Each public/private sector business should conduct all activities in compliance with their respective code-of-ethics. While most codes appear to be constructed in a manner that appears to be mostly geared towards public relations, enforceable information always lies within the respective code. The codes for McDonalds and Starbucks are presented within this report as they both represent extensive desires to conduct sound practices.

The importance of sound ethics in business practices is important to not only generate and maintain trust between consumers/customers and your business. Ethical codes-of-conduct are essential elements that play a key role in governing the interactions and activities of employees. As a case study, the official code of ethics for McDonald’s and Starbucks will be presented. Both models appear to highlight and even promote the practice of sound business dealings, however key aspects of the Starbucks model should be considered, with respect to the inherent initial superiority to the McDonald’s model. The overall goal of this report will be to compare and contrast the two models and to identify if establishing a code of ethics is enough to ensure ethical behavior in an organization.

While both models begin by introducing the company in a positive public relations manner, the reputation of Starbucks is extrapolated and clearly stated. What I personally like is that this company is willing to place its entire reputation on the line by stating that they deliver “…the finest coffee in the world, legendary service…” (Starbucks, Code-of-Ethics). In contrast the McDonalds code of ethics makes a generic statement, which appears to be solely intended to elicit a positive public relations response; “The basis of our entire business is that we are ethical, truthful and dependable” (McDonalds Code-of-Ethics). The legitimacy of a code-of-ethics seems to be substantiated when the actual manufactured product is mentioned in the mission statement. In this sense the Starbucks model is superior at the point of inception. The actual code for both is similar, as both codes define the practices that should be conducted; in the workplace, with clients/customers, assessing the flow of intellectual property and in the community.

These are all key aspects that should be clearly defined in any business ethics model and both the McDonald’s and Starbucks model effectively cover these critical attributes. One factor that appears to be superior in the McDonalds model is the incentive for “continuous improvement” (McDonalds Code-of-Ethics). McDonalds therefore states that there model is continuously evolving to demonstrate sound ethical practices in all areas. In contrast the Starbucks model does define the “ethical” framework that was used to develop the model, which in itself suggests that there is always room for improvement. However, clearly stating that improvement is always occurring may be the most beneficial statement for an organization that will likely face some kind of negative ethical conduct in the future. An additional factor that is unfavorable within the McDonalds code-of-ethics is that they state that one of their main motives is to “grow our business profitably” (McDondalds Code-of-Ethics). Although it makes legal sense to state that you are a for profit entity, this really is clear and does not need to be highlighted in the letter from the CEO in the introduction, as a key element. It is in this sense that McDonalds dooms its own code-of-ethics as the consumer and employees are always reminded of the main goal of this corporation. In any element this one statement may function to negate all the positive gains made by previous statements, as it casts a dark corporate shadow on the whole organizational code.

The legal enforcement of these codes of conduct is not practical in nature but should function to provide the public relations material needed, in the event that a case is brought to light. It is at that point in time that the models should be assessed with respect to the particular case and the federal (if applicable) as well as regional laws should be applied concomitantly with the code of ethics. I also believe that while no code of ethics may be fully enforceable, each employee of the organization should sign that they have read and understand the information provided in the company code. Training on the code should also occur at least semi-annually.