Corporate Ethical Consulting:Developing Management Strategies forCorporate Ethics Richard H. Guerrette

ABSTRACT. The increase of scandals in the business sectoris forcing many companies to examine their corporateethical behavior with a view toward rebuilding their cor-porate value system. This article describes how value-systemreconstruction must proceed in a company and demon-strates that corporate ethics can only become plausible ifbased on a corporate ethical ethos. It outlines a five-step de-velopment plan of management strategies toward rebuildix^a company's value system on this corporate ethos through:corporate policy and strategy reformulation; corporate ethi-cal code promulgation and value-statement formulation;management ethical training and corporate ethical educa-tion; and corporate ethical performance evaluation. The roleof the corporate ethical consultant is also outlined to illustr-ate how corporate ethical consulting can provide the special-ized services designed to insure an enduring managementethical upgrading and to improve a company's corporateethical performance record. The discussion indicates howcorporate ethical consulting promotes good businessthrough its capacity to deliver industry credibility and com-pany security.

Recent scandals among several major corporatemilitary contractors have resurrected the call forcorporate ethics in the defense industry. Such un-ethical practices as defective pricing, cost mischarg-

Richard Guerrette is a Research Fellow at Yale University DivinitySchool, where he is conducting a research study in organizationmanagement process and corporate ethia. He is also a Lecturer insociology at the University of Connecticut at Hartford and is anauthor of two books on ecumenical minbtry and social movementorganization in the church. He has published extensively intheological journals and has recently contributed an article on"Environmental Integrity and Corporate Responsibility'for the

Journal of Business Ethics 5 (1986). He is the Director ofEquipax, an otganization/maruigement consulting service inFarmington, Connecticut.

ing, bill-padding, product substitution, etc. amongthese contractors were uncovered by media inves-tigators and were brought to the attention of thePentagon in Washington. Several of these scandalswere intensively pursued by prime time investigativereporting shows like Sixty-Minutes which served toraise the national consciousness to a reformativepurpose. Upon exposing these fraudulent abuses ofunethical behavior by wealthy corporations, journal-ists demonstrated how the public trust has beengravely violated by high level corporate executivesand managers. This demonstrative "showpiece" ofcorporate conduct forced a remonstrative showdownby government audit In the aftermath of federalinvestigations, the PentJ^on has admonished theindustry to take charge of its corporate conscience.In a letter to eighty-seven of the nation's leadingdefense contractors, the Deputy Secretary of Defensehas prescribed a corporate process for voluntarydisclosures of contractor irregularities (Tafr, 1986).In compliance to these admonitions, the AerospaceIndustry Association, which represents the largestdefense contractors in the country, has already inplace a compulsory policy requiring its members toprovide corporate ethical education in the manage-ment training programs of their respective corpora-tions (Weisman, 1986:1,3).

One of die problems, however, that both thePentagon as well as the defense contractors will haveto face is that corporate ethical training will notcome by military command or hierarchical pro-nouncements. Not even the church or synagoguecan provide ethics by ecclesiastical or talmudicalfiats. Ethics do not happen by edicts. They are notprescriptions of authorities imposed on subordinates.Neither are they commodities that can be suppliedon demand. With competitive strategies for contractprocurements, some defense companies have speedily

Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1988) 373-380. 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.

374 Richard K Guerrette

adopted the demanded reguladons of tieir tradeassociadon by programing ethics into managementtraining. In accordant consumer fashion, they haveacquired curricular packages in business ethics fromcorporate vendors as an expedient tacdc towardcompliance, while conveniendy continuing businessas usuaL But ethics cannot be bought They arelearned and the learning is radically dependent uponlong term sodalizadon and moral developmentprocess.' The need, therefore, is to ui^e corporadonsto design and implement sodalizadon programs thatpromote the moral development of personnel. Theseprograms must engage the leadership of the com-pany, especially at execudve levels in such a way asto have its officers not only serve as sponsorialadvocates of ethical policy but more importandy actas exemplary role models of ethical behavior. Insome companies, senior level execudves are frinc-doning as factilty trainers linking managerial com-petencies with company values (See Posner et al,1985). This kind of corporate sodalizadon is reflec-dve of a pedagogy not altogether tmlike that in afamily or school organizadon, where parents andsignificant others, as tte primary agents of socializa-don, guide and culdvate the moral development oftheir subjects. It is in this sense that corporate ethicsmust begin in corporate headquarters.

