Be sure to visit Compliance Culture this week for posts on these topics.
Don’t miss it!
Check out last week’s posts on Compliance Culture, in case you missed or want to revisit them.
Many thanks for reading!
Practical ethics is an important and relatable branch of the philosophical study of ethics. As a discipline, it connects academic theory with real-life practice. Practical ethics is most commonly encountered in typical scenarios which are referred to as ethical dilemmas. Ethical dilemmas, which have been discussed at length here on this blog before, often present seemingly simple facts which in reality involve maddeningly complex and fraught moral and personal considerations. When faced with such dilemmas, individuals need to reconcile ethical principles which may be in opposition, as much as they need to rely on those same principles to inform their internal register of right and wrong.
Moral character – this individual internal register – and moral perception – the individual’s capacity to understand that an ethical issue exists and may need to be addressed or accepted – are both rooted in the ongoing observation of practical ethics. Identifying and resolving conflicts between personal ideas of ethics and integrity, and the situations and roles that person may find in a working situation, is a crucial application of practical ethics and a fluency which is necessary for corporate cultures to establish a successful compliance program.
Practical ethics goes to the root of so many dilemmas which are germane to the working experience. What are the limits of professional responsibility? What are the obligations of and restrictions within authority and control? How do interpersonal or relationship-based ethics play out into institutional structures and corporate policies or organizational decision-making? How do individuals work within institutions that may have implemented moral decisions which differ from the person’s own or present the individual with the need to dissent from policy or practice? To what extent should organizations address the public good and how can they do this if they choose to do so?
These questions can go on and on; practical ethics represents the attempt to navigate the broad social context of the workplace by reconciling professional rules with moral expectations and norms. This, again, is highly pertinent to a corporate compliance program, which seeks to encourage an business culture that respects legality, approaches business competitively yet thoughtfully, and also sets standards for employee and organizational integrity. It is imperative for compliance professionals to understand practical ethics and use dilemma sessions or open discussions with the businesses they advise in order to encourage a common comfort level with this sort of thinking throughout their organization.
The below TED/TEDx talks offer a survey of how people approach these conflicts between individual and societal morality on one side and professional ethics within organizations on the other side.
Check back in the coming weeks for further posts on the theory of practical ethics and its application in the corporate context, including discussion on the distinction between ethics and business ethics, as well as that between compliance and corporate compliance.
Marijuana has a complex legal and regulatory history in the United States. Originally widely deployed in a variety of medical and commercial uses, the regulation and eventual restriction of commonly-accepted preparations of hemp and cannabis began at the turn of 20th century with labelling requirements and a push to include cannabis in the definition of a “poison” for which a prescription would be required. By the 1930s a patchwork of state and national policies in law were in place and the criminalization of marijuana was underway in earnest. For the next 40 years any attempt at decriminalization or reclassification was unsuccessful. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, California began to slowly reduce penalties for possession under state law and work toward legalization for compassionate use in chronically-ill individuals, which became legal in the state in 1996.
Since then, the legalization of marijuana has been a matter of legislative interest in many states. This move toward decriminalization at first was limited to the medical use first legitimized in California state law, either for chronically-ill patients or for those suffering from a variety of illnesses for which marijuana has proven to be a desirable treatment in terms of effectiveness and cost. Advocacy in this area has eventually extended to non-medical use; in 2012, Colorado was the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults.
As of the writing of this post, medical marijuana is legal (to at least some extent) in 23 states plus the District of Columbia; in 8 states medical and non-medical marijuana is legal to sell and possess. As the below selection will show, momentum for decriminalization and handling of emerging legal markets invokes a wide variety of compliance issues which will need to be addresses for business and consumer protections and obligations.
As states continue to move toward decriminalizing or outright legalization for marijuana for a variety of purposes, and other organizations contend with their own policies within that system, mechanisms for regulated markets will begin to emerge, presenting interesting regulatory compliance issues with no clear and easy precedent. Governments and businesses alike will need to contend with both the opportunities and the challenges this will present.
This is the third in a month-long series of five posts that analyze the ethical leadership of famous sports coaches. The first post was about John Wooden, the beloved UCLA basketball coach and creator of the Pyramid of Success. Last Wednesday’s post focused on Johan Cruyff, the acclaimed Dutch footballer and manager of Ajax, Barcelona, and Catalonia football clubs, and his 14 Rules. Today’s profile will be about Jim Valvano’s perspective on leadership and success as expressed in the famous speech he gave at the ESPY Awards in 1993.
