Ethical Imagination

Management responsable : Questions éthiques Séminaire Philo & Management le 14 avril 2007 Laurent Ledoux

Une éthique est la doctrine d’un art particulier de vivre la « meilleure » vie possible (par ex. de vivre heureux) et des moyens d’accès à cette fin (Marcel Conche, philosophe) Variations sur le mot « éthique » Ethos, en grec: la coutume, l'habitude, la façon de se comporter dans un milieu Ethique, au sens premier: manière de s'orienter dans un milieu, de se situer dans un environnement Ethics is a human activity. The purpose of ethics is not to make people ethical; it is to help people make better decisions (Marvin Brown, author & ethics consultant)

Catégorisation des problèmes éthiques en fonction du degré de complexité Firestone Retirer les pneus du marché? Steve Lewis Aller à la réunion de St Louis? Pierre Ardant Licencier Catherine Bacq? Edouard Sakiz Distribuer RU 486? Bien vs. Mal (choix moral) Bien vs. Bien (dilemme éthique) Complexité Qui est l’organisation? Qui sommes- nous? Qui Suis-je? Cas pratiques Impact de la décision Source: Badaracco (1997); adapté par Ledoux Ethical decisions form, reveal & test the self (John Dewey) Leçons On ne peut « gouverner » sans se salir les mains

Sources possibles d’aides à la décision Chartes éthiques & Mission statements Obligations légales Valeurs & heuristique Principes ou règles morales & éthiques

“ Donnés” Fixes et consistents “ Émergeants ” de processus individuels Adaptables & reactifs aux circonst. Orientation “résultats” “ Faire le bien”, ce qui est bon Orientation “principes” “ Bien faire” Ethiques des vertus Ethiques de développement Ethiques déontologiques Ethiques téléologiques Catégorisation des « théories » éthiques et des principes/questions qui en découlent Source: Fisher & Lovell (2003); adapté par Ledoux

A framework for ethical theories Institutional Structure Fixity and consistency Individual Processes Adaptability & responsiveness Policy Doing good Principle Doing right Virtue ethics Virtue ethics – McIntyre Ethical care - Gilligan Ethical learning and growth Individual growth – Covery and Senge Communitarianism – Etzioni Ethical egoism - Rand Deontological ethics Kantian imperatives Rights Justice as fairness - Rawls Teleological ethics Discourse ethics Utilitarianism – Bentham and Mill 1

Questions pour penser les dilemmes « individuels » – Cas de Steve Lewis “ Deviens qui tu es” (Friedrich Nietzsche) “ Comment mes sentiments et mon intuition définissent-ils, pour moi, le dilemme éthique?” (Se respecter ou être loyal) “ Quelles sont les valeurs en jeu qui sont les plus ancrées dans ma vie et dans ma communauté?” (Considérer le dilemme à la lumière de l’histoire de ses parents) “ Quelle est ma voie pour le futur (voie qui n’est pas nécessairement celle des autres)?” (Devenir un partenaire dans une banque d’investissement) “ Quelle combinaison d’opportunisme, ruse, Imagination et courage doivent me permettre de me rapprocher de mes objectifs?” (Aller à St Louis mais présenter une partie de la réunion) Qui suis-je ? Source: Badaracco (1997); adapté par Ledoux

