These terms tend to be seen as very subjective, i.e. according to whom is something right or wrong, who says so, “this has nothing to do with me” attitude and so what, etc.
Rather use these phrases. What is negotiable and what is not negotiable and why. What is acceptable and what is not acceptable and why. These then would be the conversation points, the guidelines, the basis for all, considered to participate in the proper approach and reasoning for all decision making.
This method needs to be the foundation for the development of a code of ethics, by creating a process by which all who would be affected by this, would have the opportunity to participate in the discernment process of thinking logically about the code. Without the opportunity to provide input or questions, this process would fall short of its purpose.
There is a distinct difference between a leader saying that something is right or wrong without providing the why, and the leader that who can say “because we all agreed that this is non-negotiable, this is the wrong thing to do.”
Now the topic of compliance is a necessary consideration and a reason for a particular behavior. Compliance can be met with some questions due to the lack of participation, input, etc. in the establishment of a special law. All that is necessary is appropriate behavior, and that is acceptable in any number of instances. But for a more fully understood and accepted focus on ethical conduct, the more the people who will be affected, have an opportunity to question, remark, suggestion, etc. the better the response and the better the collective commitment to the process.