Corporate Ethics

[Michaelangelica]

Officers of publicly owned companies are under pressure to produce short term profits at the expense of long-term prudence and safety - many investors don’t care if a company goes down in litigious ruin, so long as they buy in early and cash out before the crash, realizing a good ROI, and they are among those who vote in the boards that hire and fire the officers.

You have a chilling way of stating the obvious

That is Why we need A Corpoate Statement of Ethics:China Man

At the moment ethical standards among Corporations is at an all time low.:Guns:

Their leaders/managers are not responsible to the electorate as a whole. Just to shareholders -often/mostly? other corporations. ;)

 

EG such a statement might include

Article 4

All people, endowed with reason and conscience, must accept a responsibility to each and all, to families and communities, to races, nations, and religions in a spirit of solidarity: What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others.

 

Article 7

Every person is infinitely precious and must be protected unconditionally. The animals and the natural environment also demand protection. All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations.

 

Justice and Solidarity

Article 8

Every person has a responsibility to behave with integrity, honesty and fairness. No person or group should rob or arbitrarily deprive any other person or group of their property.

 

Article 11

All property and wealth must be used responsibly in accordance with justice and for the advancement of the human race. Economic and political power must not be handled as an instrument of domination, but in the service of economic justice and of the social order.

 

Truthfulness and Tolerance

Article 12

Every person has a responsibility to speak and act truthfully. No one, however high or mighty, should speak lies. The right to privacy and to personal and professional confidentiality is to be respected.

No one is obliged to tell all the truth to everyone all the time.

 

Article 13

No politicians, public servants, business leaders, scientists, writers or artists are exempt from general ethical standards, nor are physicians, lawyers and other professionals who have special duties to clients.

Professional and other codes of ethics should reflect the priority of general standards such as those of truthfulness and fairness.

 

More detail here

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/7949-declaration-human-responsibilities.html?highlight=corporate+ethics

 

PS

why worry about an academic cloning threat when you have mad cow disease?

CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier

this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to

them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest

case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.

 

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA

officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

 

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a

picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is

thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they

consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,

incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated

with the mad cow pathogen.

http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1.0.0&disp=inline&view=att&th=110383f57ed08623

[InfiniteNow]

Need more than just a statement of ethics... we need the application of them. ;)

[TheBigDog]

The impact to the science, I think, would be less than the impact to business. However, recent history has shown that bans on transgen and clones products have had less bottom-line impact on major, diversified business, and to economies as a whole, than suggested by pessimistic predictions. The big losers in such bannings have been small, highly leveraged start up companies dedicated entirely to a single line of research. This is why venture capitalism, though potentially lucrative, is risky.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Craig. (As though there is ever another kind of reply from you.)

 

I would venture that with the market removed, much of the funding for continued research would disappear as well. Yes, there would be small companies who's business models were completely reliant upon the market for cloned goods becoming established, but there is also a great deal of capital being invested in general research that is justified by speculation of an obvious emerging market, even if it is not tied to the success of that market. For anyone to continue research they would need to do so in the hope that they created a product that would eventually be approved, or they would do it simply for the knowledge. There would always be research just because there is something to learn, but when there is a pot of gold at the end, it is much easier to get the research funded.

 

My other comment was far more politically targeted. If thee products were deemed unfit for consumption, blame would be placed. It would become a contentious political broo-ha-ha doubtlessly drawn down party lines claiming short sightedness, religious pandering, and class division. But what else is new?

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

You have a chilling way of stating the obvious ;)

That is Why we need A Corpoate Statement of Ethics:artgallery:

At the moment ethical standards among Corporations is at an all time low.:evil:

The statement that ethical standards are at an all time low, what is this supposed to mean? How do you measure it? Statements like that are purely opinion, and should be framed as such. It is my experience that over the past four years corporate ethical standards are at an all time high. I measure this by the requirements of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), and the compliance of US corporations located around the world.