Corporate ethics and sociological theory

For ethics to begin in any corporadon, it must firstbe acknowledged that ethics are a way of life. On amacro-sodological scale, they are really consdtutedas behavior based on an ethos (Greek for custom,character). As such, ethical behavior is derived fromculture whose value system is formulated accordingto fundamental priorides that become plausible overtime from customarily repeated choices amongindividuals and groups within the sodal structure.Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman idendfy socialprocess of this kind as reality construcdon andexplain it in terms of plausibility structure dieory(1967; see also Berger et al, 1973). They view theethos of a sodety as dependent upon the sodalconstrucdon of reality among its members. Only thevalues that come as customs from the commonlyrepeated choices of these members, as they view

their priorides, are plausible in the sodal structuresof their pardcular culture.^ Thus, Americans andother peoples of Western society view bribery assodally unacceptable behavior. They have consis-tendy and commonly condemned this behavior asillegal and unethical. And so oflFering or accepdi^bribes of any kind in business transacdons arechoices that are not recognized as plausible prioridesin the sodal structtires of Western ediical valuesystems. This is the customary Western way oflooking at things. Bribery has no place in the socialconstrucdon of ethical reality in the West It is notpart of the Western ethos. Interestingly enoughthough, in some Eastern sodedes, and notably inJapan, bribery is not viewed as sodally unacceptablebehavior. It is qtiite commonly admitted among theplausible priorides of sodal value choices, at leastin the day-to-day operadonal orders of businesspracdce.^ It is viewed as an associated benefit inbusiness transacdons and as an added bargainingincendve for securing contracts. In these sodedes, ithas become a customary business way of looking atthings and as such is consistent with a business sodalconstrucdon of ethical reality. It is part of a par-dcular Eastern ethos.

Similarly, corporate ethics are a way of corporatelife a way of doing business. On a micro-sodo-logical scale, they are consdtuted as behavior basedon a corporate ethos. As such, ethical behavior incorporadons depends on the plausibility structtiresof values in the corporate culture. If therefore thedominant values in a corporadon are ftmcdonal andpragmadc and so ordered as to maximize profits atany cost, it is likely that this fimcdonal view ofbusiness reality among the execudves and managersof that pardcular corporadon will so condidon thdrchoices in policy and strategy dedsion-making pro-cesses that corporate ethics per se will be implausible.As a result, the problem of corporate ethics in thebusiness world today is a problem of identifyingthese kinds of corporadons and helping them to dealnot simply widi ethical impropriety but more funda-mentally with ethical implausibility. Execudves andmanagers of these kinds of corporadons are notaccustomed to see business reality or to view manage-ment process in an ediical perspecdve. In this partof the business sector, there is no corporate ethos fora corporate ethic. The challenge, therefore, of cor-porate ethics is to reorder the value system of these

Corporate Ethical Consulting 375

corporadons in such a way as to change manage-ment's vray of looking at thbgs.

Corporate ethics and philosophical theory

Execudves and managers need to recognize func-donalism and pragmatism for what they are worth pracdcal business philosophies from which corporatepohdes and strategies can be instmmentally dravmfor operadonal effidency. And this is a good, anactual ethical value which can be reconciled with animportant ethical theory in business, the theory ofutilitarianism. This dieory teaches that ethical be-havior is determined by whatever possesses intrinsicvalue and is useful for the common good. If there-fore operadonal effidency and maximum profitare consonant with the common good, whatever isfimcdonal and has suffident value in itself so asto promote diis common good must be ediical(Beauchamp, 1983: 22-23). The cridcal differencebetween this business philosophy and the fimcdonalbusiness reality described above in terms of ethicalimplausibility is that the pragmadc priorides ofthose who do business without an ethical perspecdveare chosen at any cost The pragmadc priorides ofthose who do business with a utilitarian ethicalperspecdve are chosen not jtist because a givencompany good is useful for profit but also because ithas value in itself and thus contributes to the com-mon good. Priorides chosen at any cost are likely tobe made solely for the company good and ususallywithout any advertence to the common good, letalone to intrinsic values.

