The Department of Defence has recently launched its Code of Conduct for uniformed members and simultaneously implemented a similar code for its Public Servants. Col Riaan Louw looks at the concept of ethical codes, of which codes of conduct is one form.

The development of ethical codes as a means to address those woes of society that legislation, rules and regulations cannot fix, is increasingly gaining popularity as a management tool for individuals, groups, organisations and the professions to create or stimulate ethical conduct. The question, however, is whether ethical codes are just a popular fad to create an impression of ethical conduct in such groupings and to develop rules to regulate the behaviour of the members of such groupings, or whether it is a genuine effort to empower those for whom the codes are meant, to confront potential ethical dilemmas.

However, without a clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong, no person and no organisation can expect or force anybody to act ethically. Nor can codes make people moral. According to R.P. George, only people can do that; and they can do it only by freely choosing to do the morally right thing for the right reason. Codes can therefore command outward conformity to moral rules, but cannot compel the internal acts of reason and will, which makes an act of external conformity to the requirements of morality a moral act.

Perceptions differ of exactly what constitutes ethical or unethical behaviour. Judgements regarding what is ethical appear to be rooted in the social context of the times in which they are made, while shifts in judgement seem to follow societal, economic and industry changes, including heightened public awareness of certain issues prevalent at the time, and the dynamics of the ongoing interaction between individuals, groups, professions and organisations. This is further enhanced by the assumption that people are on different levels of ethical understanding which, as a matter of fact, will influence their understanding or acceptance of what is happening to them. Ethical conflicts or ethical dilemmas, therefore, occur when individuals find themselves in situations where they have to choose between morally desirable and morally undesirable courses of action, such as when they perceive that their duties and responsibilities towards one group are inconsistent with their responsibilities toward some other group.

Because there is always more than one outcome to ethical dilemmas, more than one action can yield a desired outcome. Ethics, which is expressed in actions, and which is supposed to transcend any business in any ethical dilemma, allows one to select the effective response that is appropriate. Individuals, however, often appear to be reluctant or incapable of doing this. This may be part of the reality that very few people in the larger society generally are willing to commit themselves by making decisions, especially when they have little understanding of or interest in the specific issue at hand at that moment in time.

The assumption is therefore that the majority of people want to be told what to do and when to do it. This inability or hesitancy to make decisions is often seized by individuals, groups, organisations and institutions, such as the state, to grab the initiative and accept the responsibility to look after the interests of the so-called masses by making decisions on their behalf. This generally results in a variety of rules, regulations and eventually laws which force society in all its facets to think and act the same.

Efforts to prevent or stem outside interference in the way professionals and organisations conduct their business, culminated in the introduction of ethical codes as an instrument in post-modern organisations that can be utilised to instil a common commitment to moral values among employees and which have the noble intention of ensuring professional standards and the protection of clients or consumers apart from the pressures of laws. In this regard, research has shown that appropriate and effective codes can eliminate and greatly minimise the need for pervasive government regulations which may unduly limit freedom and destroy individual initiative and the private enterprise system.

Codes, however, are not sufficiently comprehensive to provide the moral answers to all situations faced by professionals and organisations. The desire that codes should be totally comprehensive, telling the professional or individual as a member of an organisation what to do in all possible circumstances, therefore stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of moral deliberation and a replacement of it by a notion of ethics as adherence to rules. A code, therefore, is of no use if a firm foundation for the understanding and requirement of ethical decision-making does not exist.

It is therefore important to realise that the essence of ethics is independent thinking and questioning, that codes are merely guidelines, that rules have exceptions and, that in times of moral crisis or duress, appeal will be made to values which provide guidelines when rules or codes conflict and which have deeper roots than organisationally imposed ones. In this regard it is important to note that ethical conduct or adherence to values and codes can best be tested in times of adversity, because it is then when the moral fibre of man comes to the fore.

A corporate ethical code, based on a sound and generally accepted value system, therefore tells much about an organisation. Apart from making the statement that it promotes ethical conduct, it also reflects the culture and other aspects of organisational life of an organisation, such as its internal politics, its system of decision-making, its acceptance of its social responsibilities and its methods of control. The purpose of the code and the way in which it is used, are therefore all-important. If it is devised solely to control and to regulate the conduct of those for whom it is meant and to formalise and standardise rules of practice which will apply in all situations, or if it is merely a window-dressing or public relations exercise to mislead stakeholders, to cover up illegal activities or to provide an instrument to management to coerce or silence employees, the point of having a code is somehow missed. This is also the case when the code is a product of group thinking and a paternalistic and authoritarian vehicle for top management to keep employees in line, to centralise power and to institutionalise their views as beyond reproach and therefore above debate.

Instead of being punishment-orientated, ethical codes are supposed to be voluntary, to focus on things as they are right now, to translate formal philosophical theories into sets of guidelines that can be applied in the day to day decision-making, to guide and to strengthen the ethical conduct of those for whom the code is meant, and to commit and to stimulate moral self-understanding, which should limit the use of explicit enforcement mechanisms to enforce the code. A code should furthermore reflect the standards of a profession or organisation, articulate its characteristics and ideals and facilitate a consciousness of and discourse about ethical issues. An ethical code, however, needs to be taken seriously or it will become meaningless or hypocritical, especially because the most important virtues of professionals and organisations, which are a genuine concern for the client and sensitivity to the client’s point of view, balanced by a concern for social justice, cannot be brought about by legislation or even by pseudo-legislation through codes of ethics. In this regard, the philosophical rule applies that when one is forced to be good, the ethical aspect of one’s action is diminished. Codes will therefore be to little avail if the professional person requires the pressures of codes imposed from without to guide him to the good, the true and the beautiful in the fulfilment of his professional commitment. A code should thus rather radiate from within and not merely reflect the dictates of the consensus.

Adherence to a code should furthermore imply a commitment by those for whom the code is meant to implement a standard of fairness to which they can adhere in spite of superior orders or client’s directives. It should also imply a commitment to self-regulation and an acceptance of the fact that non-adherence of the code would be enough for an immediate self-reprimand or jointly agreed-upon form of self-disqualification. The composition and contents of an ethical code, in whatever form it best suits the individual, group, organisation or profession, will therefore depend on the intentions and requirements of this grouping. If the intention is to enhance and guide the ethical conduct and the standards of work or product of those for whom the code is intended, the result should be rewarding.

* Next month: How ethical codes should be developed - Editor.

In the private sector, business organisations and the various professions have implemented their own mechanisms developed to protect both the reputations of the organisations or professions and the interests of their customers. Their contribution includes efforts by religious and social groups to re-establish a firm basis for ethical conduct, determined efforts by business organisations to address corporate failures arising from fraud (such as the King Report on Corporate Governance), the development and updating of ethical codes to regulate corporate conduct, and the restructuring mof ethical boards to also include lay participation in deciding ethical matters.

* Col Louw obtained his M Phil (Applied Ethics) degree cum laude from the University of Stellenbosch in 1998. This article is an extract from his research paper on ethical codes.