Why all these whistleblowers recently?

Whistleblowing, this obscure practice discussed in most business ethics textbooks (we do so in Chapter 7), has become a big topic of discussion these days. The latest incident is Edward Snowdon and his revelation about the ongoing surveillance of phone and internet usage of American citizens by the US government. But he is not alone: currently on trial is Bradley Manning, who provided Wikileaks with the material for exposing the diplomatic correspondence of the US government.

The general contention with whistleblowing is becoming clear in both cases: are these individual traitors who defaulted on their duties by breaching the rules and codes they had agreed to abide by when entering their job? Or are they ‘heroes’ whose behavior is governed by higher, more general, and persistent ethical standards than their day-to-day job environment would allow them to follow?

It is useful to look at some historic cases of whistleblowing – and indeed cases, where certainly by hindsight the general agreement seems to be that the whistleblowers are in the second category of ‘ethical hero’. Think of Jeffrey Wigand, the executive of tobacco company Brown&Williamson who exposed the practice of enhancing the addictive potential of cigarettes of his employer (famously turned into the movie The Insider). Or think of Sherron Watkins, who initially blew the whistle on the practices at ENRON and contributed to the uncovering of the scandal in 2001. Turning to the political sphere, currently many references are made to Daniel Ellsberg who in 1971 leaked the ‘Pentagon Papers’ disclosing that the US government for years had systematically mislead the public about the impact, casualties and costs of the Vietnam war.

Whistleblowing commonly seems to occur in a situation where the moral status of organizational practice – be it a private company or a public institution such as the NSA or the Pentagon – deviate from the wider moral values which society deems appropriate. And crucially, it has to be added, these actions also deviate from the professed moral standards of the organization against which those individuals blow the whistle.

This is rather evident in the case of Ellsberg: by the early 1970s, the public in the US all long thought that the war in Vietnam had lost its moral cause; his revelations proved that the US government, too, was all along aware that what it did in Vietnam no longer could live up to the public mission and norms according to which the American government professed to act. Similar are the cases of Wigand and Watkins: in the same way the Tobacco industry outwardly professed that they were not aware of the addictive impact of cigarettes, ENRON had always claimed to be an ethical company. The same applies to the current Manning and Snowdon cases: Obama ran on the promise to stop the abuses by the previous Bush administration and to restore basic civil liberties – and is now found out to do the same or worse.

The dilemma of whistleblowers all points to the fundamental differentiation established by Max Weber a century ago: Members of a social group (incl. an organization) can act according to an ethics of responsibility or according to an ethics of conviction. The first looks at the consequences of an action and basically suggests that a virtuous individual is one that lives up to the expectations of all who are affected directly by the consequences of an action. In practice, this boils down to abiding by the rules and procedures of the organization. The main arguments against whistleblowing then all come in the shape of what the effects of the revelations are on other people (that was the big argument against Wikileaks) or how it affects the general functioning of a secret service where everybody potentially can leak anything (the current debate on Snowdon).

What justifies whistleblowing then is Weber’s ethics of conviction according to which an individual makes an ethical choice based on personal moral convictions. The act is based on principles, rather than anticipated consequences. In most cases whistleblowers refer to general principles of either good business practice regarding customers (the tobacco case) or shareholders (ENRON) or good government based on some basic democratic principles (such as the Ellsberg, Manning or Snowdon case).

Historically, such reasoning based on an ethics of conviction always becomes more relevant at a time when fundamental values of society are in question and challenged. The Vietnam war raised basic questions about the moral limits of the cold war; the tobacco scandals exposed the lack of basic moral rules of consumer protection; ENRON initiated the ongoing moral scrutiny of a shareholder value dominated form of capitalism; the Manning and Snowdon cases now raise fundamental moral questions about civic liberties, civic rights to privacy and protection of personal data and the appropriate powers of the state in protecting these liberties.

It is somewhat tragic – as probably the cases of Ellsberg and Wigand best illustrate – that whistleblowers are mostly recognized as moral, conviction-driven human beings quite some time after the events. At the time of the whistleblowing defenders of the status quo always wield two crucial tools: they can either invoke arguments following an ethics of responsibility and point to the potential harm and the anarchic nature of the act; Bradley Manning’s trial can be followed as a textbook example of this reasoning.