 

The company I work for has some 22,000 employees in 33+ countries around the world. We are a public US corporation, so we are required to comply with SOX. We may have spent $100,000,000 or more on the task of documenting our compliance with this act over the past 3 years. That includes the fees to the auditing firm, hiring consultants to help us with the audit process, updating processes to comply with the audit rules established, updating business systems to be compliant with the business rules established. All hard costs that someone in the company must know. There are also soft costs involved in following the new procedures. Simple tasks in the past have become a trail of red tape for the sake of compliance. And example. In the past I would be installing business systems in a new plant. I would fill out a paper with the names of the employees, and what we wanted their login names for the system to be. I, as the IT project manager could do this on my own authority. Now I need to fill out an entire request form for each user. That requires signature approval from the plant manager and the plant controller, and the employee. Copies are sent to a divisional processing center where the task is done. What I used to take 2 people and a single email (myself and the person doing the work) now takes 4 people plus each employee being processed. Why? Because of defending against hypothetical abuses of the system.

 

Our biggest competitors are foreign and private companies, none of whom were required to spend a dollar on compliance. That is money we didn't spend on R&D, or on capital investment, or on expanding markets. Research that includes making our products more environmentally friendly. Research that includes improving our use of recycled materials. It was money leached from profits for the purpose of generating "peace of mind" that every step is being taken to prevent fraud. Thanks so much for your acknowledgment of that effort (on behalf of the hundreds of millions of people working on this problem who apparently make no difference).

 

The act of auditing (we are audited every year as is every public US corporation), and all the attention paid certainly reduced the likelyhood of people committing corporate fraud. But it is no guarantee that corporate fraud does not still exist. That is not a function of business or corporations, it is a function of humanity. Some people are devious, and they will find ways of taking advantage of whatever system they are working in. All we can do is make it more and more difficult, and make the consequences less pleasant.

 

Corporations are also taking great strides in becoming more environmentally conscious. Generally speaking waste = inefficiency. Through the simple process of continuous improvement the amount of waste within an industry gets lower over time on a per unit basis. Corporations also do a great deal internally, locally, nationally, and globally to be known as "green" or environmentally friendly. Progress is made every day on every front to lower the environmental impact of industry. The trend is in the favor of clean, and that is not just because of the political correctness and the marketing appeal, but in the very end because it is the most cost effective way of doing business.

 

And all of that is why I take exception to your rather flippant comment that ethical standards are at an all time low. You may WANT to see that as just common knowledge, but it is in fact nothing but uninformed BS or political spin.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

The statement that ethical standards are at an all time low, what is this supposed to mean? How do you measure it? Statements like that are purely opinion, and should be framed as such. It is my experience that over the past four years corporate ethical standards are at an all time high.

 

And all of that is why I take exception to your rather flippant comment that ethical standards are at an all time low. You may WANT to see that as just common knowledge, but it is in fact nothing but uninformed BS or political spin.

 

Bill

What you say about your own company/experience sounds like good news BgDog

 

I guess it depends on your point of view.

Is the glass half empty or half full?

 

From my experince, looking from this end of the world, the glass is half empty.

 

Googling local press I was hard pressed to find more than one good news story re corporate ethics.

 

That is not to say that things arn't getting better and corporations are becoming aware of ethics.

My comment was not intended to be flippant. It is what I beleive.

SOME EXAMPLES (of Why I believe this):

 

McDonald's Business Ethics

How far and how high does the rot go?

McDonald's business ethics

Cases of the McDonalds Corporation poor business ethics and corporate governance - financial conduct

Dr Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre, said that Australian companies are generally doing well in the area of Corporate Strategy. However, consistent with the latest UK Index results, more work needs to be done to ensure that responsible business practice is embedded throughout all areas of business activity.

