Introduction For many organisations, 'ethics' is something that needs to be defined and managed by senior leaders. Let us consider the arguments for and against this control-oriented position. In today's world it is all too common to see more and more people hungry for success at an ever-increasing rate. Modern culture can and is indeed labeled “greedy” and “reckless.” Over my long time in business, I have met many of these types of people. But who are they hungry for? Who benefits from their recklessness, and why do they do what they do? More importantly, whose fault is it if things don't go according to plan? These are all questions asked constantly in the business field, questions that often seem to include the word "ethics" in their answer. BodyWhether we look to consequentialism and always consider the outcome of a particular action, or we conform to a more deontological form of ethics by thinking and focusing on always acting in a way that seems "right", I believe that a person cannot always be "ethics", always. If it were that easy, ethics would be a very small area of ​​study. So what does the word “ethical” mean? For me it means taking into account every aspect involved in a given situation, people's feelings, thoughts and well-being, both now and in the future, and acting in the best way possible to achieve the most satisfactory outcome for all concerned. From my point of view, acting ethically comes from each individual, each of whom has learned from the environment in which he grew up and developed. Should the judgment, therefore, always be left to the individual? This is certainly not the case, as more and more organizations in business develop codes of ethics that they expect each member to follow. This definition and management of ethics can be seen as a control-oriented position. This control paradigm for organizational ethics is largely about extracting the best possible outcomes for the organization as a whole.