Ethisphere announces annual ethics elite

19 March 2011

The Ethisphere Institute, an NGO working internationally to promote business ethics and good corporate citizenship named the companies selected as the World’s Most Ethical Companies for 2012. This is the sixth year of the awards. There were 145 companies identified as “honorees” because of the example they set in promoting business standards which exceed legal minimums and the innovative ideas they have put in place that benefit the public.

The winning companies, being commercially successful, “…demonstrate how corporate citizenship is undoubtedly tied to the success of a company’s brand and bottom line”.

As in previous years the vast majority are US corporations. The percentage of non US companies has dropped from last year when 42 of 110 finalists were non US. This year there were 46 from the 145 finalists. Not surprising no New Zealand companies feature. As in 2011, the Banking category is notable for having largely non US banks. As in 2011 Westpac and National Australia Bank are selected among the five ethical banks on the list (although the ANZ Banking Group has been dropped this year.)

Twenty three of the honorees have been selected in each of the six years of the awards all are US companies.

Today, Ethisphere will honour the finalists in the Most Influential People in Business Ethics for 2011. The criteria seem less US-centric than in the assessment of the most ethical companies.

The “top names” include

1 Anna Hazare – who through hunger strikes drew attention to anti corruption campaigns in India
2 US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff who refused to accept a settlement proposed by the SEC with Citigroup for corrupt governance
3 Alexei Navalyn – a Russian writer of an anticorruption blog which influenced the anti-Putin demonstrations in Moscow.
4 Irving Picard, the trustee in the Madoff Ponzi case who recovered some of the funds corruptly obtained.
5 Jaoquim Almuina an OECD commissioner for championing anti trust enforcement around the world
8 Richard Alderman, the recently retired Director of the UK Serious Fraud Office
10 Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter responsible for maintaining a focus on the News of the World’s corrupt access to Police information and the use of phone hacking for information gathering.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ethisphere-institute-unveils-2012-world-090100565.html

www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120119005832/en/Ethisphere-Announces-100-Influential-People-Business-Ethics

Uncategorized

, ,

March 19, 2012

Leave a comment

Society is stronger where business actively resists corruption

16 March 2012
 
Over the last 25 years there has been a sharpening focus on business ethics as the way to counter corruption. Evangalising goodness is not a new age puritanism. Corruption corrodes economic growth, it eats away at competition, entrenches poverty and creates political instability. Business is seen as playing an important role in the fight against corruption. The more businesses can be motivated to be part of the fight, the better off communities will be.
 
A German business school has explored opinions on how various sorts of motivation will engage business in resisting corrupt practices. Is it sanctions or incentives, stick or carrot, that is likely to be more effective? More than 220 anti corruption experts from around the World were surveyed.
 
Most see sanctions as more effective in changing business behaviour.  Responses from the public sector, the business sector and civil society were surprisingly consistent.  The researchers came to a promising conclusion that it is possible to mobilise a concerted effort across society.
 
 Of the responses
  • 94% agreed that corruption is a significant factor when assessing the risk of a business relationship.
  • 92% agreed that governments should give preferential treatment to companies that demonstrate adherence to anti-corruption principles.
  • 88% said that businesses with a history of corruption should be ineligible for government contracts.
  • 77% agreed that governments should publish a list ranking businesses by their levels of corruption.
  • 77% agreed that incentives for businesses operating anti corruption programs should be developed by an independent agency.
  • 73% agreed that citizens should be able to claim compensation from businesses for social damage caused by their corruption.
  • 72% agreed that Civil Society does not focus enough on business as an enabler of corruption.
  • 61% agreed that all businesses should be required by the criminal law to have an adequate anti-corruption program.
This research gives no comfort to those economists who see corruption as a lubricant, ensuring the smooth and efficient operation of business, undermining official monopolies and facilitating growth.
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

March 16, 2012

Leave a comment

Beware the ides of March

15 March 2012
 
 
Today’s address by the Prime Minister, anticipated with general caution in the State sector, and with particular concern in some agencies may be seen as confirmation of Ministers’ views about the role of the State. Do they lack confidence in the ability of State servants to deliver effective services? Do they consider that the private sector should have a more dominant role? Are their tighter expectations merely a  reflection of the tighter fiscal climate?
 