Filtre de 12 tests pour valider ou rejeter un projet de décision Posez-vous ces questions vis-à-vis de la décision que vous voulez prendre 4. Test de “transparence”. Vous sentiriez-vous bien ou mal si d’autres (amis, famille, collègues) seraient mis au courant de votre décision ? 5. Test des “vertus”. Votre décision facilite-t-elle la vie bonne au travers d’un équilibre entre justice, bienveillance ou autres vertus ? Ethiques déontologiques 6. Test du “voile d’ignorance” ou “règle d’or”. Si j’étais à la place de ceux qui seront affectés par ma décision, la regarderais-je positivement ? 7. Test de l’ “universalité” ou “impératif catégorique”. Serait-ce une bonne chose si ma décision devenait un principe universel applicable à toute situation similaire, y compris pour moi-même ? Ethiques de développement 8. Test de l’ “intérêt communautaire”. Ma décision va-t-elle aider les membres de ma communauté à se développer éthiquement ? 9. Test d’ “intérêt personnel”. Ma décision va-t-elle servir mes propres intérêts ou valeurs ? Ethiques téléologiques 11. Test “utilitariste”. Les conséquences anticipées de ma décision sont-elles positives pour le plus grand nombre ? 12. Test de “qualité du débat”. Le débat qui a conduit à ma décision a-t-il été bien mené ? Les personnes appropriées ont-elles été impliquées ? Pourrais-je justifier le processus suivi devant un jury d’experts ? 3. Test “hédoniste” ou “intuitif”. Ma décision correspond-elle à ce que me disent mes “tripes”, avec mes valeurs ? Me fait-elle me sentir bien ? Codes de conduites propres à l’organisation Obligations légales 2. Test “organisationnel”. Ma décision est-elle en ligne avec le codes de conduite ou éthique de mon organisation ? 1. Test “légaliste”. Ma décision est-elle en ligne avec la loi ? Ethiques des vertus +/- Véto Déclic Respect de principes éthiques Heuristique basée sur l’intuition ou sentiment 10. Test “conséquentialiste”. Les conséquences probables de ma décision sont-elles en ligne avec mes intentions ?

A veto item is any criterion that is so important to you that if your decision and plan score negatively on it you will reject the proposal even if, overall, it scores more positives than negatives. A trigger item is any criterion that is so important to you that if your decision scores positively on it, you will accept the proposal even if, overall, it scores more negatives than positives. xxx Ask the following questions of your proposed decision and plan of action Virtue ethics Light-of-day test. Would I feel good or bad if others (friends, family, colleagues) were to know of my decision and action? Virtuous mean test. Does my decision add to, or detract from, the creation of a good life by finding a balance between justice, care and other virtues? x Deontological ethics Veil of ignorance/Golden Rule. If I were to take the place of one of those affected by my decision and plan would I regard the act positively or negatively? Universality test. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if my decision and plan were to become a universal principle applicable to all in similar situations, even to myself? Ethical learning & growth The communitarian test. Would my action and plan help or hinder individuals and communities to develop ethically? Self-interest test. Do the decision and plan meet or defeat my own best interests and values? Reject Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Veto Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Trigger Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Positive + + + + + + Negative - - - - - -

If any trigger item scores positive – accept the decision and action. If any veto item scores negatively – reject the decision and action. Otherwise accept the decision and plan if there are more positives than negatives or reject the decision and plan if there are more negatives than positives. xxx Ask the following questions of your proposed decision and plan of action Consequentialist ethics Consequential test. Are the anticipated consequences of my decision and plan positive or negative? The discourse test. Have the debates about my decision and plan been well or badly conducted? Have the appropriate people been involved? x Reject Y/N Y/N Veto Y/N Y/N Trigger Y/N Y/N Positive + + Negative - -

Here are a number of “principles”. Identify your top three and rank them 1, 2, 3 in order of importance/relevance to you and your decision making. Then mark your least relevant 9, 10 and 11 Prioritising your ethical principles Principle Description Rank Categorical imperative You should not adopt principles of action unless they can, without inconsistency, be adopted by everyone else Conventionist ethic Individuals should act to further their self-interest so long as they do not violate the law Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you Hedonistic ethic If it feels good, do it Disclosure rule If you are comfortable with an action or decision after asking yourself whether you would mind if all your associates, friends and family were aware of it, then you should act or decide Intuition ethic You do what your “gut feeling” tells you to do Means-ends ethic If the end justifies the means, then you should act Might equals right ethic You should take whatever advantage you are strong enough and powerful enough to take without respect for ordinary social conventions and laws Organisation ethic This is an age of large-scale organisations – be loyal to the organisation Professional ethic You should only do that which can be explained before a committee of your professional peers Utilitarian ethic You should follow the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” Source: Carroll (1990) 5

Quick-test éthique de Texas Instrument (2001) L’action est-elle légale ? L’action est-elle compatible avec nos valeurs (de TI) ? Si vous la réalisez, vous sentirez-vous mal ? Comment l’action sera-t-elle présentée dans les journaux ? Si vous pensez qu’elle soit mauvaise, ne la faites pas ! Si vous n’êtes pas sur, demandez. Persistez dans votre demande jusqu’à ce que vous obteniez une réponse.

