PhDr. Mgr. Dávid Dömény, MBA, Executive DBA student at CEMI
This paper focuses on the application of ethical standards in managerial practices within private security companies in the Czech Republic. Ethics is defined as a branch of moral philosophy concerned with evaluating what is morally right or wrong. The historical development of philosophy shows how philosophers have sought to understand and explain ethical principles in various problem situations. Ethics examines fundamental questions regarding practical decision-making and establishes criteria for evaluating human actions. Its relevance extends to police practice, where ethical principles play a crucial role. The concepts of ethics and morality are closely related, with ethics increasingly used in contexts where morality was previously referenced. Traditionally, ethics was understood as the study of morality, but today its meaning has broadened. Although ethics is part of philosophy, it also intersects with other disciplines such as anthropology, biology, economics, history, politics, sociology, and theology. Despite its multidisciplinary character, ethics differs from other fields because it focuses on normative theories and their application to moral problems. This paper provides a comprehensive view of ethics in the context of managerial activities and its significance in the contemporary professional environment.
Introduction
The topic of this paper is the application of ethical standards in managerial activities within private security companies in the Czech Republic. In philosophical literature, ethics is regarded as a branch of moral philosophy that deals with what is morally good or bad and what is morally right or wrong. The term is also used to denote any system or theory of moral values or principles. (Kol. authors, 2021) Philosophers throughout history have attempted to understand and explain different problem situations with regard to ethical principles. Ethics addresses various questions at all levels, focusing on fundamental issues of practical decision-making, including the nature of ultimate value and the criteria by which human actions can be judged as right or wrong. Ethics is also relevant in relation to policing and ethical principles in practice. (Kol. authors, 2020)
Main body
The concepts of ethics and morality are closely interconnected. Today, discussions about ethical judgments or principles are common, where previously moral judgments would have been referenced. These applications represent an expansion of the meaning of ethics. Earlier usage of the term did not apply to morality per se but to the study or field concerned with morality. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy. While always considered a branch of philosophy, ethics’ practical nature connects it with multiple other fields, including anthropology, biology, economics, history, politics, sociology, and theology. Yet ethics remains distinct from these fields because it is not concerned with factual knowledge like the natural sciences but rather with defining normative theories and applying these principles to practical moral problems. (Sobotka, 2015)
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is defined as “strategies and actions that can be considered in the best interests of society in general and the environment” (Thompson, 2001). Other definitions refer to business processes that provide win/win scenarios for all stakeholders involved (Lussier, 2005). McWilliams et al. (2006) argue that no universal consensus exists on defining CSR, rendering it a “contested concept” (Moon et al., 2005). Historically, Carroll (1979) defined CSR as including behaviors that are economically profitable, law-abiding, ethical, and philanthropic. Overall, these definitions suggest that CSR involves activities a company undertakes in relation to the needs of its various stakeholders. This approach contrasts with Milton Friedman (1970), who asserted that a company’s sole social responsibility is to increase profit. Lockett et al. (2006), after a decade-long literature review on CSR, concluded that CSR knowledge is constantly evolving, and while the field is well-established, it lacks a definitive theoretical framework.
An instrument reflecting ethical business behavior and CSR is the “code of ethics.” Many definitions exist regarding what a code of ethics entails, but Kaptein and Schwartz (2001) provide a widely accepted definition: “a written, explicit, and formal document composed of moral norms guiding employee or corporate behavior.” No single overarching definition exists regarding its purpose, content, development, implementation, or impact (Stevens, 2008; Messikomer & Cirka, 2010). However, most authors agree that a code of ethics should be formal and written (Schwartz, 2001; Pater & Gils, 2003). Codes are usually value-driven, consisting of morally oriented principles that guide employees and organizations to act ethically.
Fischer and Lovell (2009) identified distinctions between behavioral codes and ethical codes. They state that behavioral codes typically provide guidelines regarding conduct. Consequently, behavioral codes are likely to have a normative character concerning specific aspects of employee behavior. In contrast, ethical codes generally have a “broader” significance and encourage employees to demonstrate particular traits such as loyalty, honesty, objectivity, integrity, and fairness. This perspective is supported by Weaver (2001), who asserts that ethical codes are moral guidelines issued by management. The study by Farrell and Cobbin (1996), cited in Fischer and Lovell (2009), addresses the differences between behavioral codes and ethical codes. They concluded that studies of behavioral codes revealed a much higher level of prescription, averaging 31 rules, compared to an average of 17 rules in ethical codes (Fischer and Lovell, 2009). Although such distinctions and varying terminology exist, in literature and organizations, these terms are often used interchangeably (see Chapter 2.0 – Literature Review). For the purposes of this research, the terminology “ethical codes of conduct” and, in some cases, its shortened form “codes of conduct” will be used.