 
The amalgamation of several departments with the Ministry of Economic Development, forecast by some in the media, is not in itself indicative of any diminished commitment by the Crown in that sector. The Prime Minister will inevitably express his plans for the Public Service with various notions that improve accessibility, effectiveness, and efficiency, But these are no different from existing obligations specified not only in the State Sector Act but in the Standards of Integrity and Conduct for the State Services.
 
 
Three of the (18) standards are particularly pertinent. The wording used to explain the meaning of these standards in Understanding the code of conduct – Guidance for State Servants may well be echoed in the rationalisation for change in the Prime Minister’s speech today. These standards and the explanation of their meaning include the following;
 
 
We must work to make government services accessible and effective
 
“Being accessible requires us all to take personal responsibility for responding in a way that is helpful to those using our services. We must be alert to the importance of liaising with other parts of the State Services to minimise barriers that may impede accessibility, and be innovative in finding how best community needs can be met….”
 
We must strive to make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand and all its people
 
“As State servants, imbued with the spirit of service to the community, we are motivated to improve the well-being of New Zealanders. A concern for the well-being of others is central to the spirit of service. This involves each of us endeavouring to find more efficient, effective, economical and sustainable ways of making our professional contribution to the work of our organisation….”
 
We must work to improve the performance and efficiency of our organisation
 
“We have an obligation to consider how we can carry out our functions in better and more successful ways….”
 
 
And with Government policy announced, the role of the State Services is to implement that policy. There are then four other standards that have direct application to the response by agencies and their staff.
 
We must be professional and responsive
 
“Being professional requires us to have well developed personal integrity, to be committed to our organisational responsibilities and to be aware of the extent to which other interests may affect those responsibilities. Senior staff in our organisations must be particularly conscious of the constitutional framework within which we operate…”
 
We must carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs
 
“The work we do must not be influenced by personal beliefs or commitments….”
 
We must respect the authority of the government of the day
 
“All State Services organisations form part of executive government. Our organisations carry out activities on behalf of the Government. We must recognise our relationship to the Government and respect the responsibilities and the authority of Ministers. The way we carry out our roles will influence the confidence the community has in the good government of New Zealand. We must always be aware of the importance of supporting democratic processes and promoting trust in the institutions of government….”
 
We must ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships
 
“Ensuring our actions are not affected by personal interests or relationships is essential if we are to be worthy of public trust. It is equally important that we do not act in a way that improperly benefits our family or friends or groups in which we have a personal interest….”
 
 
 
Today may well have a Shakespearean dimension for the State Services. This is where the spirit of service comes into its own! Meeting the challenges laid down by the Prime Minister will demonstrate the trustworthiness of the State Services.
 
Integrity is a state of mind, it is not a set of rules.
 
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

March 15, 2012

Leave a comment

Should public servants be purer taxpayers than others?

14 March 2012
 
In February British media disclosed that nearly 2000 senior civil servants were engaged on tax minimising arrangements. Having set themselves up as companies, they contracted with agencies to provide the services traditionally provided by employees. Reports indicate that arrangements were well known by Ministers who in fact had approved them.
 
Inevitably, there are now reports of much greater numbers of senior officers contracted under similar, tax avoiding terms by Britain’s 400 local authorities. Some of the local authorities have been reluctant to disclose the numbers of staff paid through limited liability companies rather than through their payroll as PAYE-paying employees. Several have acknowledged that their chief executive is “contracted in”, that these officials are owners of the companies that contract their services to the local authorities.
 
Although the chair of a select committee has described the arrangements as unacceptable, the Local Government Association is defending the process as the best way of providing good value to residents through flexibility, reduced costs and diminished pension liabilities.
 
The BBC which first broadcast the circumstances has not reported any substantial remedial measures although a news programme about the matter described it .. “.as a voidance scheme which is totally wrong”.
 
