Code of Ethics in the Context of Possible Misuse and Content

Introduction

Currently, it can be stated that codes of ethics have gained unprecedented popularity within the organizational culture of individual companies. Today, codes of ethics can be observed in many organizations, industries, and also in trade unions. This is due to the well-known division of ethical codes. We can categorize them according to the degree of sanctions as well as the extent of their coverage. The second criterion refers to the wide dissemination of ethical codes in various types of business, in various associations and industry organizations, as well as in various professions and semi-professions. Thus, codes of ethics can be found both in very small enterprises and in medium and large enterprises. Various codes of ethics can be found in the form of codes of professions, organizations, and the like. We can say that, especially in the last twenty years, the prevalence of ethical codes has increased dramatically. Codes of ethics have also appeared in socialist countries, which was unthinkable until recently, because they were to be replaced by conscious communist morality. Their aim should be to raise ethical awareness and improve ethical behavior in the workplace. Ultimately, this should also have a positive impact on the efficiency and productivity of the organization.

„The utility/profit-maximizing mantra is at the center of the current ethical dilemmas facing business and accountin“ (Keller, 2007, p. 162).

Theoretical Study of the Issue

It is interesting how codes of ethics have multiplied in this way in economic entities. We must think about the meaning, purpose and legitimacy of ethical codes. To do this, we must first analyze the different types of codes of ethics. The first possible division is the division into ethical codes depending on who they are intended for. From this point of view, it is possible to single out, first of all, professional codes of ethics. These are codes that are designed for certain professions and semiprofessions. An example is the teacher's code of ethics, which is a semi-professional code. An example of a code of professional ethics could be the code of a policeman, lawyer, judge, etc. Such a code is characterized by the fact that it is the densest expression of the recommended ethical principles in a positive and negative sense, which act as a certain guideline in the ethical dimension of the profession. From the same point of view of the division of ethical codes, we single out sectoral codes of ethics. These are codes that are for a specific industry, such as franchising. “An example is the Code of Ethics in the insurance industry, which is aimed at the maximum elimination of negative elements not only in the relationship of insurance business entities operating in the insurance market, but especially in the relationship of these entities with the client” (Zemanovičová et al., 2003, p. 45). Another example would be the code of ethics for the life sciences. (Jones, 2007). Finally, there are corporate codes of ethics. They are indeed widespread in micro, small, medium and large enterprises. The Code of Corporate Ethics has a limited effect, since it is applied exclusively in one economic entity, in one organization.

There is another division of ethical codes, depending on what impact they have. From this point of view, the softest code is the desired code. Its task is to show an imaginary ideal state, that is, the desired model or status quo in the workplace. This type of code does not prescribe any specific standards; it is just a blueprint. It has no specific rules and ultimately does not prescribe sanctions. The code of conduct is completely different. It has very specific requirements, which are enshrined in specific rules. “Punishment avoidance explains the origin of ethics or self-regulation in most trades and professions” (Leys, 1961, p. 6). The specification of behaviors comes down to consistent standards that are relatively detailed. In addition, sanctions are often applied. “The threat of sanctions for non-compliance can give professionals a strong reason to comply with the code” (Spielthenner, 2015, p. 199). Another type is the educational code. This type of code also includes an explanatory component that deals with the meaning of the code. This means that the code has an educational and interpretive function.

I am trying to find answers to questions about how a code of ethics can be not only meaningless, but also harmful in some cases. This may also be related to another issue, to what extent the existence of codes of ethics makes sense, or in what cases, under what conditions, codes of ethics are necessary. A very interesting insight into discourse and ethical codes comes from Spieltenner, who talks about the obvious reasons for following ethical codes and the real reasons for following them (Spielthenner, 2015).

Codes of corporate ethics are assigned to a specific organization; therefore, it is difficult to transfer them to another organization. The specificity of the organization is associated with a fundamentally different organizational culture. Thus, corporate codes of ethics are specific to a particular organization. They must be clearly defined within the company so that they can be presented to employees and meet with acceptance and understanding. In the case of larger enterprises, they are prepared with a large sample of workers' representatives. In this case, training can be carried out mainly in two ways: with and without the participation of external experts. In any case, a company's code of ethics should not be developed solely by external experts, since they simply do not know the basic situation in the company. The participation of internal employees is also required or, in the case of a medium or large company, the participation of a significant sample of representatives of these employees. I think there are two possible errors here. The first is that if the code of corporate ethics is developed only by external experts, they do not see the specifics of the organization and develop a code of corporate ethics at a high professional level, but without knowledge of the organizational culture. The second mistake occurs if the corporate code of ethics is developed without ethics experts: it lacks the necessary professional quality. I consider it optimal to coordinate the development of such a code with the involvement of employees of the organization or their representatives, together with ethics experts.