 

"Both British and Australian companies fall short of community expectations that they not only develop policies for responsible business practice, but also implement these," he said. "Once you start to delve into the ways businesses actually act on the strategies articulated in their corporate documents, it's clear that more work is required in this area

media release: 28.8.04 - corporate responsibility index

"The thing that motivates me and motivates the Government more than anything else is outcomes,'' Mr Kennett said. "What we want is the best people available to do a job

Proust Soars To A New Challenge,

 

 

One of the defining features of the modern marketplace, of Mayne Nickless, and of politicians in the 1990's has been their imperviousness to the sensibilities of others and their willingness to fly in the face of established protective norms and community perceptions of propriety.

They define success in terms of outcomes and pay little attention to how those outcomes are attained.

They model themselves on modern management and adopt the marketplace ethics of modern managers.

 

In Mayne Nickless we have an organisation pursued and heavily fined by one arm of government for antisocial, dishonest and illegal behaviour detrimental to other citizens - a thoroughly unsavoury group of citizens. At the same time another arm of government, intent on a different set of outcomes has courted this company, given its staff senior government positions, used it as a vehicle for government policy and passed laws to make its activities legal.

Mayne Nickless :: Conflicts of Interest

 

Steal Big, Steal Little

 

Corporate malfeasance isn't confined solely to the executive suite. Corruption has trickled down to all levels of the organisational hierarchy, and companies may have only themselves to blame.

"We've gotten so used to the high-profile scandals, with billion-dollar costs and executives with flashy lifestyles, that we're missing the real point," says Chris Bauer, a psychologist and author in Nashville, Tennessee, who gives ethics training to corporate workforces.

"We've slipped into thinking that ethics problems are caused by a small group of corporate psychopaths.

The reality is that it's going on all the time, at all levels of companies."

In a 2004 study, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners reports that the average American company loses 6 percent of its annual revenue to internal malfeasance, ranging from fraudulent financial statements to kickbacks extorted from suppliers.

The total cost to the U.S. economy has increased by 50 percent over the past eight years, to a staggering $660 billion.

Challenge Consulting - Press Release - Steal Big, Steal Little

In good company

Date: December 16 2006

As public confidence in corporations plummets, they are trying to reinvent themselves with a soft centre, writes Julian Lee.

 

WHEN the millionaire adman John Singleton says he wants to save the whale, and big banks start running TV ads telling us they won't back businesses that harm the environment or the community, you have to ask yourself - has business finally found a heart?

 

All too often corporate Australia is in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, cutting jobs or moving them abroad, executives caught with their noses in the trough or hands in the till.

Things are gradually changing.

Businesses are going the extra mile to get their employees, customers and suppliers to admire them.

. . ,

Last month the first industry organisation aimed at promoting corporate social responsibility - the unwieldy term by which a more ethical approach to business and the community is known - came into being.

www.smh.com.au - In good company

 

A good news story

What is corporate social responsibility?

 

In modern society, the power of corporations is growing rapidly.

Of the world�s top 100 economies, 51 are actually corporations rather than countries. (1)

 

Corporations are responsible to their all their stakeholders � shareholders, employees, suppliers and customers.

 

By ensuring their work practices are fair to people in poor communities, and by avoiding environmentally damaging practices, they can positively impact the communities in which they operate and ensure stakeholder value.

 

Social conscience and profitability possible

 

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development describes corporate social responsibility as: �the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large.� (2)

 

Companies operate in part because the society in which they exist makes it possible. If individuals have a social conscience, why not companies, which are ultimately made up of people?

 

Naturally, this can�t be at the expense of profitability. Many companies are showing that it�s possible to achieve both.

 

Westpac Bank is one of them.

 

Westpac�s corporate social responsibility commitments span areas such as human rights, biodiversity, climate change, corporate governance and social, ethical and environmental risk.

 

Westpac also actively supports the involvement of its staff in the community, by providing flexible working conditions and a paid day of leave for staff to participate in community activities. All these activities have increased staff morale and reduced employee turnover.

 

Dr Noel Purcell, Westpac�s Group General Manager, Stakeholder Communications, believes that companies don�t have much choice but to take their responsibilities seriously.

 

�It is in a company�s intelligent self interest to embark on a responsibility program � to take responsibility for managing the various impacts that they have on the economy, on the environment and also on the people that they impact.

