Archive for the ‘ethics’ Category
The Ethics of Ethics Awards
Here’s a story worth looking at, by Will Evans, in Slate:
It’s All Good: Beware of corporate consulting firms offering awards for corporate ethics.
Evans casts a skeptical eye on corporate ethics rankings. The article focuses in particular on the rankings issued by Ethisphere (the same organization that has honoured me twice in the last 2 years). I should also note that I’m mentioned in the story as someone who was technically a member (though not an active member) of the advisory board for its corporate ethics ranking.
I’m also quoted by Evans as saying that such rankings should be taken “with a grain of salt.” (Note, though, that the sentence that contains that quote might be taken, wrongly, to imply that I think rankings are window dressing. That’s an accident of sentence structure, and doesn’t represent my view.) But it’s true that such rankings shouldn’t be taken too literally. Corporate ethics is complex, and any ranking methodology is going to involve compromises and is going to be inherently controversial.
Now, I’ve been blogging about the limitations of corporate ethics rankings for years. Just a few examples:
- Corporate Social Responsibility Ranking (March 2006)
- Tobacco Company Smokes the Competition on Corporate Citizenship (July 2006)
- Ranking Corporate Ethics Campaigns (October 2006)
- Battle of the Corporate Ethics Rankings (February 2009)
A few quick points to make about Evans’ article:
First is that, to be fair to Ethisphere, the article doesn’t give any particular reason for singling out Ethisphere’s rankings, among the many similar rankings. I suspect an article could easily be written about each of the other rankings, with similar results (though perhaps not with precisely the same set of complaints).
Second, the key worry that Evans cites about Ethisphere’s corporate rankings is that Ethisphere’s sister organization, Corpedia, is an ethics and compliance consulting firm. And it’s not clear how (or to what extent) Ethisphere manages to insulate its ethics ranking from Corpedia’s interest in gaining new clients. It’s a fair worry, and I imagine we’ll see improvements from Ethisphere (at least in terms of transparency, and perhaps in terms of process) in the coming months.
Third, it’s worth noting, as in other cases involving conflict of interest, that there’s no accusation of actual malfeasance, here. Nowhere does Evans imply that Ethisphere has done anything dishonest, or that its rankings have actually been biased. The worry, rather, is in…well, in the worry. We worry about C.O.I. not just in situations where we think someone has actually been biased, but also in situations in which we think that bias could be likely to occur. It diminishes our faith in the system, though not necessarily in the people working within it.
Fourth, it’s also worth noting that the concern highlighted by Evans in his article mirrors quite directly the worry about financial consulting firms that (at least prior to Sarbanes Oxley) provide both auditing and other consulting services to the same company. Prior to Sarbanes Oxley’s harsher limits, accounting firms did at least have a range of mechanisms in place (such as Chinese Walls) to insulate their auditors from the profit-hungry consulting branches of their own firms. Groups that do rankings might learn from that example.
Finally, a point about the point of ethics rankings. Evans ends his article with an anecdote about a company that had done well on an ethics ranking, and that used that achievement as a way of trying to deflect questions about a more recent scandal. That, of course, is an utter misuse of such a ranking. Corporate ethics rankings, at their best, acknowledge — and hence reward — achievement in certain measurable ethically-relevant behaviours. They are not an eternal benediction, and neither corporate insiders nor outsiders should treat them that way.
Finally: Why the “R” in “C.S.R.”?
You probably saw this coming.
In mid-July, I asked Why the “C” in “CSR”?. Two weeks later I followed up with, Why the “S” in “CSR”? In both cases, my complaint was basically that the words the letters stand for (i.e., “Corporate” and “Social”) are too narrow to capture the topic at hand. So, am I now going to question the R-as-in-“Responsibility?” Yes, here endeth the trilogy.
The “R” in “CSR” is there because CSR grew out of an interest in the idea that companies, especially the biggest and most powerful ones, have some obligation, some responsibility, to do right by the communities they are part of. But the notion of “responsibility” is inadequate to capture the range of questions about which CSR advocates are typically (and ought to be) concerned. Such as:
- Questions about rights, such as “Is there a right to freedom of commercial speech? Does that right extend to corporations? Or does free speech only apply to individuals acting in their private capacity?”
- Questions about value, such as “Are there some things that ought not be market goods? Which ones? Why?”
- Questions about the virtues appropriate to the world of business.