But these utilitarian goods are not the only goodsfor priority business consideradons. There are highergoods in running a business, goods that are interac-donal rather than fimcdonal and humanisdc ratherthan pr^madc. These goods are more consistentwith anodier important theory in business ethicscalled deontological theory. This dieory explainsethical behavior as based on a respect for the natureof being (Greek, ontos) and thus as duty bound, Le.,behavior in response to this respea for being. In thebusiness order, this translates into doing things rightprimarily because of what things are in themselves,not for what or how they can be usefiiL This dieoryis a value theory, a humanisdc one which binds oneto consider the priorides of being, especially human

beings, in business decisions.* And so by applyingthis theory to business pracdce, execudves andmanagers could begin to see new business realides interms of personal/social interacdon rather thanutilitarian/operadonal fiincdon and in terms ofhumanisdc values rather than pragmadc ends. Ac-cordingly, there is much greater probability for thecompadbility of the company good with die com-mon good. The reason for this is that the likelihoodof the conflict of interests between these two goodsis considerably diminished, with the btisiness mis-sion focused on the dudes of corporate responsibilityas well as the rights of industrial producdon. Thecridcal difference here is that management wotild nolonger be laden with the struggle to reconcile thecompany good widi the common good, and usuallyat the expense of the latter. It would begin to under-stand its corporate responsibiUty as a duty to inte-grate these two goods to respect the sodal interac-donal dimensions of doing business. This businessphilosophy demands a rationality for the existentialrighmess of produa quahty as a company good anda respect for the humanisdc propriety of customerstirety as a common good. This deontological man-date for business pracdce is set by the philosophicalprinciples of radonahty and respect as defined byKenneth Goodpaster in terms of identifying businessgoals as a self-directed component and customersatisfacdon as the other-directed component (1983:7). In apphed sodal psychological terms, this meansthat a company has a right and indeed a duty to itsstockholders to serve itself with maximum profit infulfillment of its btisiness mission. But it also has aduty to respect its ctistomers as well as the environ-ment by paying attendon to their needs with inter-acdonal sensidvity through the entire commerdalprocess of this mission from natural resource adapta-don to producdon, marketing, sales and service. Thiskind of business perspecdve would begin to reset acorporate ethos for a corporate ethic.

All this theory, however, is in the realm of philo-sophical ethics. The pracdcal quesdon is how tochange existing funcdonal pragmadc realides intomore interacdonal htmianisdc ones how to resetthe corporate ethos, how to reorder a company'svalue system. In the pracdcal order, managementsystems do not change overnight Neither do theychange by execudve order nor by regulatory pre-scripdon, even if issued by the Pentagon. Change,

376 Richard K Guerrette

especially ethical change, must come from widiia Itmust be remembered that the challenge in resetdtigthe corporate ethos is to make the corporate struc-tures plausible for ethics to take.

Resetting the corporate ethos amanagement task

Rebtiilding plausibility structures for a corporateethos is a challei^e that only man^ement canassume. Its task is one that requires a developmentplan for designing management strategies for cor-porate ediics. The first and most important step ofthis plan is to reformulate the corporate poUcy andcorporate strategy of the company. Every goodmanager knows that corporate behavior is radicallydependent upon corporate poUcy and strategy,which actually consdtute the structural foundadonsof the corporate consdence.* Corporate ethics in acompany will simply not hold if their value system isnot structured into company pohcy and strategy.This step helps to render the priorides of this valuesystem plausible by resetting them into the pohtystructures of the company. The second step of thisplan is to engage all senior and junior level execu-dves in a collegial process of formulating a codeof ethics and a corporate value statement for thecompany. The code of ethics should be drafted toprescribe morally upright behavior on the part ofexecudves, matugen and all personnel appropriateto the occupadon or profession of the industry inaccordance with the prindples derived from theappropriate ethical theories consonant vrith com-pany values. The corporate value statement shouldbe formulated in such a way as to clarify the businesspriorides of the company in accordance with itsredefined corporate mission. This step helps toreorder the language symbolism of the companyphilosophy as the official expression of its corporateethos and thus begitis to redefine an ethical realitystructure in terms of its value-system priorides. Thethird step of this plan is to involve all managers,upper, middle and supervisory alike, in a companywide man^ement training program designed toincorporate and integrate ethics into the continuingprofessional educadon curriculimi. This step helps toraise the ethical awareness level of managers in thecompany and makes it possible for ethics to become

