or should

have known the firm's activities were illegal; price fixing is a clear violation of antitrust law.

Further, the courts ruled that evidence indicated the firm had engaged in the illegal act. In

contrast, it is not clear that Harris Corporations' managers committed an illegal act. Some

areas of the law are very ambiguous, and managers may not at times know what it legal or

illegal; thus, a firm may inadvertently engage in behavior that is later defined as illegal or

unethical (Baucus and Near, 1991).

One answer to the question of why individuals knowingly commit unethical actions is based

on the idea that organizations often reward behaviors that violate ethical standards.

Consider, for example, how many business executives are expected to deal in bribes and

payoffs, despite the negative publicity and ambiguity of some laws, and how good corporate

citizens who blow the whistle on organizational wrongdoing may fear being punished for

their actions. Jansen and Von Glinow (1985) explain that organizations tend to develop

counternorms, accepted organizational practices that are contrary to prevailing ethical

standards.

6

Societal norms or ethics Organizational counternorms

Figure 1: Societal Norms vs. Organizational counternorms: an ethical conflict (Jansen and

Von Glinow, 1985)

The top of Figure 1 identifies being open and honest as a prevailing ethical norm. Indeed,

governmental regulations requiring full disclosure and freedom of information reinforce

society's values toward openness and honesty. Within organizations, however, it is often

considered not only acceptable, but desirable, to be much more secretive and deceitful. The

practice of stonewalling, willingly hiding relevant information, is quite common. One reason

for this is that organizations may actually punish those who are too open and honest. Look

at the negative treatment experienced by many employees who are willing to blow the

whistle on unethical behavior in their organizations. Also, consider for example, the

disclosure that B. F. Goodrich rewarded employees who falsified data on quality aircraft

brakes in order to win certification (Vandevier, 1978). Similarly, it has been reported that

executives at Metropolitan Edison encouraged employees to withhold information from the

press about the Three Mile Island nuclear accident (Gray and Rosen, 1982). Both incidents

represent cases in which the counternorms of secrecy and deceitfulness were accepted and

supported by the organization.

Figure 1 shows that there are many other organizational counternorms that promote

morally and ethically questionable practices. Because these practices are commonly

rewarded and accepted suggests that organizations may be operating within a world that

dictates its own set of accepted rules. This reasoning suggests a second answer to the

question of why organizations knowingly act unethically namely, because managerial values

exist that undermine integrity. In a recent analysis of executive integrity, Wolfe explains that

managers have developed some ways of thinking (of which they may be quite unaware) that

foster unethical behavior (Wolfe, 1988).

Wolfe also notes that managers tend to rely on an exploitative mentality--a view that

encourages "using" people in a way that promotes stereotypes and undermines empathy

and compassion. This is a highly selfish perspective, one that sacrifices concerns for others

in favor of benefits to one's own immediate interests. In addition, there is a Madison

Avenue mentality--a perspective suggesting that anything is right if the public can be

7

convinced that it's right. The idea is that executives may be more concerned about their

actions appearing ethical than by their legitimate morality--a public relations--guided

morality. It is this kind of thinking that leads some companies to hide their unethical actions

(by dumping their toxic wastes under cover of night, for instance) or otherwise justify them

by attempting to explain them as completely acceptable.

It is not too difficult to recognize how individuals can knowingly engage in unethical

practices with such mentalities. Some common rationalizations used to justify unethical

behavior are easily derived from Gellerman (1986):

1. Pretending the behavior is not really unethical or illegal.

2. Excusing the behavior by saying it's really in the organization's or your best interest.

3. Assuming the behavior is okay because no one else would ever be expected to find out

about it.

4. Expecting your superiors to support and protect you if anything should go wrong.

Within the literature on corporate illegality, the predominant view is that pressure and need

force organizational members to behave unethically and develop corresponding

rationalizations; however, according to recent research this explanation only accounts for

illegal acts in some cases (Baucus and Near, 1991). In their data, poor performance and low

organizational slack (the excess that remains once a firm has paid its various internal and

external constituencies to maintain cooperation) were not associated with illegal behavior,

and wrongdoing frequently occurred in munificent environments.

