In the wake of corporate governance scandals, questions arise about the effectiveness and intent of corporate ethical codes: Are they genuine governance mechanisms to enhance corporate responsibility, or are they mere shields against legal risks? This study delves into the linguistic choices within ethical codes, positing that these choices serve as communication devices that articulate a firm’s institutional logic. We use stakeholder theory to differentiate between code language that is governed by instrumental (legal-oriented) or normative (behavior-oriented) logic. Upon analyzing the lexicon of Fortune 500 corporate codes, our findings reveal that behavior-oriented codes are associated with a decrease in the number of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. Yet, they correspond to an increase in class action lawsuits. By contrast, legal-oriented codes are linked to an increase in ESG issues but to reduced legal litigation. Notably, firms that blend approaches from both logics experience lower litigation rates. These findings enrich the discourse on stakeholder theory and provide practical guidance for organizations aiming to refine their ethical codes. This refinement seeks to enhance ethical behavior and mitigate corporate risks.
AguileraR. V.JacksonG. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447–465.
2.
AguinisH.GlavasA. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.
3.
AitchisonJ. (1982). The statistical analysis of compositional data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 44(2), 139–160.
4.
AyusoS.RodríguezM. A.García-CastroR.AriñoM. A. (2014). Maximizing stakeholders’ interests: An empirical analysis of the stakeholder approach to corporate governance. Business & Society, 53(3), 414–439.
5.
BazermanM. H.GinoF. (2012). Behavioral ethics: Toward a deeper understanding of moral judgment and dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104.
6.
BebchukL. A.TallaritaR. (2020). The illusory promise of stakeholder governance. Cornell Law Review, 106, 91–178.
7.
BeckerG. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
8.
BermanS. L.Johnson-CramerM. E. (2019). Stakeholder theory: Seeing the field through the forest. Business & Society, 58(7), 1358–1375.
9.
BoroditskyL. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304, 62–66.
10.
BromleyP.PowellW. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.684462
CalderónR.FerreroI.RedínD. M. (2012). Ethical codes and corporate responsibility of the most admired companies of the world: Toward a third-generation ethics?Business & Politics, 14(4), 1–24.
13.
CalderónR.RedínD. M.PiñeroR. (2018). Can compliance restart integrity? Towards a harmonized approach. The example of the audit committee. Business Ethics: A European Review, 27, 195–206.
14.
CarleyK. M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 533–558.
15.
ChakrabortyA.GaoL. S.MusaP. (2023). Corporate social responsibility and litigation risk: Evidence from securities class action lawsuits. Accounting & Finance, 63(2), 1785–1819.
16.
CoffR. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119–212.
17.
CoffeeJ. C. (2006). Gatekeepers: The professions and corporate governance. Oxford University Press.
18.
CraftJ. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259.
19.
Dall’AgnolM.KabbachdeCastroL. R.RedínD. (2020, June10). Unpacking the world’s largest corporations’ codes of conduct: Utilitarian, deontological or virtue-based approaches?https://ssrn.com/abstract=4859949
20.
De CremerD.MooreC. (2020). Toward a better understanding of behavioral ethics in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 369–393.
21.
DonaldsonT.PrestonL. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
22.
DonaldsonT.WalshJ. P. (2015). Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181–207.
23.
DooreyD. J. (2018, September13). Rana Plaza, Loblaw, and the disconnect between legal formality and corporate social responsibility. Social Science Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3265826
24.
FairfaxL. M. (2010). The uneasy case for the inside director. Iowa Law Review, 96, 127–193.
25.
FauserD. V.UtzS. (2021). Risk mitigation of corporate social performance in US class action lawsuits. Financial Analysts Journal, 77(2), 43–65.
26.
FeldmanY.KaplanY. (2021). Behavioral ethics as compliance. In Van RooijB.SokolD. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of compliance. Cambridge Law Handbooks (pp. 50–62). Cambridge University Press.
27.
ForsterM.LoughranT.McDonaldB. (2009). Commonality in codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 129–139.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
30.
