Introduction: Over the past decade there has been a growing interest in business ethics. This growing interest and desire to better understand ethical performance and decision making has led to the development of many hard-working research models, particularly on the ethical environment and ethical cultural concepts. Many models regarding these concepts refer to the fact that the ethical environment is influenced by individual characteristics and appropriate factors such as values, codes, rules, organizational form, etc. One of the most important factors in organization, explicit factors regarding ethics, is leader behavior because leaders are considered responsible for motivating moral values ​​and ethical standards in their subordinates (Dickson et al., 2001; Trevino et al. ., 1998). Leaders serve as role models for subordinates in the organization regarding what type of behavior should be practiced within the organization and how ethical problems and questions should be responded to (Nielsen, 1989). There is a strong relationship between ethical environment and leader conduct, but there is no effort to analyze the relationship between paternalistic leadership and ethical climate. Paternalism is a socio-cultural characteristic of Middle Eastern and Latin American culture and it is argued that paternalistic conduct is very common in the organizational framework and supports the development of humanization and renormalization of the workplace (Aycan, 2001). Paternalism is a ubiquitous cultural attribute of conventional Eastern societies such as China, Japan, India, and Korea (Aycan, 2001). Some of the cultural assumptions compatible with paternalism are collectivism, high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, (Hofstede, 1980) assertiveness and diffusion...... focus of the article......laghan (2003), any compass reading along the way to follow a line of inquiry approaches appears to be extraordinary and requires an additional questionnaire. Initiating these studies, one can infer that unambiguous hypothetical deliberations are extraordinary and that there is little availability of intelligibility on the topic of how consequences and recommendations were empirically generated (Helin and Sandstrom, 2007, p. 261). Upstream, authentication shows a lack of “knowledge about how codes work, how they are communicated and how they are transformed within organizations”, as highlighted by Helin and Sandsträm (2007, p. 253). Consequently, it is necessary to put in place a series of investigation methods that follow a course of action in order to gain a greater appreciation of how codes of principle work in organizations..