Jim Valvano was a NCAA basketball coach for 19 years, ten of those seasons at North Carolina State. He coached his teams at NC State to many winning seasons, including two tournament championships and two regular season championships, and for several years also served as athletic director there. He was also no stranger to controversy during this time, due to accusations of rules violations involving his players’ academic qualifications and financial activities, which led to substantial administrative pressure, scrutiny, and a variety of investigations. Though these numerous investigations revealed no outright major violations in recruiting or financial practices, Valvano ultimately resigned as athletic director in 1989 and in 1990, negotiated a settlement and resigned as basketball coach as well.
Following this somewhat ignoble end to his coaching career, Valvano worked as a broadcaster and became a motivational speaker. His speeches sometimes covered his version of the controversy at NC State or offered commentary to his audiences on how to handle and get over these unfortunate events and the character and reputational damage they present. This is not an unusual path for high-profile people to take after finding themselves in crises of confidence. Practical ethics are complex and transgressions in these professional dilemmas can lead a person to a moral reckoning and awakening of the true values that matter in life and how to embrace them authentically.
Valvano’s enduring legacy is a speech he made in this exact spirit at the first ESPY Awards in 1993. He was accepting the Arthur Ashe Courage and Humanitarian Award and at this time was in the throes of the glandular cancer which would take his life less than two months later. After announcing his intention to create an charitable foundation dedicated to finding the cure for cancer, he went on to speak emotionally and eloquently about individual success and his views on what made life worthwhile. This powerful perspective on purpose-driven living relied heavily on a definition of true success as inner and personal, not dictated by accolades from others or black-and-white “wins,” but rather a personal sense of accomplishment and completion that required no external justification.
This concept of internal success is important in an understanding of applied ethics and translates powerfully to a vision for individual accountability in a culture of compliance. In this theme, here are five significant statements from Valvano’s legendary speech, with suggestions for how to interpret these powerful insights for individual and organizational values to promote ethics and compliance:
For Valvano’s powerful 1993 ESPY speech, watch it here:
Don’t forget to check back for next Wednesday’s post, which will be about Vince Lombardi, the NFL Hall of Fame coach (and the role model of Jim Valvano, as it happens), and clues about how he saw ethical leadership based on famous statements from his statements to players and motivational speeches. The final post in this series, on November 29, will profile Gregg Popovich, the current coach of the San Antonio Spurs with a progressive view toward people management of his players and political engagement as an expression of leadership.
This is the third of a three-part series profiling whistleblowers in different industries. The first of these posts was on October 24 and focused on the financial services industry, including Julius Baer and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Last Tuesday’s post covered whistleblowers in the pharmaceutical industry, with stories of exposing corporate fraud in the manufacturing and marketing processes at companies like Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline.
Today’s post, the final in this set, will look at whistleblowers from prominent historic cases of business fraud or miconduct in major US corporate organizations. The actions of these individuals in speaking up to expose unethical or illegal business practices led to major media attention, legislative and regulatory scrutiny, legal actions, and deep review of corporate cultures of the organizations. In some of these cases, deep societal debate about or change of previously accepted practices and standards was kicked off by the information exposed by whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers have been the impetus behind some of the most explosive and powerful disclosures of corporate fraud and malfeasance in recent history. Companies once admired and viewed as financial stalwarts have been shown to have deeply unethical business practices and a concerning lack of organizational and employee integrity below the surface. In an economy and culture which is increasingly dominated by large corporate interests, trust in and credibility of these major institutions is critical for the public. When this is violated by inaccurate disclosures, dishonest accounting practices, or fraudulent business arrangements, consumer and markets confidence is greatly impaired. Whistleblowers therefore perform an invaluable function in making the often personally difficult and professionally costly decision to stand up for the protection of these values when observing misconduct from within their organizations.
The most ambitious culture of compliance paired with the most robust controls framework still cannot succeed without employee adherence. Employees who don’t know the correct thing to do, or those who make an unethical or non-compliant decision despite knowing, can be addressed with awareness communication in the first case or remedial action in the second case.
However, the more frequent and challenging scenario is that employees have received information about compliance risk management priorities and ethical culture at their organization. They understand this information well enough and maybe even admire the aims of the compliance program, but there’s a problem – they don’t see themselves as having an active role in it.
The best efforts of compliance programs will always be overcome by apathetic or unengaged employees who don’t see themselves as having personal compliance responsibilities. In cybersecurity, for example, the best IT systems with the most up-to-date risk controls structure will still be defeated by an employee who falls for a phishing scheme or leaves behind an unsecured laptop in a public place. Some mistakes are unavoidable, of course, just like some risks can only be mitigated or accepted. However, many other errors, acts of misconduct, or risk factors can be prevented with the appropriate individual vigilance and diligence.