Most New Zealanders would probably endorse a BBC remark that “Where you are a public servant, it’s not right you should be paid in a way that avoids tax”. However there are many contracted staff throughout the State services and these numbers are unlikely to diminish as the much predicted rationalisation of departments gets momentum. Arrangements like this inevitably conflict with the terms of almost every public sector code of conduct. Disclosure and consent would be necessary. The widespread nature of this problem will lead to questions about local government integrity.
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

March 14, 2012

Leave a comment

Agencies find being piffed is not much fun

13 March 2012
 
The Performance Improvement Framework report on the Ministry of Economic Development was released yesterday by the Central Agencies. The reviewers’ traffic light assessments have been added to the collated results of the 14 previous PIFs. The agencies “piffed” to date are mainly Public Service Departments, but include three Crown entities (NZTA, NZTE and Standards NZ). The commentary on the results is that they reflect an agencies’ “fitness for purpose … rather than an absolute benchmark” and that a moderation process has been used to “ensure consistency is maintained across a wider set of reviews”.
 
The purpose of the PIF is to help chief executives improve agency performance. In addition, the common framework enables comparisons between agencies on their effectiveness in delivering on government priorities, core business and organisational management, including leadership, direction and delivery, external relations, people development and financial management. These characteristics are expressed in a complementary way in the standards of integrity and conduct for the State Services, with obligations incorporating requirements to be responsive, accessible and effective, and objective, careful and efficient. The Cabinet Manual uses the expression “the principles of public service” – of being fair, impartial, responsible and trustworthy. The terminology varies; the obligations to good government are unchanging.
 
There are 18 PIF matters rated by “traffic lights”. The collated results suggest that areas of greatest strength in the State services are in financial and asset management. Areas of substantial weaknesses are in management efficiency, vision, strategy, leadership and governance.
 
The MED traffic lights compare well with most other agencies; not scoring as well as MSD, IRD and TPK but substantially better than MFAT, NZTE and MPIA. These latter three collectively were assessed as “well placed”’ in only 10 of 54 elements. None of these three was rated as “strong” in any element.
 
Treasury sits about the middle of the PIF ratings, being neither “strong” nor “weak” in any of the 18 assessed elements. MSD with seven “strongs” and no “weaks” is the best rated.
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

March 13, 2012

Leave a comment

US Sunshine Week marked by launch of government ethics-data website

12 March 2012
 
 
The White House is on key even if the rhythm somewhat variable!
 
President Obama’s first formal act in office was a direction about transparency. Over the last three years, delivering on expectations has been a challenge. Some enthusiasts of open government have been disappointed ( see post Obama’s open government is not transparent government ).
 
But this is “Sunshine Week” for the Federal Government and many State and local governments. In anticipation, the President launched an initiative to reinforce his commitment to transparency. He’d promised to create a centralised internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
 
On 8 March www.ethics.data.gov was launched to deliver on that promise. The site provides data on
  • White House Visitor Records
  • Office of Government Ethics Travel Reports
  • Lobbying Disclosure Act Data
  • Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act Data
  • Federal Election Commission Individual Contribution Reports
  • Federal Election Commission Candidate Reports
  • Federal Election Commission Committee Reports
 These records disclose matters which can be seen as an influence on government decision-making. Critics will say that there is nothing new as the information is already available. Advocates will counter that the data is now accessible in one place, searchable with a google-like tool, and in a common format – described as “a uniform, digestible user- friendly format ”.  It will simplify research byanyone wanting to see what is happening in the Federal government, who is lobbying whom, what funding is being given to whose political campaign and so on.
 
Comparable disclosure in New Zealand is information on MP and Ministerial expenses, and on election expenses. As lobbying has no profile here as an inappropriate influence on decision-making, there is no equivalent of the provisions in the US ( and many other OCCD states ) to register and record activities of professionals accessing officials to promote particular interests.
 
According to the website of OMB Watch ( a group scrutinising the White House Office of Management and Budget ) Sunshine Week is falls on the week closest to 16 March which was the birthday of James Madison – 4th President, “father of the Constitution”, and author of the US Bill of Rights who championed the importance of checks and balances for good government).
 