relevant and efficadous in managerial decision-making processes.* As such, this step contains theadded benefit of setting the plausibiHty structtires ofa management ethic and serves to open a consdous-ness amor^ managers toward a more humanisdcdirecdon and planning of human resources. Thefourth step of this plan is to present the reformulatedcorporate policy and strategy of the company aloi^with the code of ethics and the corporate value state-ment as the fundamental part of the company sodal-izadon and corporate educadon programming fornew employees and the continuing professional oroccupadonal educadon of senior persoimel. Thisstep helps to disseminate the appropriate corporatevalues through the entire corporadon even to diehasic roots of the company infrastructure where thecorporate ethos needs to be implanted. The fifth stepof this plan is to design an instrument for corporateethical evaluadon to measure die external record ofthe company's performance in the marketplace andthe internal arrangements of the company's behaviorin the workplace. This instrument should be appliedinternally to determine to what extent worker,management and even execudve atdtudes, commit-ment and performance reflect company pohcy andstrategy on ethics. This step helps to insure thatcorporate ethical codes and value statements willnot become framed showpieces on the walls ofexecudve offices in corporate headquarters but willbe authendc symbols of what they signify, namely,that this company behaves according to what thecode prescribes and the statement claims. Imple-mendng such management strategies, as suggested inthese five steps of this development plan, wotild helpto eflfecdvely set a corporate ethos in a company andwould enable its directors to reliably expect a cor-porate ethic from its managers.

The need for such a development plan in rebiuld-ing a company's corporate vdue system can hardlybe contested in view of the widespread dimetisionsof corporate misbehavior. The New York Timesreports that, just in die defense industry alone, forty-four out of the top one hundred contractors areunder investigadon. It further disdoses the extensivepropordons of such misconduct by comparing thevoltime of Pentagon sancdons in the first half offiscal 1984 with die same time period of 1986. Tliereport daims that in just two years the volumeincreased more than double with 417 companies

Corporate Ethical Consulting 377

having been barred or suspended from contractawards for violadons this year, while in 1984, thentimber was 178 (Halloran, 1986:4). The dimensiotisof business comipdon have been further studied byAmitai Etzioni (1985) who claims that sixty-twopercent of America's Fortune 500 corporadons havebeen involved in various forms of illegal behaviorover the last ten years. While his survey targetedconduct in areas of market and environmental ir-regularides as well as falsificadon of tax records andpatent infringements, etc., it also covered other cate-gories of misconduct that clearly induded muldpleunethical violadons, such as, price-fixing and over-charging, domesdc and foreign bribes, and firaud anddecepdon. These latter categories consdtuted thelargest volume of inddents comprising thirty-fourpercent of all the violadons (1985: 45). The mag-nitude of this operadonal code of corporate mis-behavior demonstrates the need for man^ementaccountability to business ethics and public morality(Gellerman, 1986). It moreover establishes a culttiralradonale' for corporate value-system reconstrucdonas the only enduring soludon to the problem ofcorporate misconduct The pubUc has a right toexpect nothing less from its corporate providers thatdiey put their own houses in order throtigh longrange development plans designed to reestablisha corporate ethos that good ethical choices maybecome plausible throughout the corporate sector.While Dean Gellerman attributes the failure ofmanagement pracdce in bad ethical choices toradonalizadon processes, he himself fails to treatthe management problem at its substandve organi-zadonal roots. He calls for "good ethics" as the"foundadon of good business" but daims that "themain deterrent to illegal or unethical behavior isthe perceived probability of detecdon" (1986: 90).Accordingly, he su^ests a more stringent use ofexternal auditii^ services as a means to controlcorporate misbehavior. It mtist be acknowledged,however, from the moral development dieories ofeducadonal psychology as well as from plausibihtystructure theory in sociology, as seen above, thatgood ethics do not come from enforced controlmechanisms. They must be inculcated into a cor-poradon through the value system of a corporateethos. And it is only through a development planthat includes corporate ethical educadon as a meansto foster self-modvating incendves in management

that a company can consistendy expect good ethicalchoices from its execudves and managers. Such acompany wotild thus be well-advised to secure theservices of corporate ethical consuldng rather thanthose of regulatory auditing.