So how can a corporate compliance program emphasize to employees that individual responsibility is the fundamental defense in any risk and control framework? Too many solutions from management or consultancy rely heavily on data solutions and systems approaches to addressing compliance risk. The logic goes: failures of existing compliance programs to prevent ever-evolving fraud and misconduct are unfortunately not unusual, so why not simply blame human misjudgment or incompetence for inadequate controls and therefore just automate processes whenever possible?
The above is a cynical and defeatist attitude toward corporate compliance; if management or its advisors decides that corporate compliance will fail, then it certainly will do so. However, removing the obstacles to individual responsibility is an important step to empowering organizational integrity. Outsourcing or digitalizing analysis and advisory work is an artificial, external solution. It may expedite or simplify some aspects of working with compliance risk management, but it cannot ever be as effective as a values-based approach that creates a corporate culture where good judgment and ethical decision-making are incentivized and supported.
Indeed the first, and probably best, solution for raising the standard of compliance programs and their controls is to promote employee engagement in these across all levels of the organization. This starts with individual accountability, which compliance professionals and senior management can nudge employees toward embracing these ways:
There will always be people in organizations who either are in need of training or resourcing attention (wanting to do the right thing but not being properly equipped) or people who are not cultural fits (wanting to do the wrong thing despite organizational priorities). Engaging these people where possible is critical, just as holding all others accountable for their actions and responsibilities is the frontline defense most important to compliance risk management.
Be sure to visit Compliance Culture this week for posts on these topics.
Don’t miss it!
Check out last week’s posts on Compliance Culture, in case you missed or want to revisit them.
Many thanks for reading!
Starbucks is one of the most recognizable global retail brands today. Its branding is universally known, with its ubiquitous green and white mermaid logo reliably present worldwide and its slate of coffee and tea products also dependably the same. While many consumers may find consistent branding and the resulting quality standards to be expected along with it comforting, one of the undeniable criticisms of globalization has been that localization – native customs and characteristics that often have deep historic and cultural significance – can end up subverted in favor of international sameness.
Indeed, companies such as Starbucks have struggled in some markets to import their menus and store designs to communities which may be resistant to connecting with what can be seen as a generic, foreign experience. Apart from just lacking appeal or seeming strange, sometimes these companies can offend local norms or fail to fit into the communities which they wish to court for business. While sometimes novelty of a brand can create allure or even cult status for the company’s products with curious consumers, more often, Imposing a company and its products on a community in a non-assimilative way does not likely make for a successful competitive strategy.
Starbucks has faced its challenges importing its distinctive coffee shop brand and products to new communities over the years. Even within the United States, local coffee houses with loyal customer bases have put up resistance to a major corporate brand setting up shop in communities such as Venice Beach, California which have preferred small, local businesses to fit with an indie, alternative vibe. Outside of the United States, the powerful social value of “coffee culture,” representing a social and community activity rather than just a caffeine and snack break, has sometimes not jived well with perceptions of the Starbucks brand. Criticisms of the products themselves come from people who have high expectations for bespoke coffee that they don’t feel Starbucks satisfies or, on the other end, a standard idea that coffee is quick, cheap, and on-the-go only, in light of which Starbucks seems expensive and inconvenient.
One striking way that Starbucks can address these objections is to seek to fit within and contribute to the community authentically and meaningfully. In Kyoto, Japan, the Starbucks Coffee Kyoto Ninenzaka Yasaka Tea Parlor is an amazing example of how a company can demonstrate respect towards a community and its traditions in the design of its public spaces. This Starbucks is located in a traditional wooden house, with subdued colors and branding on its exterior, which fits aesthetically and culturally in the historic neighborhood where it is located. On the inside, the authenticity of the retail experience to its cultural environment continues, with tatami (straw) matting on the floors and traditional Japanese garden in the back courtyard by the coffee bar. Rather than appearing in contrast to the other businesses in its area, this Starbucks blends powerfully into its distinctive surroundings. Starbucks does not seem here like it is trying to impose its brand or style, but rather to show respect for the traditions of the very historic Gion district of Kyoto.
Joining the community in which the store is located, rather than setting itself apart from it, is a powerful expression of social responsibility and engagement for a brand to make as it seeks to attract and appeal to customers. Matching with the experience and aesthetic of such a distinctive area as Gion, which was originally developed as a district in the Middle Ages and is one of the most well-known geisha districts in Japan with the Yakasha Shrine at its center, is a challenging but inspiring business strategy. This values-based approach to growth and design leads to sustainable expansion and competition for a brand such as Starbucks, which can benefit tremendously from positioning itself as sensitive and loyal to local communities and their characters.
For more on this interesting Starbucks outlet as well as Starbucks locations in other countries that aim to honor their communities with their design aesthetic, check out this CNN feature article.