Archive for August, 2010

Mandatory Reporting on Misbehaviour

August 23rd, 2010 by admin | 1 Comment | Filed in CSR

An interesting dialogue has emerged on the Corporate Responsibility Officers Association Blog site on LinkedIn. Here is my (David Nitkin’s) latest posting to that site:

Ethicists continually try to ensure that organizations and their stakeholders do the right thing. The idea I’ve spoken of here is that industry associations, regulators, social responsibility reporters, social responsibility analysts, and progressive companies all have and share a vested interest in improving responsibility, transparency and accountability. The idea isn’t a voluntary one: society has reason to expect that (a) companies, governments and civil society organizations should report on material issues like carbon emissions, strikes, energy efficiency, and bribery convictions; and (b) that companies who are better actors should not be required to undergo the same time, media, reporting and filing costs that accrue to companies that are inferior actors. If doing good is the norm, then being forced to publicly disclose bad behaviour annually as part of reporting is the new better way to realize that norm.

For far too long accounting has rested wholly on GAAP principles and the responsibility for more meaningful reporting has been voluntary. Two generations ago, Justice Brandeis creatively argued that sunlight or transparency is a great disinfectant. We should be looking to all progressive corporate stakeholders to consider how best to operationalize the next stage of maturity of the idea of a social license to operate, and the virtue of making the scofflaw and polluter pay by shifting their calls toward requirements of transparency on these issues. The example of mandatory reporting of corporate involvement in South Africa in the 1980s (California, Canada) could and should be expanded.

Tweet This Post

Tags:

Can You Predict the Ethical Failures of Leaders?

August 17th, 2010 by admin | 2 Comments | Filed in Business Ethics

Ever wonder  why those   who  seem to have it all,  act like they want to lose it all? Blogging in the Harvard Business Review,  Richard Davis   explores  the psychology of  individual corruption  and asks where it resides.  He pursues  what goes on  in the mind of the unethical executive including   the recent demise of  Mark V Hurd CEO of HP.

Tweet This Post

Favorite Quote of the Week-Please Send Us Yours.

August 13th, 2010 by admin | No Comments | Filed in Social Media

” Moral  distress is  when you can see the best path through a situation, but the institution won’t permit it.”

Joan Halifax

.

Tweet This Post

Why Economic Recovery Hinges on Values

August 12th, 2010 by admin | 1 Comment | Filed in Business Ethics

Watch this video from the Harvard Business Review

Tweet This Post

Strenghening Ethics Through Better Process Management.

August 11th, 2010 by NSteinberg | No Comments | Filed in Business Ethics

A contribution to the debate about whether the focus should be on individual vs. organization ethics and the and the distinction between individual and organizational integrity by  the Corporate Compliance Insights folks.

Tweet This Post

Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal?

August 10th, 2010 by admin | No Comments | Filed in Social Media

“Whenever it comes up plagiarism is a hot button topic and essays about it  tend to be philosophically and morally inflated. But there are really only two points to make. (1) Plagiarism is a learned sin. (2) Plagiarism is not a philosophical issue.”

Stanley Fish

Tweet This Post

Official Statistics and Statistical Ethics : Selected Issues

August 9th, 2010 by admin | No Comments | Filed in Democracy

William Seltzer of Fordham University addresses  whether ethics have a role in official statistics taking,and what those  challenges and resolution may be.

Tweet This Post

Governance and Ethical Concerns at Hewlett-Packard

August 7th, 2010 by admin | No Comments | Filed in Business Ethics

“HP CEO Mark Hurd,  resigned abruptly Friday after a company inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment. Hewlett-Packard is  vulnerable in two areas, corporate ethics experts say, which the scandal has now more fully exposed: 1) Mr. Hurd’s combined role as CEO and chairman leaves an especially large void in the leadership at a sensitive time and 2) his $12.2 million severance payment is likely to renew focus on the company’s generous CEO pay.”

Tweet This Post

The Ethics of Public Participation

August 6th, 2010 by admin | No Comments | Filed in Social Media

Here is a wonderful post by Tim Bonnemann, founder  of Intellitics ,on the ethics of public participation:

It seems the topic of ethics and integrity in public participation is coming up more often these days (see my comments here, here).

Just for the record, these are the rules by which we at Intellitics abide.

First, we have IAP2’s Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation:

  • Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
  • Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
  • Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
  • Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
  • Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.
  • Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
  • Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

Second, IAP2’s Code of Ethics for Public Participation Practitioners:

The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Code of Ethics for Public Participation Practitioners supports and reflects IAP2’s Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation. The Core Values define the expectations and aspirations of the public participation process. The Code of Ethics speaks to the actions of practitioners.

Preamble

As members of IAP2, we recognize the importance of a Code of Ethics, which guides the actions of those who advocate including all affected parties in public decision-making process. In order to fully discharge our duties as public participation practitioners, we define terms used explicitly throughout our Code of Ethics. We define stakeholders as any individual, group of individuals, organizations, or political entity with a stake in the outcome of a decision. We define the public as those stakeholders who are not part of the decision-making entity or entities. We define public participation as any process that involves the public in problem-solving or decision-making and that uses public input to make better decisions.

This Code of Ethics is a set of principles, which guides us in our practice of enhancing the integrity of the public participation process. As practitioners, we hold ourselves accountable for these principles and strive to hold all participants to the same standards.

PURPOSE. We support public participation as a process to make better decisions that incorporate the interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders and meet the needs of the decision-making body.

ROLE OF PRACTITIONER. We will enhance the public’s participation in the decision-making process and assist decision-makers in being responsive to the public’s concerns and suggestions.

TRUST. We will undertake and encourage actions that build trust and credibility for the process among all the participants.

DEFINING THE PUBLIC’S ROLE. We will carefully consider and accurately portray the public’s role in the decision-making process.

OPENNESS. We will encourage the disclosure of all information relevant to the public’s understanding and evaluation of a decision.

ACCESS TO THE PROCESS. We will ensure that stakeholders have fair and equal access to the public participation process and the opportunity to influence decisions.

RESPECT FOR COMMUNITIES. We will avoid strategies that risk polarizing community interests or that appear to “divide and conquer.”

ADVOCACY. We will advocate for the public participation process and will not advocate for interest, party, or project outcome.

COMMITMENTS. We ensure that all commitments made to the public, including those by the decision-maker, are made in good faith.

SUPPORT OF THE PRACTICE. We will mentor new practitioners in the field and educate decision-makers and the public about the value and use of public participation.”

Tweet This Post

Whistleblower provisions make noise in new financial reform bill

August 6th, 2010 by admin | No Comments | Filed in Business Ethics

From our friends at Lexology we learn  that the  new US Financial Reform Bill contains whistleblower provisions that could change how corporations identify potential wrongdoing, interact with their employees and decide whether to report potential violations to the government.

Tweet This Post