FreemanR. E. (1994). Ethical theory and business. Prince Hall.
31.
FreemanR. E.HarrisonJ. S.WicksA. C.ParmarB.de ColleS. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
32.
FreemanR. E.HarrisonJ. S.ZyglidopoulosS. (2018). Stakeholder theory: Concepts and strategies. Cambridge University Press.
33.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. A. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Press.
34.
FriedmanM. (1970, September13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times, 122–126.
35.
FryJ. M.FryT. R.McLarenK. R. (2000). Compositional data analysis and zeros in micro data. Applied Economics, 32(8), 953–959.
36.
GentnerD.Goldin-MeadowS. (2003). Language in mind. The MIT Press.
37.
GrinsteinY.RossiS. (2016). Good monitoring, bad monitoring. Review of Finance, 20(5), 1719–1768.
38.
GunninghamN.KaganR. A.ThorntonD. (2004). Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307–341.
39.
HaackP.SchoenebornD. (2015). Is decoupling becoming decoupled from institutional theory? A commentary on Wijen. The Academy of Management Review, 40(2): 307–310. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0344
40.
HarrisonJ. S.BosseD. A.PhillipsR. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.
41.
HeathR. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Routledge.
42.
HockertsK.SearcyC. (2023). How to sharpen our discourse on corporate sustainability and business ethics—A view from the section editors. Journal of Business Ethics, 187, 1–11.
43.
JacksonK. T. (2010). Global corporate governance: Soft law and reputational accountability. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 35, 41–106.
44.
JastramS. M.FoersterlingJ. (2023). Clarifying ends in institutional decoupling theory: Insights from social impact research. Journal of Business Economics, 94: 501–523. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01170-8
45.
JensenM. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European Financial Management, 7(3), 297–317.
46.
JiangR. J.BansalP. (2003). Seeing the need for 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1047–1067.
47.
Johnson-CramerM. E.PhillipsR. A.FadlallahH.BermanS. L.ElmsH. (2022). What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders. Business & Society, 61(5), 1083–1135.
48.
JonesT. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.
49.
JonesT. M.FelpsW. (2013). Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 207–238.
50.
JonesT. M.HarrisonJ. S.FelpsW. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371–391.
51.
JonesT. M.WicksA. C. (1999). Letter to AMR regarding “convergent stakeholder theory.”Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 621–623.
52.
KapteinM. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say?Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 13–31.
53.
KapteinM. (2011). Toward effective codes: Testing the relationship with unethical behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 233–251.
54.
KapteinM. (2023). A paradox of ethics: Why people in good organizations do bad things. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(1), 297–316.
55.
KassinisG.VafeasN. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 399–415.
56.
KerrJ. E. (2008). The creative capitalism spectrum: Evaluating corporate social responsibility through a legal lens. Temple Law Review, 81, 831–870.
57.
KokA. M.de BakkerF. G. A.GroenewegenP. (2019). Sustainability struggles: Conflicting cultures and incompatible logics. Business & Society, 58(8), 1496–1532.
58.
KooM.FishbachA. (2010). Climbing the goal ladder: How upcoming actions increase level of aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 1–13.
59.
KouchakiM.GinoF.FeldmanY. (2019). The ethical perils of personal, communal relations: A language perspective. Psychological Science, 30(12), 1745–1766.
60.
LinnenlueckeM. K.GriffithsA. (2013). Firms and sustainability: Mapping the intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 382–391.
61.
LehnertK.ParkY.SinghN. (2015). Research note and review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2147-2
62.
LitkowskiK. C. (1999, July). Towards a meaning-full comparison of lexical resources [Conference session]. In SIGLEX99: Standardizing Lexical Resources, College Park, MD.
63.
LoeT. W.FerrellL.MansfieldP. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.
64.
MairJ.WolfM. (2021). Hybrid organizations as sites for reimagining organizational governance. In Donnelly-CoxG.MeyerM.WijkströmF.ListR. (Eds.), Research handbook on nonprofit governance (pp. 311–326). Edward Elgar Publishing.