Corporate ethical consulting

The work of reordering a company's corporate valuesystem through the implementadon of such a devel-opment plan is not an easy managerial task It reallyis a mission in itself requiring some knowledge ofethical theory and above all some insight into thesodal organizadon psychology of management pro-cess. The most efFecdve and reconstrucdvely sden-tific way to accomphsh this mission is to acquire theservices of a competent corporate ethical consultantOverburdened execudves and managers simply donot have the time to devote themselves to the intri-cate and involved task of a corporate ethical analysisof company poUcy and strategy, let alone of assum-ing the tedious assignment of a reformulated rewrite.Neither do they dways enjoy the convenience ofdetachment for the cridcal unbiased evaluadon ofpohcy and strategy. The corporate ethical consultantcan be charged vnth this cridcal evaluadve analysisand, with the objecdve insight of an outside observer,open the plausibihty structures of poUcy reformula-don and strategy implementadon with appropriateand pracdcal corporate ethical langiuge. He/she can,for example, draw from the symbohc resources ofthe company culture itself) such as, the companyhistory, logo or values (latent or expressed) andappropriately redefine the business mission and/orcorporate goals in terms of this language. In this way,the company can begin to frame an ediical reahtyinside the organizadon and so build an authendccorporate ethos for its desired ethical image.* Again,the overladened and attached execudve cannot beexpected to engage other senior and junior execu-dves in a process of formuladng a code of ethicsand a corporate value statement for the companywith suffident disinterest as to allow open andfree discussion of ethical issues and value prioridescotifronting the business. The corporate ethical con-sultant can sensidvely set a collegial forum interac-donally condudve for this kind of discussion and,through process consultadon methodology,' so

378 Richard H. Guerrette

engage all execudves to cridcally evaluate the com-pany's internal and external corporate ethical per-formance record without personal intimidadon orfear of career reprisals. It is only dirough this kind ofcoUegial process that a company code of ethics canbe authendcally prescribed and promulgated and acorporate value statement, consistendy expressedand imposed. Accordingly, cridcal thought andplanning for change can be introduced and conflictresoludon measures can be taken to deal with anycoalidons of resistance that may ensue. In such cases,it is important for the consultant to draw out theseeds of contendon over controversial ethical issuesthat may be latent in the execudve offices or cham-bers of the boardroom, lest diey grow from residualresentments of atdtude to hostile disrupdons ofmanagement With regard to management trainingand corporate educadon, few htmian resource execu-dves or corporate trainers are eager to assume thecommission of introdudng ethics into curricularprogrammii^, notwithstanding the exemplary train-ing efforts of the rare execudves mendoned above.A knowledge of management sdence and even ofphilosophical ediics is ordinarily not enough toaccomplish this part of the missiotL Straight ethicaltraining by direct curricular input is not usually thepracdcal course to follow in most companies. Cor-porate educadon insdtutes or training divisiotis arenot seminaries or divinity schools. A percepdvemanagement consultant in corporate ethics wouldknow how to indirecdy weave value themes andunobtrusively work ethical prindples into manage-ment training either through curricular planningwith corporate trainers themselves or by designingand dehvering interdisdphnary courses, workshops,seminan, etc. in management sdence and corporateeducs him/herself. Finally, human resource special-ists know that any accurate evaluadon instnimentmust be so prepared and administered as to inducerehable responses from the evaluated and to produceimpardal conclusions for evaluators. Inside evalua-tors are not usually in a posidon to secure thesekinds of evaluadve results. An outside corporateethical consultant can perform this service withmuch greater reliabihty and objecdvity, insurii^ thatall the company's efforts to rebuild a corporate valuesystem will pay off.