World Vision Australia - Connect - Ethics in business

 

 

This is interesting on the psychology of organisations

 

Writing in the journal Research Technology Management earlier this year, the esteemed US psychoanalyst Michael Maccoby implies that we have forgotten the difference between ethical and moral behaviour.

"Ethics has to do with obeying the rules.

Morality has to do with reasoning and behaving according to values that go beyond narrow self-interest.

A change of incentives combined with regulation can improve long-term results and corporate ethics. But it won't create moral organisations."

 

Maccoby cites the work of Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, who identified three levels of moral reasoning.

 

People at the higher levels decide what will benefit others beyond the immediate group, and those in the middle conform to what is good for their family organisation. At the lowest level are those who blindly obey authority.

 

Unfortunately, says Maccoby, most people in organisations are at the lower level, because telling the truth, asking hard questions and delivering bad news are career-limiting moves.

�

MUCH more here

Sort ethics from morals - Leon Gettler - www.theage.com.au

 

Business Ethics

 

The Australian Wheat Board scandal may not be a one-off as news breaks that seven possible breaches of the UN's sanctions on the oil-for-food program are being investigated by the Australian Federal Police.

 

So when do business ethics conflict with moral ethics?

Do business leaders exist in a society within a society where success is rewarded, no matter how that success is achieved?

A society where the emphasis is on the numbers and immediate success rather than on long-term values?

 

What drives good leaders to make unethical (not to mention illegal) choices? The businesses don't need to be Enrons, WorldComs or the AWB.

There are questions here that small business owners need to consider.

The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: Open All Hours

 

]Why managers fail to do the right thing[/b]

Filed in archive Ethics by leon on January 19, 2007

 

How effective a deterrent is the threat of a jail sentence or heavy fine?

Why do managers keep stepping over the line when it come to ethical behavior?

And why do the same things keep happening over and over again, despite governments constantly bringing in tougher laws.

 

Just some of the questions raised by this London Business School study, Why Managers Fail To Do The Right Thing: An Empirical Study of Unethical and Illegal Conduct by N. Craig Smith, Sally S Simpson and Chun-Yao Huang.

 

The researchers found that bringing in more stringent laws, like Sarbanes-Oxley, has little effect on changing bad behavior.

 

They based their research on surveys that asked managers on how they would respond to unethical and illegal acts: price-fixing, bribery or violation of emission standards.

They were also measured on how they would respond to the threat of formal sanctions, how their actions stacked up against their own sense of morality, outcome expectancies (e.g. job loss, loss of respect, jeopardizing future job prospects and obedience to authority (i.e. their receptiveness to the Nuremberg Defence ["I was following orders"]). The respondents were in their mid-thirties, white and of US nationality. Two thirds were male, over half were married, all well-educated and most were experienced managers.

 

Sox First - Main page - Business is the most important thing - and there SOX comes first. - Sarbanes-Oxley, management, compliance, IPO, enron

 

I could go to page 2 of my Google search if you like;

but hopefully you can see that my remark was not intended to be flippant. Quite the contrary.

 

The suggestions I made for a Coporate "Script" in my previous post came from Malcolm Frazer an ex-Prime Minister of Australia.

--

[TheBigDog]

Did it ever occur to you that nobody writes news stories about companies that don't have problems. Your seeing it as half empty is being optimistic. The impression you leave is a choice of half empty/half useless. Or even half empty/ half evil. Since you say you see the "empty" side, you should now understand how I feel framed in your statements.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Did it ever occur to you that nobody writes news stories about companies that don't have problems.

Not true, especially in this area. Did you read my post? There was a least one good story and a couple of "C+s" (try harder)

Your seeing it as half empty is being optimistic.

Pessimistic perhaps? I have seen a lot of evil in corporations. Often promoted by their hierarchical structure.

 

Things like bribery is a way of life when doing business in Asia and the Middle East

 

The impression you leave is a choice of half empty/half useless. Or even half empty/ half evil. Since you say you see the "empty" side, you should now understand how I feel framed in your statements.