According to the model developed from Baucus and Near's research, illegal behavior occurs

under certain conditions. For example, results from their research showed that (1) large

firms are more likely to commit illegal acts than small firms; (2) although the probability of

such wrongdoing increases when resources are scarce, it is greatest when resources are

plentiful; (3) illegal behavior is prevalent in fairly stable environments but is more probable

in dynamic environments; (4) membership in certain industries and a history of repeated

wrongdoing are also associated with illegal acts; and, (5) the type of illegal activity chosen

may vary according to the particular combination of environmental and internal conditions

under which a firm is operating (Baucus and Near, 1991).

8

Baucus and Near also suggest that conditions of opportunity and predisposition are

antecedents of illegal behavior. That is, rather than tightening conditions creating pressure

for illegal acts, it may be that loosening ambiguous conditions create opportunities to

behave illegally.

Predisposition indicates a tendency or inclination to select certain activities--illegal ones--

over activities because of socialization or other organizational processes. Baucus and Near

(1991) recognize that organizations, and industries, can exert a powerful influence on their

members, even those who initially have fairly strong ethical standards.

As noted above, organizations operating in certain industries tend to behave unethically.

Certain industry cultures may predispose organizations to develop cultures that encourage

their members to select unethical acts. If an organization's major competitors in an industry

are performing well, in part as a result of unethical activities, it becomes difficult for

organizational members to choose only unethical actions, and they may regard unethical

actions as a standard of industry practice. Such a scenario results in an organizational

culture that serves as a strong precipitant to unethical actions. The next section looks at the

organizational culture-ethical behavior relationship.

5.0 Organizational Culture And Ethical Behavior

"Do organizations vary in the 'ethical climates' they establish for their members? The

answer to the question is yes, and it is increasingly clear that the ethical tone or climate of

organizations is set at the top. What top managers do, and the culture they establish and

reinforce, makes a big difference in the way lower-level employees act and in the way the

organization as a whole acts when ethical dilemmas are faced. For example, there was no

doubt in anyone's mind at Johnson & Johnson what to do when the infamous Tylenol

poisoning took place. Company executives immediately pulled their product from the

marketplace they knew that "the J & J way" was to do the right thing regardless of its cost.

What they were implicitly saying was that the ethical framework of the company required

that they act in good faith in this fashion.

9

The ethical climate of an organization is defined as “the shared set of understandings about

what is correct behavior and how ethical issues will be handled”. This climate sets the tone

for decision making at all levels and in all circumstances. Some of the factors that may be

emphasized in different ethical climates of organizations are (Hunt, 1991; Schneider and

Rentsch, 1991):

1. Personal self-interest

2. Company profit

3. Operating efficiency

4. Individual friendships

5. Team interests

6. Social responsibility

7. Personal morality

8. Rules and standard procedures

9. Laws and professional codes

As suggested by the prior list, the ethical climate of different organizations can emphasize

different things. In the Johnson & Johnson example just cited, the ethical climate supported

doing the right thing due to social responsibility--regardless of the cost. In other

organizations--perhaps too many--concerns for operating efficiency may outweigh social

considerations when similarly difficult decisions are faced.

When the ethical climate is not clear and positive, ethical dilemmas will often result in

unethical behavior. In such instances, an organization's culture also can predispose its

members to behave unethically. For example, recent research has found a relationship

between organizations with a history of violating the law and continued illegal behavior

(Baucus and Near, 1991). Thus, some organizations have a culture that reinforces illegal

activity. In addition, some firms are known to selectively recruit and promote employees

who have personal values consistent with illegal behavior; firms also may socialize

employees to engage in illegal acts as a part of their normal job duties (Conklin, 1977; Geis,

1977). For instance, in his account of cases concerning price fixing for heavy electrical

equipment, Geis noted that General Electric removed a manager who refused to discuss

prices with a competitor from his job and offered his successor the position with the

10

understanding that management believed he would behave as expected and engage in

price-fixing activities (Geis, 1977, p. 124; Baucus and Near, 1991).

What goes on behind the scenes of a company to make it one of the World’s Most Ethical?

Ethisphere, conducted a study to determine the World’s Most Ethical companies in 2009.