Messikomer and Cirka (2010) argue that the process of developing ethical codes remains underdeveloped, unlike numerous empirical studies that examine their content and effectiveness. Kaptein and Schwartz (2008) support this argument, concluding that research on the development process of ethical codes is lacking. According to Vrielink and van Montfort (2009), one of the topics receiving significant research attention concerns the content of ethical codes, with empirical studies primarily producing lists or content analyses of existing codes. The second area of focus is effectiveness, which examines the impact of ethical codes on employee, organizational, or professional behavior. According to Stevens (1994), in the mid-1990s, most studies of ethical codes suffered from a lack of information regarding how the codes were communicated within organizations and whether they were effective. Helin and Sandstrom (2007) indicated that this knowledge gap in the literature on ethical codes persists. Today, most studies focus on code content, often without explicit use of theory, while equal or greater attention is paid to the behavioral effects of codes of conduct (Vrielink and van Montfort, 2009).
Although a substantial amount of literature exists regarding codes of conduct (Schwartz, 2001; Kaptein, 2004; Stevens, 2008; Webley and Werner, 2008; Preuss, 2009), most research originates from the USA. Schlegelmilch (1989) highlights cultural differences, suggesting that British companies perceive codes of conduct as another form of “Americanization.” This is related to the fact that European countries often regard codes of conduct as too general to be beneficial. Weaver (2001) supports this idea, asserting that “Americans tend to codify social relationships within organizations, whereas other cultures lean toward more implicit forms of management.” Similarly, Enderle (1996) and LaCross and Bernardi (2006) argue that the USA addresses micro-level issues more thoroughly compared to European legislation, which primarily focuses on macro-level concerns.
LaCross and Bernardi (2006) examined the adoption of ethical codes of conduct both internationally and specifically in the USA, concluding that the increase in the implementation of ethical codes and subsequent research studies was primarily influenced by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Through a longitudinal study, they argued that while American companies increased their use of codes, the adoption rate in Europe actually declined in the early 2000s. It can be stated that historical evidence shows that companies in other countries lagged behind U.S. companies in formalizing ethical practices (Schlegelmilch, 1989). According to Sirgy et al. (2006), research analyzing ethical codes of conduct focused on specific industries. Examples include publishing (Borkowski and Welsh, 2000), education (Sirgy et al., 2006), accounting (Preston et al., 1995), professional sales (Valentine and Barnett, 2002), and consulting (Pater and Van Gils, 2003). However, as noted above, most studies did not focus on specific industries but rather selected general multinational organizations. These studies are often conducted using companies from the FTSE 100 or “Most Admired” lists as subjects, regardless of their specific nature or sector.
Few studies, however, have compared organizations across different sectors. In summary, the literature and research on ethical codes of conduct focus on larger organizations, with limited research related to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Current research on ethical codes of conduct focuses more on content and effectiveness in multinational enterprises in the USA. Earlier studies, therefore, overlooked the importance of SMEs and their role in the economy and local communities (Demuijnck and Hgnodjom, 2013). An emerging line of inquiry examines the mechanisms organizations can adopt to ensure ethical code implementation (Vrielink and van Montfort, 2009). The main contribution of this research is, therefore, the evaluation of how SMEs engage in adhering to ethical codes in the United Kingdom.
According to Santos (2011), research on SME engagement in CSR and ethical codes is, at best, incomplete, highlighting the need for further study in this area, especially considering new ethical and legal challenges as well as technical and technological innovations. Early CSR research assumed that large companies were the norm for this area of activity (Jenkins, 2004). Another assumption was that SMEs are “small big companies” that can adopt the policies of large firms on a smaller scale (Tilley, 2000). It can be argued that SME engagement in CSR is more significant than that of multinational corporations (MNCs), because although SMEs generally do not attract national media attention like MNCs, they constitute approximately 99% of all enterprises (Spence and Rutherford, 2020). In general, CSR is a concept distinct from ethical rules when applied to SMEs due to internal differences between large companies and SMEs (Russo and Perrini, 2010).