Questions pour penser les dilemmes éthiques « internes » – Cas de Pierre Ardant Qui sommes-nous ? “ Quels sont les autres interprétations possibles de la situation?” (Percevoir en temps utiles les signaux de Maréchal qui veut licencier Bacq) “ Quels avantages tangibles peuvent retirer de la situation ou de mes idées les personnes dont j’ai besoin du support?” (Faire comprendre à son supérieur qu’un meilleur équilbre travail-vie privée peut aller de pair avec une plus grande productivité, attractivité pour recruter des talents,…) “ Ai-je orchestré un processus permettant à mes valeurs d’émerger au sein de mon organisation?” (Entamer bien plus tôt une campagne interne pour un environnement plus respectueux de la vie de famille au sein de son organisation) “ Ma stratégie doit-elle vraiment me permettre de faire prévaloir ma vision de la réalité?” (Mettre en place une stratégie pour veiller à transformer en résultats durables les bonnes intentions lors du rectrutement de Bacq) “ L’éthique émerge au travers d’un processus” (William James) Source: Badaracco (1997); adapté par Ledoux

Intensité du problème Valeurs organisationnelles / Force des pratiques Soutien des autres Valeurs personnelles Autonomie personnelle Valeurs sociétales Niveau 2 Niveau 1 Intensité du problème Valeurs organisationnelles / Force des pratiques Soutien des autres Valeurs personnelles Autonomie personnelle Valeurs sociétales Niveau 2 Niveau 1 Eléments constitutifs de la complexité éthique en organisation Source: Lovell (2002)

Elements of ethical complexity Intensity of problem Organisational values / strength of practices Support of others Personal values Personal autonomy Societal values LAYER 2 LAYER 1 5

Déterminé Action & croyance de Pouvoir résoudre le dilemme Tolérant Clarification des conflits entre les valeurs & action selon son bon jugement Conventionnel Demande de conseils & application des normes Perplexe Maintien de la discussion sans chercher à trancher Conscient Action & étonnement des réactions différentes Cynique Retrait de la discussion mais critique des actions des autres Neutre Inaction & retrait Négociateur Ecrasement des principes en faveur des plus puissants Certitude personnelle, priorités et valeurs fermes Aporie personnelle, priorités et valeurs mouvantes Développement de ses propres principes Poursuite du bien commun Accomplissement volontaire de son devoir Nombrilisme Dialectique des buts éthiques Degré d’intégrité éthique Source: Fisher and Rice (1999) Catégorisation des réactions/attitudes possibles à un problème éthique

Manager’s perceptions of ethical issues – a framework x Ethical puzzle Ethical problem Ethical convention Ethical dilemma Ethical awareness Ethical cynicism and caprice Ethical neutrality Ethical negotiation Personal certainty, fixed priorities and values Personal aporia, shifting priorities and values Developing principles Achieving the common good The obligation of duty Self-consciousness Dialectic of ethical purpose Degree of ethical integrity Source: Fisher and Rice (1999)

A summary of the eight categories of ethical response Stances Grids Way of thinking about the issue Ethical neutrality Keeping out of trouble/jobsworth Getting the job done People decide to ignore what they see as an injustice because to raise the issue would cause them trouble. For example a team leader might choose not to respond to concerns raised about the unethical behaviour of some staff working on a contract, because it would have disrupted the staff scheduling that had been planned with much difficulty. Ethical awareness Dignity of persons The importance of truth Just desserts A sort of pop Kantianism which is triggered when it is thought that people are used as means and that proper dignity is not respected. The moral imperative of always telling the truth. Rewarding people according to their merits. A form of deservingness. One respondent, working in government, regarded the catering management as feckless and shed no tears when they were threatened by competitive tendering; but he thought it unjust when the laundry, which the respondent believed provided an excellent service, lost out to an external bidder. Ethical convention Professional norms Fairness The argument that people should adhere to professional and organisational norms and standards. Keeping a level playing field and being fair, treating all the same. Likely actions Inaction and keeping quiet. Assertion of, and acting upon, one’s values. Expressing surprise that others may see things differently. Seeking advice and help from others on what the normal and acceptable response would be. Applying norms and conventions. Ethical puzzle Policies, rules, and procedures Utility The belief that things are best kept ethical and proper by sticking to the rules and regulations and not bending them to allow for special cases. Belief in the maximisation of an objective or of utility. This is the philosophy of utilitarianism. Applying the rules of an organisation or institution. Calculating the consequences of an action. Acting to resolve the issue on the basis that they have the correct or best solution. The assumption is that , the correct action having been taken, this will be an end to the matter. 5