They asked a number of individuals directly responsible for the ethical direction of their

company. Following are some excerpts from their responses:

Accenture

Douglas G. Scrivner, General Counsel, Secretary & Compliance Officer

In Accenture’s ethics and compliance program, the company uses six “core values” of

stewardship, best people, client value creation, one global network, respect for the

individual and integrity.

Douglas Scrivner, General Counsel at Accenture, says that ethics and compliance can’t be

effective if they’re only seen as “bolt-ons,” or something that is only done at the end of the

day after the “regular work” is complete. “We aim to put ethics and compliance into the

way our people work and lead. We seek to leverage existing processes, procedures,

structures and functions to ensure the outcomes we are expecting and alignment with the

goals of the organization,” says Scrivner.

To better understand how the company’s ethics and compliance program is being received

by employees, Accenture uses employee surveys, risk assessments and results of corporate

investigations. Scrivner notes that in a recent survey, over 90 percent of employees feel that

Accenture is highly ethical and that the company’s commitment to integrity has been

communicated to the whole company.

11

“Those are excellent scores for a company of more than 181,000 people,” Scrivner says.

“We haven’t arrived at the end of our journey (and never will), but I am confident that we

continue to move in the right direction and continually reinforce our commitment and our

expectations in this area.”

Caterpillar

Ed Scott, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer

Ed Scott, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer at Caterpillar, says that the ethics at Caterpillar

start at the top, beginning with CEO Jim Owens. “Our leaders work to ensure that Our

Values in Action [Caterpillar’s Code of Conduct] are part of everyday life at Caterpillar,” says

Scott. “They take various opportunities to incorporate Our Values in Action into their

communications. In turn, Caterpillar employees are expected to know and live by Our

Values in Action.”

Scott says that he is most proud of the way that the company’s ethics program reaches out

to the thousands of Caterpillar employees working in around 50 countries in all regions of

the globe. “Over the past few years, we’ve made significant strides in globalizing our

approach,” says Scott. “One item in particular is our Annual Assessment and Questionnaire.

It is offered in 14 languages and all of our employees are required to complete this. You can

imagine that with so many employees, this is a major undertaking.”

Scott believes that any company’s ethics and compliance program is only as strong as the

culture behind it. “You can have the best ethics and compliance program in the world, but if

you don’t have an ethical culture supported by strong leadership, the program will

ultimately not succeed,” Scott says. “Generations of Caterpillar people built our honorable

reputation and ethical culture through their words and deeds.”

General Mills

12

Roderick A. Palmore, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance and

Risk Management Officer

As a well established global business, General Mills knows that ethics programs must be

adaptable to the different regions in which the company operates. “A strong ethics and

compliance program must feel culturally relevant to employees,” says Roderick Palmore,

General Counsel of General Mills. “A program that genuinely reflects the culture and values

of a company helps employees understand and incorporate the messages of the program

into their daily decisions. Employees experience them as part of the very fabric of the

company’s culture.”

To help employees learn from prior real-world decisions—both good and bad—General

Mills developed a feature on its company Intranet that uses real examples that came from

the company’s Ethics Line. “We continually look for opportunities to incorporate real stories

from our history to bring to life our heritage of integrity and to respond to that feeling of

pride we all have in working for General Mills,” Palmore says.

Palmore says that in order to remain relevant, General Mills makes sure that its ethics and

compliance program is continually evolving in a real-time way to meet the needs of a

constantly changing demographic-base of employees. “We strive to be the best,” Palmore

says. “That means we need to stay fresh in our thinking and be in touch with best practices.”

Philips Electronics North America

Brent Shafer, CEO

13

Above and beyond mere “word play” towards and ethics program, Philips links its

sustainability and ethics programs with the company’s core strategy. And, even more

important, Philips grades its success by measurable results. By 2012, Philips aims to

generate 30 percent of total revenue off Green Products, further increase energy efficiency

of the company by 25 percent and double the company’s investment in Green Innovations

to €1 billion.