Cultural differences between large and small enterprises affect their operational and business approaches (Gibb, 2000). CSR has traditionally been associated with large companies; however, there is growing recognition of the increasing importance of CSR in SMEs (Fuller, 2003). Thompson and Smith (1991) indicate that comparing business ethics between SMEs and MNCs reveals significant differences, suggesting that small businesses lack sufficient resources. They also acknowledge that research methodologies developed for large firms are not easily adaptable to small firms and that SMEs have a much lower public profile than their larger counterparts. The key difference in CSR activities between SMEs and MNCs lies in the scope of implementation. Jenkins (2006) studied twenty-five SMEs and concluded that SMEs should focus less on specific policies, procedures, and external factors and more on internal aspects. Some businesses consider themselves socially responsible merely by supporting the local community, generating local wealth, and providing local jobs (Jenkins, 2006). In the Czech corporate environment, such approaches are not yet common, and the same applies to the private security sector.
The need for further research on the relationship between SMEs and CSR/EBP stems from the assumption that theories developed for large companies cannot be applied to SMEs (Tilley, 2000). The “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work due to fundamental differences between SMEs and MNCs. Compared to MNCs, SMEs are more likely to fail, experience slow growth, face financial constraints, lack human resources, and be unable to adapt to pressures such as environmental demands (Hillary, 2000). SMEs are characterized by specific traits, including more direct connections within their local community. Vyakarnam et al. (1997) argue that SMEs benefit from being recognized as an integral part of the community in which they operate and must enhance and maintain their reputation. Paradoxically, SMEs traditionally do not implement CSR initiatives, even though they possess key traits such as trust, informal relationship building, and openness (MacGregor and Fontrodona, 2011).
SMEs, therefore, need to leverage these traits to improve their CSR in the future (Russo and Perrini, 2010). SMEs exhibit higher levels of employee engagement across the company (Jenkins, 2004). This is due to their “flat” organizational structure and smaller scale, allowing communication and decision-making to occur quickly and strategic changes to be rapidly implemented (Russo and Perrini, 2010), a major difference from formalized MNCs. Another characteristic of SMEs regarding CSR is their ability to adapt quickly and exploit new opportunities and innovations. SMEs can also target new market niches for products and services incorporating social and environmental elements (Goffee and Scase, 1995). Jenkins (2004; 2006) argues that SMEs are generally perceived as informal, non-bureaucratic, ambiguous, and spontaneous compared to their larger counterparts.
There is a school of thought suggesting that responsible business practices prevail in small organizations. However, these practices are not easily identifiable due to the difficulty of linking business ethics theory with SME practices and the methods typically used in larger firms (Jenkins, 2004; Moore, Spence, 2004). Russo and Tencati (2009) argue that SMEs increasingly shift away from comparing CSR management activities with larger organizations. Some researchers believe theoretical models relating large firms and CSR are inadequate for explaining SME CSR engagement (Russo and Tencati, 2009). Spence (1999) developed a framework for studying SMEs and responsible business practices, dividing research into three levels: macro, meso, and micro. The macro level addresses responsible business practices in SMEs and their impact on competitiveness, sustainable growth, innovation, and skill development (Moore and Spence, 2006).
Meso-level issues concern responsible business practices, such as fostering stakeholder, customer, community, and supply chain relationships. Finally, the micro-level includes issues related to the entrepreneur, management style, and daily treatment of employees (Spence, 1999). This framework is suitable for analyzing SME contexts, highlighting the need to consider all three levels and areas concerning SME ethical business. Overall, due to distinct characteristics, SMEs and larger companies should be treated as separate entities in relation to CSR and EBP (Post et al., 2002; Russo and Perrini, 2010). SMEs have their own traits shaping their CSR engagement. Key differences indicate that SMEs are small (in terms of employees and assets), independent, internally financed, cash-constrained, flexible, innovative, local, and quick to seize new opportunities (Post et al., 2002).
According to Banerjee (2002), SME owner-managers typically define CSR according to their personal values and norms, directly influencing strategic decisions in their firms. Tilley (1999) states that a direct link exists between SME owner-managers and corporate environmental behavior. Previous studies show that regardless of owner-manager values, SMEs struggle to translate CSR rhetoric into practice (Roxas and Coetzer, 2012). SMEs often reflect the owner-manager’s personal style, confirmed by Spence and Lozano (2000), noting SMEs’ lack of formal structures and management procedures. A core feature of SMEs is the level of control held by owner-managers, where ownership and control reside in the same person (Jenkins, 2006).