So how do we institutionalize codes of ethics? I believe that it is not necessary to have detailed knowledge of philosophical ethics in order to create corporate codes of ethics. Such knowledge is necessary if I plan to engage in applied ethics at the scientific level. A code of corporate ethics can be created even without knowledge of philosophical ethics and metaethics. Knowledge of applied ethics will be more than enough. What applies to corporate codes of ethics may not apply to industry and professional codes of ethics. Of course, the existence of ethical codes does not guarantee either the practice of ethical behavior or the absence of ethical excesses. Ethical violations occur for two reasons. In the first case, they occur on the basis of inaccurate knowledge or ignorance of ethical standards. The other reason is situational pressure. One of the factors is the non-intervention of managers in the event of a serious violation of ethical principles. Another factor may be the company's weak organizational culture. Most often, this is an action motivated by the prospect of personal gain. Potentially negative factors should be eliminated by the organizational culture of the company.

The actual effectiveness of a code of ethics also depends on several factors. The effectiveness of a code of ethics is primarily ensured by the following three conditions: 1.) it must be precisely defined, with a clearly defined sanction for a specific action; 2.) the code must be clear and comprehensive so that it is impossible to classify ethically significant behavior as not subject to the code; and finally, 3.) it should be written in a way that is clear and understandable. The target group of any code of ethics is not a professionally trained ethicist, but an ordinary employee of the organization. The regulatory code should clarify the penalties for unethical behavior. There are several good reasons for this: a) the code must be clearly explained and should not contain ambiguities or the possibility of different interpretations; b) it should have a wide range of tools to determine the size of the sanction; and c) the code should be truly effective.

The purpose of a code of ethics should be solely an effort to improve the organizational culture from an ethical standpoint. Any other target is not allowed. The Code of Ethics is better accepted in practice under certain conditions. It is acceptance by the level of management more familiar to the organization or organized component. This means that in decentralized organizations, this should be provided by the lower and middle levels of management. In centralized organizations, a higher level of acceptance is guaranteed by the authorization of higher management. The involvement of the management of the organization, as well as representatives of employees, significantly increases the effectiveness of the code. An important condition for the adoption of an ethical code is also the need for its regular revision. The immutability of the code of ethics for a relatively long time, as well as the exclusion of employee representatives from its creation and modification, significantly reduces its acceptability and effectiveness. Some authors say that codes of ethics are specific to specific groups and should be adapted. „For women, a negatively written code works much better than a positively written one“ (Kotzian et al., 2020, p. 125).

Unethical behavior constantly threatens the integrity of the organization itself. It is also a threat to its relationships with other stakeholders. Corruption is a particularly serious ethical issue in organizations. “In terms of the breadth of activities that this definition of corruption includes, at one end of the spectrum is the definition of corruption defined by law, i.e. corruption in the opinion of the public. We are talking about a narrower and broader understanding of corruption” (Beblavý, 2007, p. 699). Corruption impoverishes not only the organization, but ultimately the state. Unethical behavior is a constant threat to an organization. That's why it is beneficial to institutionalize ethics. In fact, this involves the prevention of unethical behavior and the elimination of its consequences. Property protection is also a priority. „A clear cut code of ethics must be practiced in such a way that employee theft can be deterred“ (Gallena, 2016, p. 91). The concept of the institutionalization of ethics can be understood relatively broadly in business ethics. It is possible to single out modern and traditional tools of business and management ethics. The ethical codes we address can be classified as traditional tools.

If the ethical principles that we seek to apply in an organization conflict with practice, then we are likely dealing with a failure to comply with the stated principles. If a code of ethics has already been prepared, it is necessary to propose a strategy for its implementation in the organization. First of all, the management of the company must identify with it. Employees of the organization should receive the text of the code of ethics, written in understandable language. Employees of the company should be able to respond to the code, as well as update it. Above all, managers must be able to innovate and add to the code of ethics. Therefore, they must confirm that it is understood. The management of the organization must decide whether the code of ethics will be of a regulatory nature. This varies depending on the direction, problems, and long-term organizational culture of the company.