A summary of the eight categories of ethical response (continued) Stances Grids Way of thinking about the issue Ethical problem Moral judgement Learning from moral exemplars The application of moral judgement rather than the moral calculation of utility. Moral judgement, the ability to define the ethical mean proportionately is acquired through the development of virtues. One respondent argued that ethical codes were unnecessary because the organisation’s staff were virtuous and honest. The argument that ethical lapses can be temporarily tolerated if people have the opportunity to learn new and better ways. Likely actions Clarifying how the conflicts between different values would lead to different actions or decisions. Acting upon one’s best judgement. Ethical dilemma Personal relationships Ironic liberalism and pragmatism Relativism Holism In a wicked world one should concentrate on the development of personal relationships. See Case Study 6.1 for an example. This notion is taken from Rorty (1989). It is a view on how sanity can be maintained in a world where values are ungrounded. The key techniques are the separation of private and public domains and giving priority to “keeping the conversation going” (Mounce, 1997: 197, 207). The argument that different cultures have different moral precepts and that what may be unethical in one culture, or organisation, may not be so in another. Trying to take the whole position into account. At its most extreme it is like the Buddhist belief that great effort is needed to see beyond the illusion of fragmentation to the unity beyond (Kjonstad and Willmott, 1995 : 457). The emphasis of action is on maintaining discussion about the issue rather than seeking closure on it. When conflicts about issues are serious it is important to maintain good manners and interpersonal relationships. 5

A summary of the eight categories of ethical response (continued) Stances Grids Way of thinking about the issue Ethical cynicism Façadism Personal gain and selfishness One person thought others wanted to be seen to follow the proper recruitment procedures even though the person they wanted to have the job had been decided beforehand. This grid includes being economical with the truth and the belief that business involves games playing and bluffing (Carr, 1968). The argument that people are distorting situations and procedures to their own private advantage. Likely actions The cynic will withdraw from any action or decision but will snipe from the sidelines at any action or decision that others may have taken. Ethical negociation Complex politics “ Dodgy deals” “ There are high-level politics concerning this issue to which I am not privy – so I keep my own views to myself.” A person working with this perspective tries to steer a compromise route through the competing demands of different groups. The problems of allocating scarce car parking spaces at work are often a good example. Bending rules, or acquiescing in rule bending, to accommodate the interest of powerful groups. Seeking out other’ views and supporting or acquiescing in the wishes of the most powerful. 5

Results from the Downsizing instruments: the percentage frequency with which Accounting and Finance specialists and HRM specialists chose ethical positions in the seven sections of the instruments Modal response of HRM specialists. N = 87 5 Ethical Cynicism Ethical Negotiation Ethical Dilemma Ethical Problem Ethical Puzzle Ethical Convention Ethical Awareness Ethical Neutrality Ethical Cynicism ch 2 significance level (p) = 0.002* Section 2 Section 1 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Espoused stances and values Acct. HRM Acct. HRM Acct. HRM 8% 92% 0% 13% 86% 1% 34% 64% 2% 51% 45% 4% 6% 8% 21% 6% 12% 64% 14% 78% Acct. HRM Acct. HRM Acct. HRM Acct. HRM 13% 1% 10% 23% 89% 77% 16% 1% 30% 58% 70% 42% 0% 1% 20% 31% 47% 70% 0% 0% 18% 33% 70% 44% Forced hard choices: stances and values in practices chi 2 significance level (p) = 0.000* 10% 21% 2% 13% 9% 10% Modal response of accountancy and finance specialists. N = 425 *p < 0.05 (Source: Fisher and Lovell, 2000)