Or, they can try to discredit the ‘convictions’ of the whistleblower. Since these often reflect a wider moral consensus in society it is hard to attack those principles or norms directly. More effective seems to be an approach that discredits the whistleblower on a personal level. In Ellsberg’s case the CIA broke into his psychiatrist’s office to obtain information on his mental health and love life; in Wigand’s case a similar smear campaign was initiated. Currently with regard to Edward Snowdon, it is conspicuous how the entire political spectrum in the US is more or less embarking on this trajectory. From Bill Maher’s jokes last Friday night on Real Time to David Brook’s notorious profile in the New York Times - most seem eager to present him as some sort of self-aggrandizing nerd.

Whistleblowers turn up at a time when societies or organizations are deviating from commonly accepted and widely shared moral values. Whatever our concrete judgment about individuals and their motives - the fact that whistleblowing occurs at this point in history clearly points to a wider epiphany. Ironically, Snowdon relocated to the very country which for so long has been accused by the West of not respecting the human rights of their citizens in exactly this issue arena – much to the distress of Google, Yahoo or other companies. It looks like Obama currently has a bit of a hard time to explain to China, Russia or even his European allies, how his approach to privacy and data protection still reflects basic values of liberal democracies.

Picture by DonkeyHotey, reproduced under the Creative Commons License.

Danger due to: ethics

John Dalla Costa, the renowned business ethics writer and consultant teaches with us at the Schulich School of Business. He's also an occasional blogger at his site www.ceo-ethics.com. We love the piece he's just posted on the dangers of thinking that because you're doing ethics, you're going to be more ethical. With his permission, we're reposting it here since its a conversation we agree that needs to happen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are ethicists more ethical than their peers in other disciplines? It’s an interesting question. A recent study published in the journal Metaphilosophy provides a limited data point, but the news, at least if you’re an ethicist like me, is not good. Comparing how university professors engage students, the researchers found no difference between ethics professors and other faculty. Even though the ethics experts set an ideal, and acknowledged that not following through on that standard was morally wrong, in action, the experts in ethics were indistinguishable from fellow academics.

Are you surprised? I’m not. But I am distressed.

I’m not surprised, because if ethics were truly relevant, or if we really understood them to be effective, we’d be invoking them with much more frequency and rigor. Canada is knee-deep is scandals, with Senators whitewashing expense reports, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff paying for the white paint, and the Mayor of Toronto careening from one violation of the public trust to another. Ethics are AWOL, and no one seems to be missing them.

The same is true in business. Ethics have become IKEA-like contraptions for compliance. All the imagination and enquiry have been purposefully engineered away, so that all ethics and compliance officers need to do is follow the illustrated instructions, and assemble the pre-cut pieces.

Before Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns imploded in 2008, I managed to download the codes for ethics and conduct from their respective websites. It turns out that they were derived from a boilerplate, following numerically identical categories, and using mostly similar jargon, with only one or two cosmetic flourishes reflecting idiosyncrasies of corporate history. It would inconceivable for these global finance behemoths (or their peers) to use Quicken to do their taxes. But that’s basically what they did for their ethics – adopting a four-page template, in the name of the Board of Directors, to set the terms and scope for their ethicality. Not surprisingly, both companies got full return on their investment.

There is a good reason why we’ve talked so little about corporate ethics since the financial crisis: most corporations had already subscribed to compliance projects pre-2007, and nothing has changed since.

I’m distressed because ethics-without-ethicality repeats the diminishment of restraint and responsibility, which led to previous market failures and economic crises.

As bad as were the deceptions perpetrated by Enron, it was much worse that these accounting lies were intentionally papered-over by its auditor, Arthur Anderson. Similarly, as irresponsible as were mortgage tactics and securitizations floated by the banks in the run up to the financial crisis, it was much worse that the ratings agencies, like Standard and Poor’s, assigned Triple AAA credit value to derivates that their own in-house experts considered junk-grade. When sentinels sell-out, when they simultaneously over-estimate their virtue and under-deliver on the promise they are entrusted to uphold, bad things happen to everyone.