The worst possible situation is a violation of the code of ethics by one person, especially if he does not have proper ethical education. Combined with various ulterior motives that are not truly ethical in intent, strange elements of content can sometimes make their way into the code. It is dangerous if these points get into the code of ethics through some pleonectic person who is not only the author or initiator of the code of ethics, but can also apply sanctions in the normative code for the points that he implements in it. If these were standard ethical imperatives, this would not create any problems. The problem is that the ideas contained in the code and their origin or purpose are unethical. Usually, the originator pursues some hidden motive. These can vary considerably, and they can sometimes cause serious problems (Ryziński, 2021).

The octroi of a corporate code of ethics may pose an increased risk if it is a governing corporate code of ethics. Then it can truly result in an arbitrary implementation of content, the essence of which is other than ethical. Many situations can arise that in some cases have bizarre consequences.

Fabricated Examples of Inappropriate Implementation in the Code of Ethics

The first example can be drawn from scientific institutions. Imagine an ordinary scientific institution with interesting scientific results. At a certain point, a code of ethics is adopted that prohibits its employees from publishing in one group of scientific journals. Here, a brief detour is necessary. Scientific journals are mainly divided into two groups. The first is one that basically does not charge royalties to authors. Its source of income is mainly fees for physical prints or paid electronic access. Notably, it does not charge for publication. Another group of scientific journals charges them. In our fictitious example, the code of ethics would be implemented with a command that directs authors to publish only in free scientific journals. In other words, publishing in a paid journal is forbidden. This violates the right to publish in any journal of the author's choice.

Another example would be an unreasonable ban on employment in another company in a similar industry, where the law permits it. This prohibition can apply to both full-time and part-time employment. It does not matter whether the worker is physically doing two (or even more) jobs or not. An appeal to any ethical consideration in this case is completely inappropriate. The real reason may be quite different, but we assume that the person who introduces this clause into the code of ethics may try to clothe the justification in an ethical lexicon. However, the real reason may be different. Other organizations operating in the same or closely related sector may be viewed by the person concerned as competing or even hostile. This may be the real reason. Instead, this person may create an indirect justification disguised as an ethical one. However, the reality is different, and the real reason is a negative attitude towards other organizations working in the same field. If we continue to speculate, we can come up with another possible reason for this step. Let us imagine a situation where the initiator of the implementation of this clause in the code of ethics tried to establish parallel employment relationships in the past, but for certain reasons was not successful. This may be the root of his interest in the ban, as he will not allow others to do so either. Dressing this directive in ethical terms can occur by declaring such activities to be a conflict of interest. At the same time, the inadequacy of this prohibition is obvious, since there is clearly no conflict of interest. It is a matter of compensating for one's own disappointment at having failed at a previous job interview, where there was no contract that would allow the person to have a parallel employment relationship. The stumbling block is the translation of the order into a normative code. In this case, this is direct discrimination against employees through the code of ethics. Pressure from the leader to comply with this clause can even be seen as a form of command. It is especially troubling if a violation of this clause, which has no real basis in ethical imperatives, values, or habitual patterns of behavior, leads to serious forms of sanctions, and in extreme cases, to dismissal from the organization. In this case, this would be a prime example of the harmful use of a code of ethics in practice.

The third illustrative example can be found in the sphere of security services. Imagine a security service working in a hypermarket or a large department store. This is a company with high employee turnover. This company's code of ethics is, of course, corporate and regulatory. The management of the company simply determines the final form of the regulatory code. It contains both desirable and undesirable employee behavior. In the case of negative behavior patterns, the company's management introduces one specific point. This point is sanctioned by a fine. A feature of the business is the tasting of sample products offered to customers by hostesses. These hostesses offer samples to security staff as well. If a security officer cannot resist such a temptation and tries them, then in the case of detection, he is punished with a fine. In essence, it is a sanction for an ethically irrelevant and factually innocent activity. While this is a limited part of the code of ethics, we consider it a harmful and counterproductive part of the code of ethics. Indeed, this paragraph contains a norm, the essence of which goes beyond the scope of ethics.