Source: Marvin Brown (1990) Processus de réflexion éthique et ses ressources Principes Convictions de base Observations Proposition Points de vue contradictoires

Questions pour penser les dilemmes éthiques avec un fort impact sociétal – Cas d’Edouard Sakiz Qui est l’organisation ? “ Ai-je fait tout ce qui était en mon pouvoir pour consolider ma position et la force et la stabilité de mon organisation?” (Ne pas prendre de décision qui expose directement l’organisation ou confronte directement le président du CA de Hoechst) “ Ai-je pensé de manière créative et imaginative quant au rôle sociétal de mon organisation et aux relations avec ses stakeholders?” (Orchestrer un débat public entre les différents stakeholders) “ Dois-je jouer le rôle du lion ou du renard?” (Organiser un vote au cours duquel il vote pour la suspension de RU 486) “ Ai-je fait tout ce qui était en mon pouvoir pour trouver le juste équilibre, tant sur le plan éthique que pratique ?” (Obtenir la mise sur le marché de RU 486 – son intention – sans avoir du exposer son organisation) “ L’éthique résulte de la tension inévitable entre Virtue & Virtu” (Aristote & Machiavel) Source: Badaracco (1997); adapté par Ledoux

Horizon éthique Loyauté Intégrité La societé dans son ensemble Dénoncer anonymement Dénoncer publiquement Les associations citoyennes aux- quelles j’adhère Maintenir le silence/mentir Offrir d’aider le management à trouver une manière de remédier au méfait Ou Dénoncer publiquement Mon organisation Maintenir le silence/mentir Tenter de persuader l’organisation de révéler son méfait et d’y remédier Moi Mentir pour se protéger/chercher à bénéficier ou Refuser d’être “acheté” par l’organisation Rester sliencieux (l’inaction n’est pas considérée comme entamant l’intégrité) Ou Donner sa démission (lorsque l’organisation refuse de remédier à son méfait) Réponses possibles à un méfait selon différents horizons éthiques Degré de sacrifice de soi au bénéfice des autres Degré de sacrifice pour marquer son adhésion ou engagement Degré de sacrifice en tant que bouc émissaire Degré de sacrifice pour maintenir/augmenter son bénéfice ou statut personnel

An analysis of the actions open to an employee, when they discover wrongdoing by their organisation, according to the levels of ethical horizons Ethical horizon Loyalty Integrity Society Sacrifice of self for other’s benefit Anonymous whistleblowing Public whistleblowing Civil associations Sacrifice to show membership and commitment Lying to protect the group The group members agree to maintain silence to protect the group The group collectively offers to help management find a way to make things right The group collectively blows the whistle on the organisation – a form of collective civil disobedience x Organisations Acting as a scapegoat Offering to keep silent Cover up the wrongdoing Trying to persuade the organisation to reveal its wrongdoing and to put things right Self Sacrifice to maintain or increase personal benefit or stratus Seek personal advantage from the situation Protect self by lying Protect self by telling lies about others Refusing to be bought off by the organisation Keeping silent – inaction is believed not to damage integrity Resigning when the organisation will not take the right action

* Synthèse basée sur des textes d’André Comte-Sponville, Marcel Conche & François Jourde Ordre économico-technico-scientifique Possible vs. Impossible (lois de la nature et de la raison) Ordre juridico-politique Légal vs. Illégal Ordre de(s) morale(s) Bien vs. Mal (obligations « universelles » ou universalisables) limitent limitent limitent complètent Hiérarchie ascendante des Primautés pour les individus Ordre de(s) éthique(s) Bon vs. Mauvais (Volonté propre, subjective ou relative) Les 4 ordres et les tensions entre l’individu et le groupe Enchaînement descendant des Primats pour les groupes