“Our performance in 2008 shows that we are well on track to achieve these goals with 25

percent of total sales coming from Green Products, investing 282 million euros in green

innovations and reducing our carbon footprint by 5 percent,” says Brent Shafer, CEO of

Philips Electronics in North America. “We communicate transparently on our sustainability

performance through our annual report that is independently verified by a third party.”

Shafer notes the importance of transparency when it comes to reporting about the ethical

environment of the company, especially in developing countries. “It is important for anyone

with an interest in Philips to know that any corporate targets, whether it is a sales goal or

growth ambition, will not happen at the expense of non-compliance with the Philips General

Business Principles,” Shafer says. “This risk is heightened in emerging markets as corporate

governance systems are less developed in emerging markets compared to mature markets.”

Unilever

Iskah C. Singh, Deputy Global Code & Compliance Officer, Associate General Counsel

Unilever uses a number of approaches to engage its employees in the company ethics and

compliance program, according to Iskah Singh, Associate General Counsel for Unilever.

“Our employee training and education program raises awareness and reinforces the values

of the Code of Business Principles,” says Singh. “Also, employees annually acknowledge

14

understanding and compliance with our Code of Business Principles. In addition to

traditional training modules, we have utilized smaller ‘Ethical Moments’ – 3 to 5 minute clips

– to raise awareness and strengthen the open ethics and compliance environment.”

Singh says that a strong ethics and compliance program provides many benefits: solid

leadership; encourages and facilitates open communication; clearly articulates the

standards of business conduct; continually reinforces ethics awareness and actively

demonstrates that the values are not just words on paper but are lived on a daily basis.

Singh notes that a key differentiator in Unilever’s ethics and compliance program is the fact

that employees deep within the organization can look to their immediate supervisors as

examples of ethical leadership. “It is here that an ethical culture is cultivated and the

standards and values of Unilever’s Code of Business Principles is given meaning,” says Singh.

T-Mobile USA

Robert Dotson, President and CEO

Robert Dotson, president and CEO of T-Mobile USA says that the real test of a company’s

ethics program is the extent to which it is “in the fabric” of all employees. He says that

happens through strong tone of the top. “That emphasis also echoes through the halls of

our parent company, Deutsche Telekom,” says Dotson. “However it also includes active

participation and support from our employees. Our employees strive to get results the right

way; they regularly raise issues or questions to management on our anonymous Integrity

Line; and they take personal responsibility for how they live the values in their quarterly

performance reviews. It’s a top to bottom program that is owned at all levels of the

company.”

Dotson adds that T-Mobile is a fast paced company in a competitive industry, and that

“brings a certain amount of pressure to develop game-changing products, outpace the

competition, and drive excellent financial results.” But, he says, that shouldn’t affect how

15

the products are developed or how the company operates. “Our employees know that

getting great results is only part of the equation,” Dotson says. “We expect everyone to get

the right results, the right way. ‘Performance’ and ‘values’ are like two wings of an airplane

– they are both required for success, and you really would never try flying without one of

them.”

6.0 Ethical behaviour at DSI

We now look into the various practices carried out by D Samson & Sons (Pvt) Ltd in order to

determine the extent of its ethical behaviour. In order to understand the practices carried

out by DSS we interviewed its General Manager, Mr Rohan Somawansa. The following are

some of the key highlights from the interview.

a) It was stated during the interview that the company imposes a strict disciplinary code of

conduct where every new employee is inducted on its Employee Code of Conduct.

Further, an Employee handbook is provided to all employees which they can refer to.

This Code is updated from time to time. A strict disciplinary procedure where a initial

verbal warning, followed by a written warning and final disciplinary action is adhered to.

b) It is said that rewarding the right actions can indirectly act as a deterrent to unethical

behaviour. The company rewards high performing employees at its Annual Awards

ceremony. Every employee is given an equal opportunity to sit for an examination.

However, the final result depends on a range of factors in addition to the exam results

such as behaviour, attendance, achievement of KPIs.

c) The finance department initiates strict controls using its established ERP system in order

to prevent any frauds and mismanagement. Some of the measures taken include;

1. Checking of physical stock with system generated stock

2. Monitoring of shops with return cheque record and blocking it in the system in order

to prevent goods being billed to them

3. Monitoring of pending sales (credit sales where a cheque is yet to be collected)

4. Annual stock take is carried out in all islandwide locations

16

d) It was highlighted during the interview that DSS is a ISO 9001:2000 certified company.

