(Part 3 of an ongoing series)
It is an interesting question, this question of personal integrity and honesty. As a business ethics keynote speaker, business ethics consultant and book author, I have been asked the question of “Are we as ethical as we think?” at least a thousand times in a hundred different ways.
The answer, sadly, is no, we aren’t. We could be, for sure, but along the way we often fail and fall. The U.K.-based Ethical Boardroom talks about behavioral ethics as an off-shoot of behavioral economics. The organization talks of ethical fading:
“A process of ethical fading diminishes the ethical dimensions in some decision-making. For instance, framing ethically fraught choices as business decisions can largely remove them from the realm of right and wrong.”
I was speaking on the topic of personal integrity and honesty to an association within the pharmaceutical industry. The topic of risk assessment came into play, namely, “How much risk is an organizational willing to take, and still be considered ethical?” One executive talked about companies (not his, of course) who were known to offer bribes to overseas sales agents.
The bribes implied that overseas agents were pushing products for some uses which were “off-label,” and not fully tested. The agents were paid extra to push off-label usage to increase sales. They were told it was a win/win proposition, but was it?
Ethical fading
The term ethical fading is apropos to this conversation of, are we as ethical as we think? Given the bribery dialog from above, I had one attendee tell me “Off-the-cuff,” that there was a sentiment that selling product for off-label usage was unacceptable in North America, but a harmless practice “over there.” So, a life overseas, Taipei, perhaps, is not as valuable as a life in Omaha or New York City?
Another attendee tried to justify such bribery by reflecting that overseas there weren’t that many medications and an off-label use that could be of help, was better than nothing. But was it?
These ethical fades are a reputational risk assessment judgment. That’s a pretty string of words that boil down to, “How much can we get away with and still refer to ourselves as ethical?”
Another example is in the packaged foods area. For years, manufacturers dutifully marked their packaging as recyclable and even made with soy-based inks.
But what did any of that mean? There are hundreds of millions of pounds of spent packaging that will not break down for thousands of years. Everyone knows it. In addition, there are hundreds of millions of pounds of spent packaging that, while designated with a recycle number, will virtually never break down and can’t be easily re-used.
It is all called greenwash, and has had ESG advocates angry for decades at its unbridled arrogance. Worst of all are those who defend such practices by saying there are no alternatives; there are, of course.
Finally, the painful topic (though there are hundreds) of executive leadership and HR professionals who claim they can’t find qualified, diverse candidates. Yet, qualified, diverse candidates are somehow excluded in the final interview round.
These ethical fades are window dressing, and fall into the purview of biased risk assessment; bribes are OK over there; as long as we claim and mark recycled containers they are; we interview plenty of people but we hire only the best.
While there are grains of truth to any example, they are frequently just grains.
Are we as ethical as we think? The refrain is simple: well, are you? And, if not, why can’t it be changed?
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