In his book, Confronting Vulnerability, Jonathan Schofer reminds us that moral laws and ethical rules need continuous replenishment. His point is that, while established as bulwarks against human vulnerability and exploitation, ethics are themselves vulnerable and exploitable. We fall-back on ethics as if on auto-pilot, with such doctrinaire rigidity that we cease using any critical thinking as we apply them in life’s complex ambiguities. Or, perhaps worse, we take them for granted until they become easy take-over targets for other ambitions or motivations. Principles share with practitioners the fragility of our human finitude. The most unethical thing is often denying our personal limitations for seeing what is right, and deciding what is true.

We don’t know if this research confirms that ethicists too have ceased being reliable sentinels. But it is the question that should distress and challenge us – ethicists and non-ethicists alike.

John Dalla Costa

www.ceo-ethics.com

Photo by blind dayze. Reproduced under Creative Commons licence

Fun facts about corporate accounting scandals

Regular readers will know that we have a soft spot for corporate responsibility infographics. The one below, which recently crossed our desk courtesy of Accounting-degree.org, provides a nice overview of some of the big corporate accounting scandals of the last 15 years or so. The title may be misleading - it hardly seeks to capture the biggest scandals of "all time" - but it does give a good summary of those that have happened in recent memory. And the sources of the details they provide are cited - most of which (but not all) are pretty reliable. So if you want a five minute summary of all that's wrong in the world of accounting fraud, and you don't mind a strong US bias, this is a good place to start.

One thing we particularly like are the "fun facts" accompanying each scandal. OK, so most of these are not really much fun at all - is anyone laughing about the introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley after the Worldcom and Enron scandals? - but they do point to some of the absurdities of the system in which the accounting scandals have taken place. Enron being voted most innovative company six times in a row by Fortune magazine, Lehman brothers being honored with "Most Admired Securities Firm" a year before its collapse, AIG execs getting $165m in bonuses just after posting the largest quarterly loss in American corporate history and getting a government bailout? It doesn't say much about how well we scrutinize or reward supposedly "successful" companies, does it?

It's also interesting that the infographic has been created by an organization promoting online accounting degrees (we might add that their other Featured Article is titled "10 Accounting Tricks the 1% Use to Dodge the Taxman", which is also worth a look). Are they saying that an accounting degree will help avoid some of these problems in the future? That what we need are better accounting degrees? That an on-line offering is in any way more or less likely to lead people to engage in shady accounting practices? Clearly there is an important role for accounting education in here somewhere, but we're not too sure about the offerings being recommended by Accounting-degree.org, or even who the organization is or what its methodology is. In the spirit of good accounting, a little more transparency would be a good thing. But don't let that stand in the way of enjoying a nice infographic.

Source: Accounting-Degree.org

Photo by AJC1. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Ethics and financial crisis

With stock markets plummeting, financial institutions going belly-up, and governments on both sides of the Atlantic stepping in to bail out failing companies, the prospects for investors, the financial community, and even tax payers do not look good. And with the likely knock on effects for employment in other sectors almost certain to result in job losses, the fall-out from the current market turmoil is going to be widely felt.

For us business ethics professors, however, the picture is somewhat mixed. On the one hand, issues of social responsibility tend to be higher on the agenda when times are good. On the other, when greed and corruption contribute to downturns (such as in the post Enron wake of the early 2000s), significantly more attention can shift to issues of integrity and governance in business. Its no coincidence that the 2000s have witnessed perhaps the most sustained growth yet in the corporate responsibility 'industry' and in courses, books, conferences, and workshops on the subject.

Today's financial crisis clearly has at least some of its roots in corporate iresponsibility around the subprime mortgage market in the US. If 'responsible lending' practices had been observed (or if tighter regulatory oversight had been imposed), we might not all be in this position right now. Certainly, the financial industries of other countries appeared to be more attuned to the problem than in the US, such as in the UK, where the British Banking Association has in place a code on responsible lending:

Responsible lending is providing credit, based on background checks and professional judgement, to people who can accommodate regular repayments without getting into financial difficulty.