65.
MarcouxA. M. (2003). A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 1–24.
66.
MargolisJ. D.WalshJ. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
67.
McGahanA. M.PongeluppeL. S. (2023). There is no planet B: Aligning stakeholder interests to preserve the Amazon rainforest. Management Science, 69, 7860–7881. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4884
68.
MitchellR. K.WeaverG. R.AgleB. R.BaileyA. D.CarlsonJ. (2016). Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275.
OcasioW. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.
71.
OcasioW.JosephJ. (2005). An attention-based theory of strategy formulation: Linking micro-and macro-perspectives. Advances in Strategic Management, 22(18), 39–61.
72.
OcasioW.LaamanenT.VaaraE. (2018). Communication and attention dynamics: An attention-based view of strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 155–167.
73.
O’FallonM. J.ButterfieldK. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.
74.
OumlilA. B.BallounJ. L. (2017). Cultural variations and ethical business decision making: A study of individualistic and collective cultures. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(7), 889–900.
75.
PacheA. C.BattilanaJ.SpencerC. (2023). An integrative model of hybrid governance: The role of boards in helping sustain organizational hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 67, 437–467. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.0966
76.
PageM.SpiraL. S. (2005). Ethical codes, independence and the conservation of ambiguity. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3), 301–316.
PhillipsR. (2003b). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
79.
ReayT.HiningsC. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
80.
Rosen-ZviI. (2011). You are too soft! What can corporate social responsibility do for climate change?Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 12, 527–566.
81.
SaadA. I.StraussD. (2020). The new “reasonable investor” and changing frontiers of materiality: Increasing investor reliance on ESG disclosures and implications for securities litigation. Berkeley Business Law Journal, 17(2), 391–433.
82.
SavittW.KovvaliA. (2021). On the promise of stakeholder governance: A response to Bebchuk and Tallarita. Cornell Law Review, 106(7), 1881–1895.
83.
SchiehllE.LewellynK.YanW. (2023). A configurational perspective of boards’ attention structures. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 31(5), 676–696.
84.
SchwartzM. S. (2001). The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 247–262.
85.
SchwartzM. S. (2004). Effective corporate codes of ethics: Perceptions of code users. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 321–341.
86.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2003). Summary by the division of corporation finance of significant issues addressed in the review of the periodic reports of the fortune 500 companies. https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/fortune500rep.htm
87.
SharmaS. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697.
88.
SoltesE. (2016). Why they do it: Inside the mind of the white-collar criminal. Public Affairs.
89.
StohlC.StohlM.PopovaL. (2009). A new generation of corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 607–622.
90.
StrineL.RoeM.FischJ.KogutB. (2019). Session IV: The law, corporate governance, and economic justice. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(3), 44–63.
91.
TenbrunselA. E.Smith-CroweK.UmphressE. E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 285–307.
92.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179.
93.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840(2008), 99–128.
94.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford University Press.
95.
ThyssenO. (2009). Business ethics and organizational values: A systems-theoretical analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
96.
TreviñoL. K.YoungbloodS. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385.
97.
ValentineS.GodkinL. (2019). Moral intensity, ethical decision making, and whistle-blowing intention. Journal of Business Research, 98, 277–288.
98.
WeaverG. R. (1993). Corporate codes of ethics: Purpose, process, and content issues. Business & Society, 32(1), 44–58.
99.
WebleyS.WernerA. (2008). Corporate codes of ethics: Necessary but not sufficient. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(4), 405–415.
100.
Westermann-BehayloM.BermanS. L.Van BurenH. J.III. (2014). The influence of institutional logics on corporate responsibility toward employees. Business & Society, 53(5), 714–746.
101.
WicksA. C. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for a reconsideration of business and society research. Business & Society, 35(1), 89–118.
102.
WijenF. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39, 302–323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0218
103.
YoungM. D. (1996). Cognitive mapping meets semantic networks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40, 395–414.