- Questions about what kinds of actions are permissible, even if not morally praiseworthy.
- Questions about what kinds of actions are ethically desirable, even if they would not count as being a responsibility.
Now, each of those types of questions involves, at least tangentially, other questions that are about responsibility. But the questions above certainly cannot be reduced to questions of responsibility.
Of course, maybe people interested in CSR aren’t interested in those questions, or think such questions somehow are not central. But that just means that, whatever CSR is about, it isn’t about a whole range of the most interesting normative questions about business.
Modern Ethics: More Than Personal Integrity
Filed under: character, ethics, government, honesty, virtue |
Leave a comment 
I blogged two weeks ago about Obama & Business Ethics.
Today, Wayne Norman (of Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics), has this very good opinion piece in the Durham, NC News & Observer: “Honor and conflicts in the new age of ethics”.
Here are the first few paragraphs:
On his first full day in office, President Obama chose to shine the spotlight on “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel.”
The executive order issued Jan. 21 requires all those appointed during Obama’s presidency to an executive agency to sign a pledge contractually committing them not to accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations, among other similar restrictions.
These reforms are primarily concerned with avoiding conflicts of interest and restoring public trust in Washington. They do not in any way lie along a traditional right-left continuum, but they do represent a paradigm shift in values, one that might best be described as “generational.”
Older generations of politicians cling to the belief that they can ensure government integrity merely by appointing honorable people to sensitive offices, even if these people have outside interests (say, had just worked or lobbied for a firm they are now supposed to regulate).
Obama and much of his team have come of age in an era which recognizes that organizational and professional ethics cannot be expected to piggyback entirely on the virtues and character traits of good individuals. In other words, designing and running an ethical organization now requires concepts and categories of values that nobody learned at their mother’s knee.
Wayne’s overall point is obviously not just about the Obama administration. It’s about the right approach to ethics in any complex institutional setting. Once upon a time, the best advice we could give to leaders and administrators was, “Do your best. Be honest. Don’t give in to temptation.” And that’s still good advice. But increasingly, good ethics has to be not just about the integrity of individuals, but about how to structure institutions so that they work as well as possible, in spite of the foibles and frailties of the best among us, and the machinations of the worst.
(Note: Wayne & I co-authored a chapter on Conflict of Interest for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics. Wayne is also the author of Negotiating Nationalism: Nation-Building, Federalism, and Secession in the Multinational State.)
Charity Porn
Some people think the kind of consumer-driven charity represented by the (Product) Red Campaign is a bad thing. “Consumerism isn’t the answer,” they say, “It’s the problem.” You can’t (or shouldn’t?) help those less fortunate by pandering to Western culture’s base, consumerist instincts, say the critics. Well, if you’re one of those critics, brace yourself: a Japanese porn production company (Natural High) is now making “charity porn.” According to the folks at Jezebel:
[T]he Natural High performers have sex with impoverished local Africans on film. The director gave about $11,000 to a Kenyan charity, distributed some corn and free T-shirts to the locals in the area and then — reportedly — gathered up a few local men to have sex on tape with their performers…. For every DVD they sell, the company plans to give another $10 to the same charity.
Just about everyone I’ve read seems to find this project distasteful, but at least some are uncertain why they feel that way. Others think the wrong here is obvious — but they don’t necessarily do a good job of explaining that. The most common charge seems to be “exploitation,” though as I’ve said here before, it’s much easier to launch a charge of exploitation than it is actually to state clearly what that means. There are worries about playing to cultural stereotypes about the dangerous sexual potency of the ‘naked savage,’ etc. But, just to play devil’s advocate, here, there’s also an infusion of cash happening that wouldn’t be happening otherwise. It’s not clear how we should weigh the kind of diffuse harm (or insult?) done by such portrayals with the small-but-real benefits of these cash donations.
One last point: surely some regular readers will have noted by now the parallel between this story and last week’s blog entry Burger King’s “Whopper Virgins” campaign. (See: Advertising, Documentaries, and Cultural “Exploitation”.) In both cases, someone from a developed nation visited a less-developed nation, perhaps bringing some benefit but with the primary mission of deriving benefit, for themselves, precisely from the “primitive” image of the locals. It’s food for thought.
—-
Found via Marginal Revolution who got it from Wronging Rights who got it from Jezebel, etc.