No, sorry I don't get "useless" or "framed" Are you being unnecessarily paranoid?

 

The choice is to see the glass as half empty or half full.

You choose to see the good news stories.

I choose to see the bad.

 

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Who knows?

:confused:

[Michaelangelica]

Found a copy of the "New Internationalist" December 2006, in the library

 

They seem to think the glass is half empty too

Vanessa Baird traces the wily ways of corruption – and the war against it. | December 2006 | New Internationalist

 

The people, the ideas, the action in the fight for global justice | New Internationalist

[Zythryn]

To paraphrase Bill - Bad news sells.

You don't see as many reports about good companies as bad.

In your media, do you get reports of crime? Do you get reports of people that help someone cross a street?

 

Yes, there are bad people out there. And yes, some of them run businesses. However, the business I helped run for many years was very upstanding. We didn't cheat anyone and we paid all our bills on time and in full.

 

Of the businesses I have dealt with in the last year, all but one has been adequate to outstanding. One was incompetant, but not necessarily unethical.

 

Forget news reports, look at your own experience.

[Michaelangelica]

You don't see as many reports about good companies as bad.

Yes you do see above post

 

[/QUOT

Forget news reports, look at your own experience.

I am

I think we have a cultural problem here.

Americans (USAans) seem to have much faith in their police, judiciary, legal system, politicians, public officials, corporate managers.

While in Australia that would be laughable. We expect them all to be corrupt and work for their own vested interests.

I think part of the problem is the US's rabid patriotism. While Australians are proud of their country they are not as patriotic as you are in the USA. This patriotism blinds you to a lot of bad stuff that goes down.

The present Oz right-wing government is trying to encourage patriotism with flag waving etc. But many Australians treat this move with suspicion too, and usually use the flag as a hat, beach-towel, Superman cloak or portable shade house while watching the cricket.

 

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500

employees and has the following statistics:

 

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse

* 7 have been arrested for fraud

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

* 3 have done time for assault

* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

 

Can you guess which organization this is?

US Congress

(A year or so old, may need to be up-dated.)

[Zythryn]

...I think we have a cultural problem here.

 

That could very well be true. It could also be that the business enviornment in the USA and AUS is different.

 

Americans (USAans) seem to have much faith in their police, judiciary, legal system, politicians, public officials, corporate managers.

 

Really, I would love to meet some of these Americans, I don't think I know of one that agrees with all of the above, if you include education I would be even more certain:)

 

I think part of the problem is the US's rabid patriotism.

 

Rabid patriotism?!? I think you are using too broad a brush. There are very few citizens I would term rabid patriots. However, this may be another cultural thing where your definition and mine are different.

Heck, many view our president as being more interested in his pocket than his patriotism. Do you have an example of a rabid patriot I can use as a measure of what you mean?

 

While Australians are proud of their country they are not as patriotic as you are in the USA. This patriotism blinds you to a lot of bad stuff that goes down.

 

Patriotism can do that, however I think that the people you atribute that to are blinded, not by patriotism, but by ego, personal bias or other things.

 

The present Oz right-wing government is trying to encourage patriotism with flag waving etc. But many Australians treat this move with suspicion too, and usually use the flag as a hat, beach-towel, Superman cloak or portable shade house while watching the cricket.

 

This is true in the USA as well. Not sure if there are as many US Flag hats as you have AUS hats but there are a number. Flags displayed in yards? Not too many, typically I see one or maybe two in a neighborhood. Unless it is a patriotic holiday. There were a number of more flags being flown in the months following 911, however those have disappeared for the most part.

 

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500

employees and has the following statistics:

 

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse

* 7 have been arrested for fraud

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

* 3 have done time for assault

* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

 

Can you guess which organization this is?

US Congress

(A year or so old, may need to be up-dated.)

 

That doesn't surprise me. As a matter of fact, if you get an updated list I would expect it to be worse. Our election system is corrupt. The party with the most money has a distinct advantage getting in. That typically means the politician with ties to more bussinesses gets that advantage. It doesn't always win them the election, but it gives them advantages.

