Perhaps not in theory, but at least in practice, business ethics and instruments for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) tend to regulate behaviour, not character (R. Roberts 2009). Codes of conduct specify behaviours employees need to adhere to. They cover issues such as dress code, gambling, harassment and bullying, equality of opportunity, refusing gifts, usage of office computers and internet, and so on. Another common element in codes of conduct for employees is the stipulation that they must comply with their terms of employment and carry out instructions.

These codes are monitored mostly by compliance officers, who – tautologically – follow up on employees to ensure their complying with the code of conduct. Most ethics programmes within organizations are developed and offered by the compliance office, the implication of which is that the training sessions carry an emphasis on compliance. Compliance officers also administer internal whistleblowing procedures. These specify how, to whom, and about what employees should raise concerns.

Some regulations relating to ethical interaction at the workplace, such as anti-discrimination legislation, do nothing else but specify what language, or what kind of policy decisions or policy impact are sanctionable. Even corporate governance codes regulate behaviour, though not of employees but of directors. These codes specify who has to be informed about what by whom, and who gets to sit around the decision-making table.

On the one hand, regulating behaviour and setting parameters to how decisions ought to be taken is crucial in organizations.