No Cake for Little Hitler: Ethics in the Bakery
Filed under: decision-making, discrimination, ethics, retail, values |
Comments (4) 
Freedom is a wonderful thing; freedom of speech is particularly important. But speech can also be a potent weapon. Your way of expressing yourself might prove horrific to me. Given that lot of businesses make all or part of their livelihood from helping people express themselves, challenges are bound to arise. Case in point, from The Lehigh Valley Express-Times: Holland Township family angry that supermarket won’t personalize cake for their son
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell and Adolf Hitler Campbell.
Good names for a trio of toddlers? Heath and Deborah Campbell think so. The Holland Township couple has picked those names and the oldest child, Adolf Hitler Campbell, turns 3 today.
This has given rise to a problem, because the ShopRite supermarket in Greenwich Township has refused to make a cake for young Adolf’s birthday.
“We believe the request … to inscribe a birthday wish to Adolf Hitler is inappropriate,” said Karen Meleta, a ShopRite spokeswoman.
The Campbells turned down the market’s offer to make a cake with enough room for them to write their own inscription and can’t understand what all of the fuss is about.
Here’s an earlier, longer version of the story: Holland Township man names son after Adolf Hitler
ShopRite is within its rights to refuse to make the cake. They certainly have no obligation to help the Campbells live out their probably-hateful or at-least-misguided lifestyle. (Note: I’m willing to soften the case against these parents because, based on reading the longer version of the story — they seem dim-witted, not evil. Whatever.)
So, it was at least OK, and perhaps ethically a good thing, to refuse to make the cake. Of course, it’s easy to imagine all kinds of tacky, tasteless things someone would want to have written on a cake (“Happy Birthday, Assh*le!” or “Show Me Your T*ts!). I can imagine borderline cases that would give bakery managers headaches. But a cake paying apparent homage to the 20th Century’s literal poster boy for evil is probably not a borderline case.
Not surprisingly, different stores have different standards. Apparently the local Wal-Mart made little Adolf’s first two birthday cakes:
A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said the store won’t put anything illegal or profane on a cake but thinks it’s important to respect the views of customers and employees.
The Wal-Mart spokesperson’s premise is a little off, here: you don’t need to respect all views of your customers and employees. A healthy degree of respect for cultural and religious differences is a good thing, but not all views are worthy of respect. So I don’t think a store needs to be willing to make Nazi cakes in order to show its support for diversity. But while I think what ShopRight did in refusing to make that cake was perfectly fine, I’m not sure there’s anything badly wrong with another store going ahead and making the cake. It is, after all, the kid’s name, and by making the cake the store would be pretty far from promoting Nazism. In a free society — and a free market — we probably want to allow merchants a reasonable degree of leeway in the customer preferences they are willing to tolerate.
Bailouts, Corporate Jets, and Moral Outrage
Filed under: accountability, ethics, excuses, government, taxpayers |
Comments (5) 
Last year I saw a talk by economist Robert Frank, on “Moral Outrage.” His overarching theme was that moral outrage is a useful thing, and that we therefore ought not to squander it by aiming it at undeserving targets.
That talk came to mind when I read about how the CEO’s of the big 3 automakers got raked over the coals for showing up in Washington to plead for a government bailout — and arriving in 3 sleek corporate jets.
For a glimpse, see this story from Business Week: Auto Bailout: Seeking Signs of Sacrifice
Maybe it would have been a good idea for the chief executives of the U.S. Big Three auto companies and the president of the United Auto Workers to save a few dollars and share a ride to their appearance before Congress, where they are asking for at least $25 billion to keep from going bankrupt.
Three different members of the House of Representatives pointed out on Nov. 19 that the three CEOs and the union chief were flown to Washington in separate, private planes. The representatives used that example to express skepticism that the executives are prepared to make the needed changes in their operations, accountability, and culture to turn around their sinking industry.
(See also: Big Three auto CEOs flew private jets to ask for taxpayer money, from CNN.)
For some people, the initial flash of moral outrage comes from the apparent contradiction involved in showing up in an expensive jet to ask for a handout. But (using rough numbers here) a single CEO to spending $20,000 to fly to Washington to ask for $20billion is spending 1 one millionth of the proposed bailout of his company. For a company the size of GM or Ford or Chrysler, $20 grand just isn’t a lot of money. Pocket change. (Or look at it this way: a CEO who makes $20 million a year is making about $10,000 an hour. Waste 2 hours of time waiting for a commercial flight and you’ve “paid” for your flight on a corporate jet.)