 

H.E. double toothpicks!! We elected a failed businessman to the presidency... TWICE!

 

However, most businesses treat people ethically. Some don't, sure. But most, in my experience do. Now, if to be ethical a company can't have any employee that has ever shoplifted, then by that definition I would agree ethical companies are rare.

[Michaelangelica]

:hihi:

Did you notice that we have hijacked this thread?

Perhaps a good, kind, overworked moderator could move us to a little broom cupboard called Corruption?

That could very well be true. It could also be that the business enviornment in the USA and AUS is different.

Not much

 

Really, I would love to meet some of these Americans, I don't think I know of one that agrees with all of the above, if you include education I would be even more certain:)

Teachers and nurses would be held in higher regard than politicians. Shock Joks and RW Christians go on about gays and LW teachers occasionally

 

Rabid patriotism?!? I think you are using too broad a brush.

Did I say rabid! I meant rabbit. Seriously, I only meet ex-pats and I suppose they become more rabbity inversely due to distance and time over confusion

 

 

Patriotism can do that, however I think that the people you attribute that to are blinded, not by patriotism, but by ego, personal bias or other things.

Trouble is it is so bloody hard to generalize about 300mil people. I do my best however.

It seems almost impossible to change anyone's opinion, at least on the net

 

This is true in the USA as well.

Glad to hear it

 

Our election system is corrupt. The party with the most money has a distinct advantage getting in. That typically means the politician with ties to more bussinesses gets that advantage. It doesn't always win them the election, but it gives them advantages.

We have

1. taxpayer funded elections. Each political party gets about 1.80 per vote toward election expenses. This is meant to stop corruption

2. All political donations have to be publicly listed. They were reading them out on the news the other day.eg Coles (a retailer) Liberal$10,000,Labour, $10,000, Greens $1.69

1 and 2 give the illusion of transparency. In fact, both major parties have set up trusts. You pay your money into the trust. The trust pays the money to the party. Your name is never mentioned.

 

 

 

However, most businesses treat people ethically. Some don't, sure. But most, in my experience do.

You see this is where we part company. If you said SMALL businesses I might agree or at least not think it worth fighting about. They seem more in contact with their customers and customer goodwill is more important to them. By small I mean less than 100 employees.

 

I think large corporations of over say 1000 employees can't help being corrupt. What is to stop them? Their conscience? Their religion? The way their mother bought them up? Big corporations can't be anthopmorphised. They don't have human values. They can't they are not human; they are dehumanizing ant's nests. There is no point being loyal to them they can't return such loyalty. They play on the deep, even profound, human need to bond and feel part of a community or group and the reinforcement of both money and prestige it gives member of the corporation-very tribal

 

Some examples of corrupt companies. (We won't mention tobacco companies eh?)

AWB (OZ)

adler (oz)

OneTell (oz)

Bond (oz)

Enron (US)

F Hoffmann -la Roche fined 500mil for anti-trust crimes

Daiwa Bank lts ' ' $340 mil ' ' '

BASF ' $225 mil

SGL Carbon '' ' ' ' ' $135mil ' ' '

The US Justice dept has in recent times taken action against Monsanto, ExxonMobil, Schlering-Plough, Titan, ABB and InVision Tecnologies (part of GE) for corrupt practices

GE has been in so many cases of fraud that aspecial agency was set up in the Pentagon to deal with just them They were indicted on 22 criminal counts and about 222 Mil was recovered.

 

Multinational companies launder around $207 billion of profits tax free out of developing countries a year. Aid from rich to poor countries is only $80 bil! a year

 

Only the middle class now pay tax - $11 trillion is held in off-shore tax havens (30% of the wealth of the world's richest individuals.) Did you ever wonder why the Pound is so strong and not a Euro? Half the tax havens are British territories etc.

 

 

ON the WEB

 

Transparancy International

OZ

http://www.transparancy.org.au

US

http://www.transparancy-usa.org.

