Methods to improve the effective implementation of organisational codes of conduct

This research explores methods to improve code of conduct effectiveness. Misconduct is a common phenomenon in the business environment, even in the face of increased regulation, and the adoption of codes of conduct by organisations. This impacts negatively on organisations’ reputations, results in financial loss, and has a negative impact on the sustainability of businesses. While researchers suggest that codes of conduct should reduce misconduct and improve the ethical culture of organisations, mixed research results suggest codes of conduct are not always effective. While research into code of conduct effectiveness proliferates, seldom does such research take a holistic approach to understanding effectiveness of codes of conduct. Models proposed to better research code of conduct effectiveness, such as Kaptein and Schwartz’ (2008) integrated research model, do not present guidelines for better developing and implementing codes of conduct. Therefore the primary research objective was to develop a benchmarking framework which could provide insight into factors that could influence code of conduct effectiveness, and provide guidelines on how these factors should be influenced and accounted for to improve code of conduct effectiveness. Content of codes of conduct can play an important part in code of conduct effectiveness, yet they vary enormously in terms of provisions, language, tone, style, design. Some are directional or rules based, others aspirational, or values based. Bettcher, Deshpandé, Margolis and Paine (2005) developed the Global Business Standards Codex that depicted the most commonly found provisions in organisations they surveyed. A secondary research objective was therefore to apply this codex to the evaluation of participating organisations codes of conduct, and in so doing, evaluate the suitability of the codex as a benchmarking framework for the content of the code of conduct. Adopting a grounded theory methodological approach and code of conduct content analysis, the researcher investigated nine of South Africa’s largest multinational organisations in order to understand the factors influencing their code of conduct effectiveness better. The research makes a significant contribution to the understanding of codes of conduct, their effectiveness, and provides practical guidelines on improving their effectiveness. This is achieved by 1) presenting nine formulae for an effective code of conduct; 2) detailing a multi-dimensional model that can facilitate the effectiveness of codes of conduct; and 3) improving the codex developed by Bettcher et al. (2005) on the content of codes of conduct with the proposed code of conduct architecture criterion

Proceedings of the 11th Toulon-Verona International Conference on Quality in Services

The Toulon-Verona Conference was founded in 1998 by prof. Claudio Baccarani of the University of Verona, Italy, and prof. Michel Weill of the University of Toulon, France. It has been organized each year in a different place in Europe in cooperation with a host university (Toulon 1998, Verona 1999, Derby 2000, Mons 2001, Lisbon 2002, Oviedo 2003, Toulon 2004, Palermo 2005, Paisley 2006, Thessaloniki 2007, Florence, 2008). Originally focusing on higher education institutions, the research themes have over the years been extended to the health sector, local government, tourism, logistics, banking services. Around a hundred delegates from about twenty different countries participate each year and nearly one thousand research papers have been published over the last ten years, making of the conference one of the major events in the field of quality in services

Proceedings of the inaugural construction management and economics ‘Past, Present and Future’ conference CME25, 16-18 July 2007, University of Reading, UK

This conference was an unusual and interesting event. Celebrating 25 years of Construction Management and Economics provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the research that has been reported over the years, to consider where we are now, and to think about the future of academic research in this area. Hence the sub-title of this conference: “past, present and future”. Looking through these papers, some things are clear. First, the range of topics considered interesting has expanded hugely since the journal was first published. Second, the research methods are also more diverse. Third, the involvement of wider groups of stakeholder is evident. There is a danger that this might lead to dilution of the field. But my instinct has always been to argue against the notion that Construction Management and Economics represents a discipline, as such. Granted, there are plenty of university departments around the world that would justify the idea of a discipline. But the vast majority of academic departments who contribute to the life of this journal carry different names to this. Indeed, the range and breadth of methodological approaches to the research reported in Construction Management and Economics indicates that there are several different academic disciplines being brought to bear on the construction sector. Some papers are based on economics, some on psychology and others on operational research, sociology, law, statistics, information technology, and so on. This is why I maintain that construction management is not an academic discipline, but a field of study to which a range of academic disciplines are applied. This may be why it is so interesting to be involved in this journal. The problems to which the papers are applied develop and grow. But the broad topics of the earliest papers in the journal are still relevant today. What has changed a lot is our interpretation of the problems that confront the construction sector all over the world, and the methodological approaches to resolving them. There is a constant difficulty in dealing with topics as inherently practical as these. While the demands of the academic world are driven by the need for the rigorous application of sound methods, the demands of the practical world are quite different. It can be difficult to meet the needs of both sets of stakeholders at the same time. However, increasing numbers of postgraduate courses in our area result in larger numbers of practitioners with a deeper appreciation of what research is all about, and how to interpret and apply the lessons from research. It also seems that there are contributions coming not just from construction-related university departments, but also from departments with identifiable methodological traditions of their own. I like to think that our authors can publish in journals beyond the construction-related areas, to disseminate their theoretical insights into other disciplines, and to contribute to the strength of this journal by citing our articles in more mono-disciplinary journals. This would contribute to the future of the journal in a very strong and developmental way. The greatest danger we face is in excessive self-citation, i.e. referring only to sources within the CM&E literature or, worse, referring only to other articles in the same journal. The only way to ensure a strong and influential position for journals and university departments like ours is to be sure that our work is informing other academic disciplines. This is what I would see as the future, our logical next step. If, as a community of researchers, we are not producing papers that challenge and inform the fundamentals of research methods and analytical processes, then no matter how practically relevant our output is to the industry, it will remain derivative and secondary, based on the methodological insights of others. The balancing act between methodological rigour and practical relevance is a difficult one, but not, of course, a balance that has to be struck in every single paper