faulker031

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 ...

Barely a day goes by at the moment here in Canada without a new twist or turn in a corruption story hitting the headlines. Last week we got news of SNC Lavalin offering an amnesty for any employees providing information about their huge ongoing bribery scandal. The police also announced last week  their intent to extradite Dr Arthur Porter for his part in allegedly receiving $22m in return for granting a contract to SNC to build the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal. Meanwhile, Stephen Harper's government is embroiled in a major, and very persistent, scandal involving an attempted cover-up of some dodgy expenses claims by a conservative senator. This involved Harper's (now resigned) Chief of Staff giving a "gift" of $90,000 to Senator Mike Duffy to reimburse his questionable claim and stave off any further the investigation. Oh, and who can ignore the now internationally ridiculed mayor of Toronto, who in the wake of allegations about him being caught on...

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...

Ever since the Iranian revolution up until the aftermath of the Arab Spring most of us were made to believe that the advent of Islamic regimes is the ultimate rise of the common man and woman in societies previously repressed and exploited by ruthless dictators. Against entrenched élites of  crony regimes and their entourage, Islamic politics could be perceived as the overdue liberation of the impoverished masses from pseudo-nobility, military dictators or other élites, having had nothing other in mind than to line their pockets for decades and transfer their wealth to Swiss bank accounts. It is about time to get rid of this stereotype. Recent evidence comes from Iran, as it were the prototype of this type of regime change. Former president and revolution-veteran Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in his attempt to re-enter political life now turns out to be a billionaire – as do many of his fellow ‘religious’ leaders . Now this may appear just a co-incidence of yet another political cl...

Imagine that you live in poverty. A chance arises for you to earn a year's salary in one day. All being well, no one will get hurt. In fact, what you're going to do will save someone's life. Sounds like quite a deal. Or at least it does until until you realize that what we're talking about here is selling one of your kidneys. And that it's illegal almost everywhere. The decision to sell an organ is a stark choice. It speaks so much of all that is wrong with our global inequities. It shouldn't be happening. But, like it or not, it does happen. For many people looking to get out of poverty, the sale of one of their organs is clearly a desperate choice ... but it is also a choice that they are sometimes willing to make. The illegal organ trade is not for the faint hearted. Sure, it saves lives, but it's an ugly business. Ric Esther Bienstock, the documentary-maker behind the award winning " Sex Slaves" documentary about global sex trafficking has tak...

The death of Baroness Thatcher is dominating today's news. Despite the euologic praises heaped now posthumously on the ‘iron lady’ one cannot overlook one common thread: ambiguity. Yes, she modernized Britain, but for whom? She was a war leader, but what was really gained in the Falklands? She battled constantly with her European friends, but to what avail? Yes, she was the first British female head of state, fairly unprecedented in many countries at the time – but did she leave a legacy to her sisterhood? “Well, yes, technically she was a woman...” was one of the funnier comments on Thatcher’s gender role I once heard. It is fair to say then that among her legacy is certainly one topic which is close to the interest of this blog. And we hasten to add, a legacy no less ambiguous than all her other ones. She certainly symbolizes and has pioneered many of the political changes which have given rise to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a new business practice during the last t...

Today’s news that the Indian supreme court has effectively denied the Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis the patent protection for its ‘new’ blood cancer drug Glivec (Gleevec in North America) has been discussed controversially in the media. On the one hand, commentators sympathetic to the industry have pointed out that without patent protection a publicly owned company loses its incentive to develop new drugs. Pharmaceutical innovation, so the argument goes, is driven by the hope of future returns. Since development of new drugs is very costly, time consuming and competitive, companies can hardly justify investments when rulings such as today's kill their hopes of recouping the costs through future sales. In short, the Indian ruling " will hinder medical progress" ( Novartis press release) and thus  kills innovation. On the other hand, activists and other voices critical of the industry argue that this is a win for all those that have the interest of poo...