Changes in the contents of corporate codes of ethics: an institutional interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to examine changes in the contents of Canadian corporate codes of ethics over a period of two decades from an institutionalization perspective. Design/methodology/approach – The paper tracks changes in the contents of the codes of large Canadian corporations longitudinally by analyzing their contents at two points over two decades, in 1992 and 2012. In particular, the paper tests three hypotheses related to the institutionalization of codes. Findings – It was found that the codes have become more prescriptive, they are more concerned with social responsibility and are more likely to identify their moral and legal authority. Overall, the findings support an institutional interpretation of the observed changes. Research limitations/implications – While large corporations are critical in establishing new and innovative management practices, their selection as the study population limits the generalizabilty of the findings. Another limitation of this paper is that it used an a priori determined set of items to analyze the contents of the codes and while this was needed to facilitate the comparison across time, it also meant that some important items were not clearly identified. Originality/value – Codes of ethics are the foundation of ethics programs in corporations and their contents could be critical in the development of a culture of ethics in corporations. This paper makes a valuable contribution to research on business ethics by analyzing the codes of ethics of the largest corporations in Canada at two points over two decades. The need to track changes in corporate codes of ethics over time has been advocated by several researchers, but longitudinal studies in this area are rare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".