 
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, , ,

March 12, 2012

Leave a comment

NZ humanitarian aid rates well in HRI survey but slipping

9 March 2012

Coinciding with International Women’s Day the Humanitarian Response Index (HRI) was published yesterday. The survey assesses how well donor countries are doing in giving effect to the Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles developed by a Swedish-led conference in 2003. The survey indicates that humanitarian aid is less effective in meeting the needs of vulnerable populations than it should be. It covered the responses of 23 major aid donors relating to nine major crises during the period. The efficiency and effectiveness of this aid would improve substantially if there were greater adherence to the donorship principles. However, planning, coordination and delivery of aid have changed little since the principles were established.

A focus of this year’s report was the extent to which aid was structured around gender needs. It suggests that gender has a low priority. Emergency support is often delivered without regard to the needs of different sex and age groups.

Luxembourg is the only major donor country with a lower GDP than New Zealand. The other major donors are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Community, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.

They are ranked in three classes according to the donorship principles (responding to needs; preventions, risk reduction and recovery; working with humanitarian partners; protection and international law; learning and accountability.)

Group 1 donors: New Zealand fits into this top grouping together with Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. These donors score consistently above the overall OECD average in most qualitative and quantitative indicators, and have the highest overall scores in four of the five donorship principles.

Group 2 donors: Australia, Canada, European Commission, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The scores for these donors are generally mid-range, with scores only slightly better than the OECD average.

Group 3 donors: Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Greece and Spain. Scores are below the overall average in both quantitative and qualitative indicators.

New Zealand which was ranked 3rd overall in the 2010 was unable to be included in the overall rating in this latest survey – reportedly because there were insufficient survey responses received.

Uncategorized

, ,

March 9, 2012

Leave a comment

Obama’s open government is not transparent government

 8 March 2012
 
Three years on from President Obama’s declaration that he would lead the most open and transparent administration in history, there is a mounting disillusionment among government watchers who had been excited by that commitment. Comparative surveys indicate that progress in some areas is offset by regression in others. Rather than a new era of openness, matters are going backwards. A Washington lawyer with a Freedom of Information practice has indicated that of six administrations she has engaged with, the current Government is worst.
 
The Politico website this week carries an article listing the deterioration, including-
  • using anti transparency arguments to oppose FOI Act requests
  • an “unprecedented wave of prosecutions” of whistleblowers and alleged leakers
  • poor follow-through on open government plans
While the White House promotes the President’s transparency directive to make government data readily accessible on line, there are criticisms from open government groups that documents requested in 2005 have still not been released, and that many agencies are charging exorbitantly for the disclosure of information. Some see the appointment of the open government director as Ambassador to the Czech Republic in mid 2012 as symbolic.
 
The Administration which in the first flush of office released memos about waterboarding under the Bush Government then seemed to run into problems; reticence to release material about the interrogation of terrorism suspects soon developed into what has been called an untouchable bubble of non accountability about national security. “It’s just incredible for an administration that says it’s committed to an unprecedented level of transparency” …. to be telling the Supreme Court that it won’t … “accept long established Supreme Court precedent in favour of disclosure”.
 
The jargon in the White House has evolved from “open government” to “good government” and now to “21st century Government”. It appears that the reluctance of most bureaucrats in most jurisdictions to commit to openness is no different in the United States. As the Politico article concludes, “you don’t make (cultural change) happen just by issuing proclamations”
 
Cultural change is best achieved by committed leaders. Reservations by the President seem to have arrested moves for greater government transparency in the United States.
 
The New Zealand Ombudsmen’s 2011 Annual Report shows that there are more complaints (nearly 400) about the non disclosure of requested information by NZ Police, Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Social Development than all the other Public Service and Non Public Service departments combined. The Ministry of Defence doesn’t feature on the list – probably because of the security and government relations exemption provisions of the Official Information Act.
 