Summary and conclusion

That this kind of corporate ethical consuldbt^ doeshave a payoff in rebuilding a company's corporatevalue system is no longer to be contested in thecounterface of industry scandals and company demis-es. The sooner execudves and managers realize this,the more credible will be their industry, the moresecure, their company. The Pentagon knows this aswell as the Aerospace Industry Assodadon. As thepohcy resoludon of the assodadon demands, all de-fense contractors must provide corporate ethicaltraining in their companies. The development planfor resetdt^ a corporate ethos and for rebuilding acompany's corporate value system suggested in tliisardcle goes beyond these demands. It traces value-system reconstrucdon back to the very corporateroots of a company to its policy and strategy. Itemphasizes that it is within diis structural founda-don that the corporate ethos is implanted and thecorporate ethic engendered. It is so designed as todisseminate this ethos and ethic throughout diecompany by management training and corporateeducadon programs. Finally, its construcdon in-cludes provisions for the evaluadon of the corporateethical performance of the company in the market-place and its management ethical performance in theworkplace.

This plan represents an attempt to achieve a cor-porate ethic from within. It is a strategic plan toestablish this ethic on an ethos rather than on anedict It is a lot^ term plan designed to dehver theresults of corporate ethical behavior, through cor-porate ethical consulting, not just for defense con-tractors anxiotis to heed government regtiladons butfor all contractors modvated by need for self-regtila-don. It is only through the development of suchmanagement strategies outlined in the plan that thepubhc and its insdtudonal government agendes orindustrial associadons can rehably expea corporateethics from any contractor or company.

Notes

' See, for example, the theories of Lawrence(1981,1984) and their application to business ethics education(Goodpaster, 1982 and Guerrette, 1986). While Goodpastercontends that Kohlberg's stages are not always relevant to

Corporate Ethical Consulting 379

philosophical ethics and the tracks of normative ethicaldevelopment, he admits that these tracks are developmentaland thus conducive to the process of moral education. Healso acknowledges the fiuictional aspects of moral develop-ment education according to Kohlbei^'s stages in terms of apedagogy of ethical intervention (1982: 497498).^ In philosophical ethics, a critically important distinction ismade between ethics and morality. Some philosophersdefine the former as behavior based on prindples derivedfrom philosophical thought systems of good and eviL Theydefine the latter as behavior based on value systems derivedfrom the dominant priorities of a culture (see Beauchamp,1983: 13). Sociologists defend the appropriation of themorality definition to ethical behavior inasmuch as philo-sophical thought systems themselves are social constructs ofreality and, as such, are radically dependent on the accul-mrated values and symbols of the society in which philo-sophers are accustomed to think^ W. Michael Reisman, Professor of International Law atthe Yale Law School, distinguishes between "myth systemand operadonal code." According to Reisman, a myth systemreflects the traditional values of a sodety as promulgated inoffidal laws, even though these laws may, at times, not bekepr, an operational code reflects the actual choices of asodety in accordance with the pracdcal morality level of itspeople. With cridcal insight, Reisman demonstrates thateven in the West, and indeed in corporate America, briberyis part and parcel of an operadonal code of doing business ina variety of disguised symbolic forms and in accordance withthe pracdce of "selecdve toleradon' (1979:1536).* This is the author's own interpretadon of Kandan de-ontological theory. It is reflecdve of a social psychology ofbusiness ethics derived from George Herbert Mead's (1934)role-taking theory. This theory undergirds the redprodty ofjusdce in business transacdons on the interacdonal sensi-dvity of business ^ents to the rights of one another, asacknowledged in their respecdve facility to take the role ofthe other. It is also reflecdve of an environmental philosophyof corporate ethics derived from Martin Buber's (1956)teaching on respect for being as applied to Immanuel Kant's(1959) imperadve on respect for persons. (It goes withoutsaying, however, that in applying Buber to Kant in areas ofbusiness transacdons, there is a hierarchy of order in thevalues of being from human to inanimate which must betaken into account See Beauchamp, 1983: 3738.)^ For an organizadon/management study of the reladon-ship between corporate pohcy and strategy and the corporateconsdence and a sodal psychological analysis of the moraldevelopment of the corporate conscience, see Guerrette(1986).' The irrelevancy and inefficacy of ethics in managerialdecision-making processes have been attributed by SaulGellerman to four commonly accepted radonalizadons