There is a separate department to monitor internal processes and recommend

improvements in both business and financial processes. Every department is required to

maintain an ISO operational procedure manual which entails its procedures and to

which its employees are required to adhere to. In addition, a broad quality manual is

maintained by the company ISO representative which provides for the overall quality

direction of the company. Spot audits are made by the ISO team in order to identify

deficiencies in existing processes, processes not documented and specifically highlight

procedural breaches in order to take remedial action.

e) The company engages in a range of CSR activities such as the Danumai Wasanawai

educational programme, Sithuvili art competition and sponsorship of National Volleyball

tournament. In addition, it plays a major role in the organizing of the National Wesak

festival and conducts the Raja Maha Viharaya programme (which seeks to protect

ancient Buddhist temples). Through many of these activities the company has attempted

to inculcate a sharing and caring culture at DSS, especially based on Buddhist principles.

f) Finally, the DSS maintains a strong customer service policy. All products are pre-tested

prior to launch into the market at its state-of-the art laboratory facility. In addition, wear

testing is done to identify unseen manufacturing defects. Despite, these defects may

occur and the policy provides for rebates and repair of damaged items. Unlike, other

footwear retailers the company accepts full responsibility for production defects and

compensates the customer for any inconvenience caused.

7.0 Conclusion

Pressure, opportunity, and predisposition can all lead to unethical activities; however,

organizations must still take a proactive stance to promote an ethical climate. What is

important is to set the example and create the necessary culture that encourages ethical

behaviour.

17

8.0 References

Baucus, M. S. and Near, J. P.: 1991, 'Can Illegal Corporate Behavior Be Predicated? An Event

History Analysis', Academy of Management Journal 34(1), pp. 9-36.

Brenner, S. and Molander, E.: 1977, 'Is the Ethics of Business Changing?', Harvard Business

Review 55(1), pp. 55-71. Bucholz, R. A.: 1989, Fundamental Concepts and Problems in

Business Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Cooke, R. A.: 1991, 'Danger Signs of Unethical Behavior: How to Determine If Your Firm Is at

Ethical Risk', Journal of Business Ethics 10, pp. 249-253. Conklin, J.: 1977, Illegal But Not

Criminal (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Ethisphere: 2009 WORLD’S MOST ETHICAL COMPANIES http://ethisphere.com/wme2009/

Geis, G.: 1977, 'The Heavy Electrical Equipment Antitrust Case of 1961', in G. Geis and R.

Meier, eds., White-Collar Crime: Offenses in Business, Politics, and the Profession (Free

Press, New York), pp. 117-132.

Gellerman, S. W.: 1986, 'Why "good" Managers Make Bad Ethical Choices', Harvard Business

Review (July August), pp. 85-90.

Gray, M. and Rosen, I.: 1982, The Warning (Norton, New York).

Hunt, J. G.: 1991, Toward A Leadership Paradigm Change (Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

Jansen, E. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1985) Ethical Ambivalence and Organizational Reward

Systems, Academy of Management Review 10 (4), pp 814-822

New York Times: 1988, 'Corporate Prison Term for Allegheny Bottling' (September 1), p. D2.

Schneider, J. B. and Reitsch, J.: 1991, 'Managing Climates and Cultures: A Futures

Perspective', in J. Hage, ed., Future of Organizations (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA).

18

Vandevier, K.: 1978, 'The Aircraft Brake Scandal: A Cautionary Tale in Which the Moral is

Unpleasant', in A. G. Athos and J. J. Babarro, eds., Interpersonal Behavior: Communication

and Understanding Relationships (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)' pp. 529-540.

Wall Street journal: 1989, 'Harris Corp. Is Convicted in Kickback Plan', (June 5), p. A7.

Wolfe, D.: 1988, 'Is There Integrity in the Bottomline: Managing Obstacles to Executive

Integrity', in S. Srivastva, ed., Executive Integrity: The Search For High Human Values in

Organization Life (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), pp. 140-171.

19