Jenkins (2006) further asserts that top management engagement is crucial for CSR success. Soppe (2002) argues that owner-managers act according to personal moral responsibility, voluntarily personalizing the firm-society relationship (Russo and Tencati, 2009). Crane and Matten (2007) note that owner-managers develop distinct ways of thinking and evaluating business ethics due to strong local community ties. However, prior research shows owner-managers often lack knowledge or skills for business ethics management and are skeptical of external support (Spence et al., 2012). Jenkins (2006), studying twenty-four SMEs, found that “CSR” is poorly understood and rarely used. The study concluded the term is considered “jargon” and not applicable to SMEs (Jenkins, 2006).
Similarly, some researchers argue the term “CSR” is unsuitable for SMEs, seen as a large company response to societal pressures, introducing more formalities and bureaucracy than needed (Jenkins, 2004, 2006; Murillo and Lozano, 2006). It is generally accepted that CSR is not an ideal term for SME engagement in social issues. Terms like CSR and corporate codes of conduct are not particularly appropriate in the SME context (Moore and Spence, 2006). The word “Corporate” in CSR conveys a large-scale business image (Southwell, 2004). Demuijnck and Hgnodjom (2013:654) argue this term is “somewhat extreme” to be useful for SMEs. Instead, “responsible business behavior” (Ortiz Avram and Kuhne, 2008) or “responsible business practice” (Southwell, 2004) better describes SME engagement. Similarly, Demuijnck and Hgnodjom (2013) note SME entrepreneurs avoid standard terminology like business ethics or CSR when explaining responsibility.
They argue that terms like “corporate” and “social” are less relevant for SMEs. Jenkins (2006) notes some SMEs are uncomfortable promoting CSR externally and prefer to keep it internal; many claim it is a “big company issue.” Literature shows many SMEs are socially conscious without labeling it CSR. Jenkins (2006) states SMEs act socially at a level appropriate to their size and scope, but this is not equivalent to CSR. Perrini et al. (2006) note many SMEs engage in CSR but do not promote it, termed “hidden CSR” or, as Jenkins (2004) calls it, “silent CSR.” According to Fassin (2008), SMEs perceive few external resources or support for CSR, believing assistance is aimed at MNCs. Formal CSR tools require proportionally greater time, financial, and energy investment from SMEs, reducing participation (Spence et al., 2000).
Evaluation
Over the past decade, various externally-led CSR initiatives emerged, including chambers of commerce, professional associations, and consultants (Demuijnck and Hgnodjom, 2013). This led many SMEs to avoid programs, resulting in limited “buy-in” (Fassin, 2008; Painter-Morland and Dobie, 2008). SME engagement in CSR is expected to expand in the future. The European Commission (EC) believes socially conscious SMEs in Europe could become world leaders (CEC, 2006). Fisher et al. (2009) support this, suggesting CSR in SMEs is widespread but differs in meaning and form from larger firms.
SMEs face potential CSR barriers, as smaller organizations have limited capacity to address issues managed by larger companies (Fay, 2000). SMEs often focus on short-term survival. Baker (2008) notes that influencing CSR practice among millions of SMEs is the main current challenge. Fay (2000) identifies reasons SMEs traditionally do not engage in CSR:
- SMEs lack awareness of environmental impact and related regulations.
- They are unaware of sustainability significance.
- They are cynical about self-regulation and management tools.
- They struggle to communicate and manage CSR improvements.
Earlier studies concluded that SMEs do not engage in CSR due to a lack of formal management systems, financial, and human resources (Baumann-Pauly et al., 2013; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Baker (2003) states 60% of SMEs are simply focused on survival, placing CSR “on the back burner.” Key issues include time/resource constraints and employee engagement (Jenkins, 2006). Additional challenges identified by SME owner-managers include measuring CSR benefits, maintaining initial enthusiasm, executing activities, and supporting new ideas (Jenkins, 2006). Perera (2008) found 45% of SMEs cited lack of time as the main obstacle to CSR improvement. Von Weltzien Hoivik and Shankar (2011) argue SMEs lack internal legal knowledge compared to MNCs. Russo and Tencati (2009) state SMEs lack formal tools like codes of conduct, which require time, financial resources, and competencies SMEs cannot implement.