Some people will realize the above — surely the angry members of congress did — and still express moral outrage at the symbolic aspect of the flights. How could these execs each spend, on a single flight, the equivalent of a few months’ salary for one of their workers? Why such a visible show of wealth? Isn’t that unseemly? Perhaps. But at least a partial response to that lies in the surprising fact that these CEOs may not have had much choice. As is the case at many large companies, the Boards of the Big Three actually require their CEOs to fly by corporate jet, for reasons of security and efficiency. See this story from the Chicago Tribune: For many CEOs, private jets the only way to fly.
So, is moral outrage totally misplaced here? The money is a drop in the bucket, and the CEOs were simply following what are arguably reasonable corporate policies. Probably. Outrage is likely better reserved for other aspects of their performance as CEOs, or perhaps for having the gall to ask for public money in the first place.
Still, it’s hard not to find something unseemly here. These CEOs apparently didn’t even see the irony, superficial as it might be. They didn’t even think ahead enough to apologize for their lavish trips, or to make some symbolic act of contrition. Now that’s not reason for outrage. Being out of touch with the sensitivities of regular people on a particular day isn’t necessarily a grave sin. But it’s not exactly great, either. I was once asked if it’s unethical to be rude. The answer to that question seems relevant here: we might not want to label a single lapse in manners as unethical, but we’re quite justified in calling it unethical when we see a pattern of rude — or insensitive — behaviour.
—–
Thanks to Laura, Lori, Jared, and Ralph on the SBE list for their thoughtful discussion & helpful links. Inadequacies in the stuff above are all mine.
Ethics Consultant as Hall Monitor: Business Ethics on “The Office”
“Let’s get ethical! Ethical! I wanna get ethical!”
A couple of weeks ago, the hit show The Office had an episode all about business ethics. In case you missed it, here’s the Two Minute Replay on NBC’s website. [Note: the link seems to be dead.]
It’s a nice send-up of the role(s) many people see (or just fear) ethics consultants and ethics officers playing in businesses: cheerleader, schoolmarm, formulaic applier of checklists.
Anyone with the word “ethics” attached to their job title (or just to their organizational role) will be able to sympathize with this lament, from the ethics consultant character in the episode:
People are suspicious of me. Turns out being the morality police does not make you popular. I should know, because in middle school I was the Hall Monitor and the kids used to stuff egg salad in my locker. I was just hoping middle school was over.
—-
p.s. not all ethics consultants are like that!
Google on Google in China
Filed under: accountability, corporations, decision-making, ethics, government, international, privacy, technology |
Comments (3) Here’s an amazing story about a company (well, a founder & senior executive) ruminating — publicly — about the ethics of a recent corporate decision. In particular, it’s Google co-founder Sergey Brin, talking about Google’s activities in China:
From the Detroit Free Press: Brin Says Google Compromised Principles (by By Ted Bridis, writing for the Associated Press)
We felt that perhaps we could compromise our principles but provide ultimately more information for the Chinese and be a more effective service and perhaps make more of a difference,” Brin said.
…
“It’s perfectly reasonable to do something different, to say, ‘Look, we’re going to stand by the principle against censorship and we won’t actually operate there.’ That’s an alternate path,” Brin said. “It’s not where we chose to go right now, but I can sort of see how people came to different conclusions about doing the right thing.”
Most of you already know about Google’s controversial move to offer version of its search engine in China that meets the censorship requirements of the Chinese government. (If not, see the blog entries listed below.) What amazes (and impresses) me most about the latest installment in this story is the casual transparency of (some aspects of) Google’s decision-making. Here’s the co-founder and co-president of one of the most powerful companies in the world chatting with reporters about ethics. Like, not reading a prepared statement, but thinking it through, out loud, and admitting that he’s not sure the company is on-track. Some would read this as a sign of weakness. I take it as the opposite. Who wouldn’t be uncertain about a path as clearly fraught with ethical peril as Google’s current path in China? Say what you will about the substance of Google’s strategy, you have to admire a company with the moral courage to be open about its own doubts.
Earlier Business Ethics Blog entries on this topic:
- Does Google’s “Dont Be Evil” Apply in China? (January 27, 2006)
- Update: Google in China (January 29, 2006)
- Becker & Posner Blog on Google in China (February 22, 2006)
The Business Ethics Blog 