Canada

volunteerworkk.com.

 

 

EthicsWorld

 

Taxjustice Redirect

 

AgainstCorruption.Org - UNICORN

 

The Corner House

 

 

US

http://www.whistleblower.org

 

Welcome to

[Michaelangelica]

I asked Big dog to move the Corparate morality bit of this thread

 

I saw this on the web and pinched it

very relevant, especially in oz at the moment

GetUp! - Action For Australia - www.getup.org.au

Friday, 23 February 2007

 

 

What we need now is more work on the role of conscience in our governance systems. If interested then I can suggest looking into a small subject called "management fraud risk assessment" -- and the three factors in the fraud triangle: Incentive/Pressure; Opportunity; and Rationalization/Attitude. There are many sources (try a Google search.

Here is one that I have used in the past to indicate the new focus on the "tone at the top" in respect to good governance.

 

“Tone at The Top: What organisations are like at their core is determined by the example set at the top. Everyone watches and takes their cues from the people who run the place.

If the most senior people are wise, honest, straightforward, hard-working, grounded, and respectful, then those qualities will permeate the entire organization. If instead, they are blindly ambitious, arrogant, greedy, self-absorbed, delusional and disrespectful, then that is what the organisation will become.” (McCallum 2004, p.4).

 

Proposed antidotes include “philosophy” and “humour” (e.g. in the “guise of a personality such as James Thurber”) to expose an “abundance of unsubstantiated assertions and strongly held opinions, and equivalent absence of thoughtful questions and rigorous analysis” (Ibid., p.4)

 

Specifically the effective control environment: “. . . sets the tone of an organization, influencing the control consciousness of its people. It is the foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline and structure. Control environment factors include the integrity, ethical values and competence of the entity's people; management's philosophy and operating style; the way management assigns authority and responsibility, and organizes and develops its people; and the attention and direction provided by the board of directors.” (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission 1994, p.2).

 

I saw an immediate change in the Department of Social Security almost the day after Malcolm Frazer took over from Gough Whitlam as PM of Australia. Nothing had been said, but the tone hardened overnight.

[pgrmdave]

How does one measure ethical behavior? How can we compare ethics of one era to ethics of another? Or one company to another? Or one person to another? To say "many businesses are corrupt" requires a good definition of corruption - does it mean breaking the law? Does it mean using business tactics to harm the consumer? Does it mean using business practices to harm the workers? Does it mean using business practices to harm the owners/stockholders? If a company is based in the US, but has factories in another country that violate US laws but are okay by that country's laws, is it being unethical?

 

Sorry for the litany of questions, but I don't quite feel like I understand where this discussion is coming from.

[Buffy]

Dave poses some great questions here. The kinds of measures that one can apply are unfortunately highly subjective, and each person will value different things. Its really hard to legislate morality whether its prostitution or imprisoning passengers on a plane for 18 hours. We end up with stupid things like draconian drug laws and Sarbanes-Oxley ("SOX SUX!").

 

There are things government *should* legislate, but it tends to work much better when its highly focused (food/drug safety). Either extreme of this debate--no regulation or pervasive regulation--is not a solution: arguing this tradeoff based on principle is bad for all of us.

 

What works better than anything as far as Corporate Ethics go is setting up *motivating factors*. There's lots of debate about this, but even conservative economists say that the current status quo sucks. Focus on short-term profits has been twisted in recent years by management compensation packages that emphasize short-term results. It used to be that management was the counterweight to short-term investors because their on going compensation was tied to the long-term health of the company (pensions don't pay off tomorrow, only if you get to 65). Now everything is short-term and you end up with pyramid schemes like Enron.

 

There's a role for regulation though too. In a completely Lassez Faire environment, nothing Enron did would be illegal. That leaves all but insiders holding the bag, but you can't argue that the management didn't deliver what the investors were asking for which was impossible to sustain growth in stock price. To a great extent, Enron's malfeasance was abetted by lobbying governments to make it easier to game the markets they worked in (see "California Energy Crisis") to boost profits. So to a great extent, there is behavior going on (not new, see "Trustbusting" in the early 20th century) that is due to the ability of businesses to manipulate government. To the extent that these giant multi-national corporations have power and wealth beyond most nations, we have run into some unique situations.