Conclusion
Instead, SMEs can operate in less structured contexts based on trust, informality, and networking (Russo and Tencati, 2009; Spence, 1999). A study of 3,626 companies comparing formal and informal processes found SMEs rely more on informal CSR practices, including employee briefings, internal communication, training, and flexible work schedules. Such activities are also present in larger firms, alongside more formal methods (Russo and Tencati, 2009). Clark (2000) notes SMEs are reactive yet compliance-driven, suggesting they resist self-regulation but view codes of conduct as suitable for CSR implementation. Historically, SMEs resisted regulation and voluntary standards due to distrust of bureaucracy (Jenkins, 2006). This may explain why CSR was not a priority for SMEs. Emerging research indicates many SMEs integrate CSR elements informally without adopting formal approaches like larger firms (Lepoutre and Heene, 2006).
Russo and Perrini (2010) argue SMEs must adopt formal tools and processes to integrate CSR into core strategies and engage stakeholders. Community and workplace rules and regulations can be implemented instead of social reporting and benchmarking. This subsection of the dissertation identified both “drivers” and “factors” in ethical code adoption, with theoretical perspectives carrying both positive and negative connotations. Obstacles discussed are mostly internally generated, such as perceiving excessive documentation due to ethical code compliance. Business ethics and SME performance in CSR have been examined since the new millennium, with regulators, customers, employees, insurers, sponsors, and local communities demanding corporate engagement, making inaction unacceptable (Fay, 2000). Previous studies (Merritt, 1998; Holland and Gibbon, 1997) indicate SMEs are aware of increasing CSR pressures.
References
BOHATÁ, M. Ethics and Integrity in Public Administration. Prague: Grada Publishing, 2021. ISBN 978-80-271-3311-6.
FERRELL, L., FRAEDRICH, J., FERRELL, O. C. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (9th ed.). Mason: Cengage Publishers, 2012.
FISCHER, O. Professionalism, Virtues, and Professional Ethics. Prague: Karolinum, 2021. ISBN 978-80-2464-906-1.
GAVIN, T., ROY, R., SUMNERS, G. Corporate Code of Conduct: The Role of the Internal Auditor. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(5), 2007.
HILLARY, R. Environmental Management Systems and Small Enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 2004, pp. 561-569.
HREHOVÁ, H. et al. General Ethics. Comenius University: Faculty of Arts, 2020. ISBN 978-80-568-0345-5.
HUHMANN, B., CONNER, S. Supporting Business Ethics through the Annual Report. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 19, 2014, pp. 17-28.
JANKOVSKÝ, J. Ethics for Helping Professions. Prague: Triton, 2018. ISBN 978-80-7553-414-9.
JENKINS, H. Critique of Conventional CSR Theory: The View of Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of General Management, 29(4), 2004, pp. 37-57.
JENKINS, H. Champions of CSR in Small Businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 2006, pp. 254-256.
KAMENÍK, J. et al. Commercial Security. 2nd ed. Prague: Wolters Kluwer CZ, 2019, 344 pp. ISBN 978-80-7598-303-9.
KAPTEIN, M., KLAMER, H., WIERINGA, A. Corporate Ethical Code: Cause, Content, Implementation, and Effectiveness. The Hague: NCW, 2003.
KAPTEIN, M., SCHWARTZ, M. S. The Effectiveness of Business Codes: A Critical Review of Existing Studies and Development of an Integrated Research Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 2008, pp. 111-127.
KAPTEIN, M., WEMPE, J. The Balanced Company: A Theory of Corporate Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
COLLECTIVE AUTHORS. History of Philosophy. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo, 2021. ISBN 978-80-10-01391-3.
COLLECTIVE AUTHORS. Book of Philosophy. Prague: Universum, 2020. ISBN 978-80-242-3912-5.
MACHÁČEK, I. Employee Benefits and Taxes. 5th ed. Prague: Wolters Kluwer CZ, 2019, 264 pp. ISBN 978-80-7598-362-6.
Small and Medium Enterprises [online]. EU: European Commission, 2022 [cited 2022-12-19]. Available at: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/smes_en
MESSIKOMER, C., CIRKA, C. Constructing a Code of Ethics: An Experimental Case of a National Professional Organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 2010, pp. 55-71.