among managers that lead to corporate misconduct in manycompanies (1986: 8590). According to Gellerman, theseradonalizadons are invoked to justify quesdonable conductand include: "believing that the acdvity is not 'really' illegalor immoral; that it is in the individual's or the corporadon'sbest interest; that it will never be found out; or that becauseit helps the company the company will condone it" (85).' See the May 25, 1987 issue of Time for the grounding ofthis radonale in the public consdousness. The issue reflectsthe growing concern in the nadon for rediscovery of itssodo-culniral mores, confronting the systems of sodety,pohdes and business to search "for its moral bearings" (covercapdon; see also 'A Letter from the Publisher', Miller, 1987:4* This innovadve technique in corporate ethical consuldngis based on contemporary human resource managementtheory which contends that manners can shape an organiza-donal reahty within their company through the strategicplanning of the company's own symbolic representadons(See Berg, 1986).' Process consultadon is a democratized style of consultingpracdce in which the consultant engages the input of chentsin the consultadon process aflfording them an opportunity tocontribute to the redefinii^ and redesigning of thdr ownorganizadonal realides (See Schein, 1969).

References

Beauchamp, Tom L: 1983, "Ethical Theory and Its Apphca-don to Business', Ethical Theory and Business, 2nd ed., TomL Beauchamp and Norman B. Bowie, eds. Prendce-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Berg, Per-Olof: 1986, 'Symbohc Management of HumanResources', Human Resource Management 25(4), 557579.

Berger, Peter L and Luckman, Thomas: 1967, The SocialConstruction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowl-edge, Doubleday, New York.

Berger, Peter L, Berger, Brigitte and Kellner, Hansfried:1973, The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness,Random House, New York

Buber, Mardn: 1958, / and Thou, 2nd ed., trans., RonaldGregor Smith, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Etzioni, Amitai: 1985, 'Widespread Conupdon', Business andSociety Review 55,45.

Gellerman, Saul W.: 1986, 'Why "Good" Managers MakeBad Ethical Choices', Harvard Business Review (July-August), 8590.

Goodpaster, Kenneth E.: 1982, 'Kohlbergian Theory: A Philo-sophical Counterinvitadon', Ethics 92, 491498.

Goodpaster, Kenneth E: 1983, 'The Concept of CorporateResponsibihty',yottrrM/()/"B(tfnejjr/i(CJ 2,122.

380 Richard H. Guerrette

Guerrette, Richard VL 1986, 'Environmental Int^rity andCorporate Responsibility', Journal of Business Ethics 5,409-415.

Halloran, Richard: 1986, 'Making Arms Makers Do It Right',The New York T/mei, June 15, F.

Kant, Immanuel: 1959, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals,trans., Lewis White Beck, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

Kohlberg, Lawrence: 1981, \984, Essays on Moral Development,VoL I: The Philosophy of Moral Development, Vol. II: ThePsychology of Moral Development, Harper and Row, NewYork.

Mead, George Herbert 1934, Mind, Self, and Society, Uni-versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Miller,RobertL: 1987, Time,May 25,VoL 129,No.21.Posner, Barry Z., Kouzes, James M. and Schmidt, Warren H J

1985, 'Shared Values Make a Difference: An EmpiricalTest of Corporate Culture', Human Resource Management24(3), 293-309.

Reisman, W. Michael: 1979, Folded Lies: Bribery, Crusades, andReforms, iTie Free Press, New York.

Schein, Edgar H : 1969, Process Consultation, Addison-Wesley,Reading, Mass.

Taft, William R IV: 1986, (Letter) and 'Department ofDefense Program for Voluntary Disclosures of PossibleFraud by Defense Contractors', Defense Department,38052, Washington, D.C.

Weisnian, Robert 1986, Tentagon Prod Sdrs Acdvity inEthics Codes', The Hartford Courant, August 10, D.

EQUIPAX Consulting Services,The Summit,

277 Main Street, B-3,Farmington, Connecticut 06032,

USA.