 

Because voting rights in corporations is based on wealth, they operate in ways that benefit the wealthy: as a result, intervention by governments are essential if the non-wealthy are to be protected. The fact that they are now multi-national however makes their regulation difficult. In addition we are blinded by the fact that because they self-servingly claim to be (or accuse others of being) proxies of certain nations, they can play governments off against each other to their benefit (e.g. accusing foriegn firms of "unfair advantage" because their "home governments" "favor" them, like Boeing and Airbus constantly say about each other).

 

There is no magic bullet here. It is an area that is incredibly susceptible to the Law of Unintended Consequences, but the extremes that one usually hears are *not* the right solutions. It takes careful and judicious use of law and moral suasion to get these behemoths to "do the right thing." For that to happen, we all have to "do the right thing" too, and keep the pressure up.

 

Witness to endless corporate perfidity and stupidity,

Buffy

[Michaelangelica]

 

What works better than anything as far as Corporate Ethics go is setting up *motivating factors*. There's lots of debate about this, but even conservative economists say that the current status quo sucks. Focus on short-term profits has been twisted in recent years by management compensation packages that emphasize short-term results. It used to be that management was the counterweight to short-term investors because their on going compensation was tied to the long-term health of the company (pensions don't pay off tomorrow, only if you get to 65).

Now everything is short-term and you end up with pyramid schemes like Enron.

 

There is no magic bullet here. It is an area that is incredibly susceptible to the Law of Unintended Consequences, but the extremes that one usually hears are *not* the right solutions. It takes careful and judicious use of law and moral suasion to get these behemoths to "do the right thing." For that to happen, we all have to "do the right thing" too, and keep the pressure up.

 

Witness to endless corporate perfidity and stupidity,

Buffy

thanks Buffy very interesting

I thought this article was relevant.

MARCH 12, 2007

Hugging The Tree-Huggers

Why so many companies are suddenly linking up with eco groups. Hint: Smart business

Hugging The Tree-Huggers

 

I don't believe that there are many large corporations (over 1,000 employees) that act always in an ethical manner to all their customers, staff, competitors, the society they operate in, the environment, their social responsibility.

I am happy to be proved wrong.

A statement of Corporate Ethics is always a good place to start. How many corporations have these? (We might also include large government departments too?)

[Michaelangelica]

Interesting link on anew book

From Tyco’s apology for wrongdoing to the success of IKEA due to the ideals of its founder, Arena takes her readers through the five steps of evolution into a high-purpose company:

 

# See the Bigger Picture: A sustainable society and environment are necessary for the success of a company. Plowing through natural resources or not supporting the local community hurts a company’s long-term viability.

 

# Face the Truth: Admitting mistakes, rather than lying to the public, builds trust. Research shows that stakeholders are more forgiving to companies that apologize for their actions. It also allows companies to assess what improvements need to be made.

 

# Set Intent . . . Then Purpose: Companies must ask themselves what their ideal results are and what strengths they have (and don’t have) that will allow them to achieve their goals.

 

# Transcend and Include: When a company reaches this stage it becomes a high-purpose company by having engineered technologies and solutions that meet societal needs.

 

# Anchor: At this stage a company’s identity and its higher purpose have become indistinguishable. Without the higher purpose the company would be weakened and may even fall apart.

 

THE HIGH-PURPOSE COMPANY illustrates to readers that a corporation does not have to choose between being socially responsible and making a profit. Rather, being a high-purpose company leads to success. “Companies that offer people something that’s vital and substantive are more inclined to prevail,” says Arena. “In this way, corporate responsibility pays.”

 

CSRwire.com - News from Christine Arena: Why Corporate Social Responsibility is Good for Business – And How to Distinguish Between True and False CSR