MCKEIVER, C., GADENNE, D. Environmental Management Systems in Small and Medium Enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 23(5), 2005, pp. 513-517.
MCKINNEY, J. A., EMERSON, T. L., NEUBERT, M. J. The Influence of Ethical Codes on Ethical Perceptions of Stakeholder-Related Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 2010, pp. 505-516.
MCWILLIAMS, A., SIEGEL, D. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 2001, pp. 117-127.
MCWILLIAMS, A., SIEGEL, D., WRIGHT, P. M. Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 2006, pp. 11-18.
MIJATOVIC, I. S., STOKIC, D. Influence of Internal and External Codes on CSR Practice: The Case of Companies Operating in Serbia. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 2010, pp. 533-552.
MILLER, G., YANG, K. Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration (2nd ed.). London: CRC Publishers, 2007.
MURILLO, D., LOZANO, J. SMEs and CSR: Approaching CSR in Their Own Words. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 2006, pp. 227-240.
NESVADBA, P. Police Ethics. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk, 2009. ISBN 9788073801953.
ONDRIOVÁ, I. Ethical Issues and Dilemmas in Nursing Practice. Prague: Grada Publishing, 2021. ISBN 978-80-271-1696-6.
PARBOTEEAH, K., CHEN, H., LIN, Y., CHEN, I., LEE, A., CHUNG, A. Creating an Ethical Climate in Organizations: How Managerial Practices Work. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 2010, pp. 599-611.
PARISI, C., HOCKERTS, K. Managerial Thinking and Performance Management Systems of Intangible Assets Related to CSR. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(2), 2008, pp. 51-67.
PATER, A., VAN GILS, A. Stimulating Ethical Decision Making in a Business Context: The Influence of Ethical and Professional Codes. European Management Journal, 21(6), 2003, pp. 762-772.
PIKNA, P. M. Internal Security in EU Law and Policy. 2nd ed. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk, 2019. ISBN 978-80-7380-783-2.
SEKNIČKA, P., PUTNOVÁ, A. Business Ethics and Market Values. Prague: Grada Publishing, 2016. ISBN 978-80-247-5545-8.
SLEED, M., DURRHEIM, K., KREIL, A., SOLOMAN, V., BAXTER, V. Effectiveness of Vignette Methodology: A Comparison of Written and Video Vignettes in Eliciting Responses About Date Rape. South African Journal of Psychology, 32(3), 2002, pp. 21-28.
SOBCZAK, A. Are Codes of Conduct in Global Supply Chains Truly Voluntary? From Soft Law Regulation of Labor Relations to Consumer Law. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 2006, pp. 167-184.
SOBOTKA, M. Jean Jacques Rousseau: From “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” to “The Social Contract.” Prague: Karolinum, 2015. ISBN 978-80-246-2743-4.
SOMERS, M. Codes of Conduct and Organizational Context: A Study of the Relationship Between Codes of Conduct, Employee Behavior, and Organizational Values. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 2001, pp. 185-195.
SPENCE, L. Corporate Social Responsibility in Small Firms: Publishing and Businesses Engaged in CSR. Business Society, 2014.
SPENCE, L. J., RUTHERFORD, R. Small Firms and Empirical Perspectives in Business Ethics: Editorial. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 2003, pp. 1-5.
SWIFT, L., PIFF, S. Quantitative Methods for Business, Management, and Finance (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010.
TENCATI, A., PERRINI, F., POGUTZ, S. New Tools to Promote Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 2004, pp. 173-190.
UBALDO, L. Pictorial History of Philosophy. Prague: Universum, 2006. ISBN 9788024215785.
VON WELTZIEN HOIVIK, H., SHANKAR, D. How Can SMEs in Clusters Respond to Global Corporate Responsibility Demands? Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 2011, pp. 175-195.
VRIELINK, M., VAN MONTFORT, C. Ethical Codes and Codes of Practice. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 2009, pp. 492-497.
WALLIMAN, N. Your Research Project: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publishers, 2011.
WILEY, C. Ethical Standards for HR Professionals: A Comparative Analysis of Five Major Codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 2000, pp. 93-114.
WILLIG, C. Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill and Open University Press, 2009.
WINES, W. A. Seven Pillars of Business Ethics: Toward a Comprehensive Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 2008, pp. 483-499.