 
 

Uncategorized

, ,

March 8, 2012

Leave a comment

The rich have fewer scruples

7 March 2012
Political elites have a different ethical perspective from others according to recent research ( see a posting last week Falling from Grace ).
Being wealthy causes people to have less concern for the law, to be more likely to act unethically, and even to purloin sweets they were asked to deliver to children. If you are rich you are likely to be afflicted with the Gordon Gecko syndrome and accept that greed is good, research this week suggests.
Researchers at Berkeley and Toronto Universities found that people driving expensive cars – and the affluently dressed – show much less concern for drivers in bangers and for pedestrians. And apparently if you see yourself as upper class you are more likely to lie and cheat and to help yourself to gifts intended for others according to a media report of British research.
“The reason for this was not necessarily their class, but the fact they agreed with Wall Street’s Gordon Gecko that greed is good. When the researchers examined the connection between beliefs about greed and unethical behaviour, they found that class was no longer a significant variable. In other words, rich people tended to take advantage of others primarily because they saw selfish and greedy behaviour as acceptable, and just because they had more money or higher status” if Time magazine is to be believed
But greed affects us all. When poorer volunteers were asked to think of ways that greed could be beneficial, their ideas were as unethical as the wealthy test group.

Uncategorized

March 7, 2012

Leave a comment

Are closed courts compatible with open government?

6 March 2012
 
Good government is constructed on the pillars of respect for the rule of law, support for the democratic process and a bureaucracy imbued with the spirit of service, all bonded with transparency and integrity. Can good government survive if protecting the state requires the undermining of these elements?
 
Holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay can be seen as an erosion of the United States commitment to good government. The British Government has its own problems dealing with terrorist suspects. It is now promoting legislation that will authorise private civil courts – described as closed material proceedings. The intention is avoid embarrassing claims against MI5 and MI6 brought by citizens jailed and allegedly tortured by the United States with British knowledge.
 
Submissions about the proposals reflect community concerns. The parliamentary joint committee on human rights is to consider the matter today. It will deal with allegations that proposed powers are much more severe than existing public interest immunity certificates available to the security agencies. The legislation will exclude the right of claimants to access the government’s evidence, to test the veracity of witnesses, and ultimately even to be given the reasons for the court’s decision. Opponents argue that the UK is “sleepwalking into a system of secret courts… (that will) erode centuries-old traditions of open justice…”
 
The Minister of Justice is more optimistic. He has said that the proposed changes reflect reality and mean that …”people will share intelligence with (the UK) knowing that it will be used properly, will not be misused and will not be disclosed in areas where it would do damage.” He doesn’t accept that there will be a public reaction and a refusal to participate in juries associated with closed proceedings. 

Many submissions are accessible on the Cabinet Office website. Most include reservations. The view of the Police Federation, concerned about risks to the interests of justice, is to use the closed proceedings only in “exceptional cases”.

Critics include a former director of prosecutions who claims that the proposals are an attack on British justice and the fundamental principle that you are entitled to know and challenge the case being made against you. However his reputation for openness and integrity is being challenged. When in office he decided not to broaden the News of the World phone hacking investigation despite being aware of evidence that detected offending was much wider than publicly disclosed. Since mid 2011 he has been retained as an adviser to News of the World. His allegation is that the proposals …. “threaten to put the government above the law while leaving ordinary citizens, and the press, shut out of their own justice system. After a decade in which we have seen our politicians and officials caught up in the woeful abuses of the War on Terror, the last thing the Government should be seeking is to sweep all of this under the carpet. However, that is exactly what their disastrous secret justice proposals are likely to do.

“David Cameron came to power saying ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’. We should not sacrifice Britain’s open and transparent justice system simply to protect politicians and their officials from embarrassment”.

www.justice.org.uk/pages/the-governments-new-secret-evidence-proposals-unfair-unjustified-and-unnecessary.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9116605/Nick-Clegg-seeks-assurances-over-secret-court-trial-plans.html

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-word-hires-ex-dpp

Uncategorized

, ,

March 6, 2012

Leave a comment

« Older posts
Newer posts «