But although the sub-prime problem was the rockfall that got the financial landslide going, there are a number of structural issues that also need to be considered. And here we need to perhaps look at deeper institutional issues rather than the ethics of individual people or companies. As with Enron, the fault lines for disaster run through the system of risk management, regulation, transparency, business interdependence, and reward systems, not simply rogue traders crossing the ethical boundaries.

There are ethical issues here too of course, but they are at a different level to the ones that most people think of when they think about corporate responsibility. Here, we are talking about the ethics embedded in business systems and institutions, and how ethics and the law intersect to ensure that markets work effectively, fairly, and ultimately securely. Sure, a lot of our current problems with the financial crisis can be put down to individual greed, mismanagement, and bad decisions, but ultimately it goes deeper than that. Whether this means that the current crisis will be a boon to business ethics however depends on how well us ethical experts manage to get to grips with these deeper level problems.

For further reading on this, check out our paper on challenges to the business ethics curriculum, published in an early version available free online and later in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Crisis management - European style?

Our more longstanding friends, i.e. those who have worked with the first edition of our Business Ethics book, will remember that its success was very much predicated on the proposition that it was the first text book to talk about business ethics from a European perspective. OK, we toned it down for the second edition, but still the main focus of the book is to provide an account of business ethics beyond the Anglo-American version of capitalism – which still is the backdrop of most textbooks in the field.

There has been some debate about whether – and if so, how – a specific European perspective on business ethics is warranted. A good way to learn about these things is to look at how different economies deal with ethical scandals (e.g. Ethics in Action 6.1 in our Business Ethics book). A newspaper article in the Canadian Globe and Mail discusses the recent scandal in France at the bank Société Générale in the context of the Enron case and comes up with some really striking comparisons.

We talked about Jérôme Kerviel in one of our latest blogs and it is indeed fascinating to watch how the French public, rather then seeing him as a villain and a crook, views the bank and its managers as the ones who are responsible for what happened (you can give your own assessment here, see the box on the right). The general mistrust of capitalism and big corporations still seems pretty entrenched in Europe. On facebook, there are now numerous support networks for Kerviel. For instance the group “Jérôme Kerviel should be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics" has no less then 2,517 members! Could you imagine this happening to Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling in the wake of the Enron disaster…

It is also conspicuous to see the reactions. While the US government took a fairly hands-off approach to the actual downfall of Enron, incl. the plight of many employees who lost jobs, savings and pensions, Nicolas Sarkozy’s government is anything but ‘laissez faire’. Worried about a foreign takeover of Société Générale it appears that the French government has now elected to micromanage the case and has even considered a fairly unrealistic bail out. While the magnitude of this case probably will not allow for this, European governments have a longstanding history of becoming directly involved in managing these issues. And this even at a time where we would expect newly wed Sarkozy to have other things on his mind…

This hands-on approach contrasts significantly with the US, where the main reaction of the government was to issue new legislation with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, setting tighter rules for the game, rather than trying to become a player in the game itself. It is also interesting to see differences within Europe here. The Globe and Mail article refers to how Gordon Brown has dealt with the recent collapse of a major British bank (Northern Rock): While Brown was actively (as it were, European-style) involved in protecting the savings and mortgages of millions of British working men and women, the solution was in the end left over to the market: brokering the takeover of Northern Rock by Richard Branson’s Virgin empire appeared the best solution, showing strong reliance on markets and free enterprise in the running of the economy – something we can associate more strongly with the Anglo-American system of capitalism.

It will be fascinating to watch how the personal fate of Kerviel will develop over the next couple of weeks. He will hopefully not end up as Enron’s vice chairman John (Clifford) Baxter who committed suicide, unable to deal with the personal shame about his role in the scandal. But it will also be fascinating to watch the further fate of Société Générale. Our money is on a take over by another French bank, brokered in some backroom of the Elysée Palace!