Discussion

It is not in all cases where, in our opinion, a code of ethics does not make sense that this is due to harmful content caused by the forcible intervention of an influential party. In some cases, we believe that a corporate code of ethics simply serves no purpose in a given organization. There may be several reasons for this. The main reason may be that it is a micro-enterprise with up to 10 employees. There is not the slightest point in introducing any corporate code in such a company, because any competent leader should be able to manage such a small group of employees. We consider this tool for the implementation of ethics redundant in this case. We consider it meaningless. We can certainly find many similar examples. For example, it could be an office with the aforementioned number of employees, a small school, etc. Such a tool can in no way speed up decision-making processes in such a small company.

Sometimes a corporate code of ethics can be introduced as a specific way to show interest in ethics within a company. In this case, the code of ethics does not change actual behavior in the organization, and its creation is merely a matter of showing support for ethics. In this case, the code is intended only for image, in the sense of supporting the corporate identity. Ultimately, its purpose is to enhance PR, so it is completely useless in terms of improving workplace ethics. It is also possible to show stakeholders that ethics is important in an organization using tools other than the self-serving introduction of a corporate code of ethics. This tool is really not needed to create a public image. If this is the case in the organization, we believe that such a corporate code of ethics is unnecessary. „A code in isolation is only a veneer for being ethical and in essence is misleading to all that come in contact with the company that purports to possess one“ (Wood and Rimmer, 2003, p. 192).

We have presented selected situations in which a code of ethics may be considered unnecessary, as well as situations where a corporate code of ethics has even been introduced that is partially or completely harmful. A harmful code of ethics introduces unethical standards of behavior that we cannot justify with any ethical theories or values. Basically, it is a fixed notion that someone in the leadership of an organization can pursue goals other than ethical ones. In particularly serious cases, it may even be a covert form of command or chairmanship. There may be unknown, suspicious reasons for introducing very subjective norms of behavior into a corporate code of ethics. Most likely, such a subjective opinion was not discussed in the code of ethics, nor was it discussed with representatives of employers or with a team of employees. Even an author of the code with an ethical education would not have approved it if he himself were not a member of the company's management and did not pursue some selfish motives. It can be very difficult for the employees of an organization to accept a non-negotiable corporate code of ethics. If the corporate code of ethics, which is normative despite this inconsistency, is approved by the company's management (often only the top manager), then this is a hackneyed code of ethics. A code of ethics introduced in this way can very easily become a source of latent conflicts. Attempts to implement a code of conduct from a management position against the will of employees are usually accompanied by tension, which can lead to labor conflicts. Enforcement of a corporate code of ethics can be considered a form of command. It can also be a covert measure by which the leadership of the organization wants to help keep itself in leadership positions. In that case, it could be the chairmanship.

Conclusion

We have presented selected situations in which a code of ethics may be considered unnecessary, as well as situations where a corporate code of ethics has even been introduced that is partially or completely harmful. A harmful code of ethics introduces unethical standards of behavior that we cannot justify with any ethical theories or values. Basically, it is a fixed notion that someone in the leadership of an organization can pursue goals other than ethical ones. In particularly serious cases, it may even be a covert form of command or chairmanship. There may be unknown, suspicious reasons for introducing very subjective norms of behavior into a corporate code of ethics. Most likely, such a subjective opinion was not discussed in the code of ethics, nor was it discussed with representatives of employers or with a team of employees. Even an author of the code with an ethical education would not have approved it if he himself were not a member of the company's management and did not pursue some selfish motives. It can be very difficult for the employees of an organization to accept a non-negotiable corporate code of ethics. If the corporate code of ethics, which is normative despite this inconsistency, is approved by the company's management (often only the top manager), then this is a hackneyed code of ethics. A code of ethics introduced in this way can very easily become a source of latent conflicts. Attempts to implement a code of conduct from a management position against the will of employees are usually accompanied by tension, which can lead to labor conflicts. Enforcement of a corporate code of ethics can be considered a form of command. It can also be a covert measure by which the leadership of the organization wants to help keep itself in leadership positions. In that case, it could be the chairmanship.

Acklowedgement

This paper was supported by the grant IG-KSV-03/2022-12-33/IP, "The application level of applying an interdisciplinary approach in the investigation of current phenomena in selected areas of research".

References