Catégorisation « classique » des problèmes d’éthiques des affaires Légal Illégal Retrait partiel des Pneus Firestone Renoncer à ses droits intel. sur des méd. contre SIDA en Afr. du Sud Fraude de Parmalat Dénonciation au sein de MI5. Economie de la vérité en matières fiscales Bon Prendre des initiatives pour faire le bien ou réduire le mal Bénin Eviter de faire du mal, soutenir les bonnes actions mais ne pas prendre d’initiatives propres pour faire le bien Indifférent Ignorer le mal fait par ou à d’autres et méconnaître les droits des autres Nuisible Commettre des actions qui nuisent; ne pas prendre d’actions pour limiter ou prévenir un mal Développe-ment social Responsabilité Sociale Réciprocité Equité Mensonges & malhonnêteté Tricherie & égoïsme Intimidations & irresponsab. sociale Dommages et désengage-ment sociaux & envionm. Source: Fisher & Lovell (2003); adapté par Ledoux Ethique Moralité Poursuivre la vie “bonne” Proscrire le mal

Illustrative cases of the major issues in business ethics x Ethics Morality Prescribing the good life Proscribing bad actions Good Positive action for good or to prevent harm being done Benign Avoiding doing harm, supports the doing of good but takes no positive action to do good Indifferent Ignoring harm done by or to others and disregarding the rights of others Bad Taking action to do harm Taking no action to prevent harm being done Social development and Caring Social responsibility and Supporting Reciprocity Fairness Lying and dishonesty Cheating and Selfishness Bullying and Social irresponsibility Harming and Social & environmental disengagement Legal, but not a legal obligation The Nationwide Foundation. Case study 2.1, p. 48. AIDS drugs and patent rights in South Africa. Case study 2.3, p. 51. Paying for staff’s professional training. Case study 2.6, p. 58. Providing new drugs for MS sufferers. Case study 2.9, p. 64. BAT, Nottingham University and the honorary professor. Case study 2.13, p. 75. Legal British Sugar and Sunday trucking. Case study 2.2, p. 49. Child labour in developing countries. Case study 2.4, p. 53. Executive fat cats. Case study 2.7, p. 60. The oil companies and the 2000 fuel crisis . Case study 2.8, p. 62. The British railway system: priorities, profits and governance. Case study 2.11, p. 67 Economy with the truth when dealing with the tax authorities. Case study 2.15, p. 77. The retention of dead babies’ organs in hospitals. Case study 2.19, p. 85. The hospital consultants. Case study 2.21, p. 88. Supermarkets’ treatment of their supply chains. Case study 2.22, p. 89. The Firestone Tire recall issue. Case study 2.25, p. 93 The “Super size Me” sales promotion. Case study 2.23, p. 91 Illegal Discriminating against employees. Case study 2.10, p. 65. The case of Shell’s missing oil barrels. Case study 2.12, p. 72. The Jonathan Aitken story. Case study 2.14, p. 76 The rise and fall of Parmalat . Case study 2.16, p. 79 Lord Black and Hollinger International. Case study 2.17, p. 81. BAT and allegations of cigarette smuggling . Case study 2.18, p. 83. British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. Case study 2.20, p. 86. Sexual harassment. Case study 2.24, p. 92. Illegal but just? David Shayler and whistleblowing on MI5. Case study 2.5, p. 55. Huntingdon Life Sciences. Case study 2.26, p. 94.

A semiotic square analysis of the concept of “good” Good Complementarity or implication Benignness Bad Complementarity or implication subaltern Indifference Contrariety or opposition Contrariety Contradiction or negation 1

« Synthèse pratique » : quelques questions à se poser pour prendre une décision « éthique » Clarifier la situation Articuler la décision et le processus Tester la décision Acteurs Qui sont les stakeholders qui sont affectées, positivement ou négativement, par cette décision ? En quoi ces stakeholders, moi y compris, risquent-ils d’apprécier différemment cette décision (en fonction de leur intuition, valeurs, objectifs) ? A qui les conséquences de ma décision pourraient-elle nuire ou faire du mal ? Quels avantages tangibles peuvent retirer de la situation ou de mes idées les personnes dont j’ai besoin du support ? Avec quels stakeholders concernés par le problème et par ma décision puis-je discuter ? Faits, jugements de valeurs & convictions de base Par rapport à ces différentes appréciations, ai-je bien distinguer les faits des jugements de valeurs et des convictions de base ? Historique & position Comment en suis-je arrivé/l’organisation en est-elle arrivée à devoir prendre une telle décision ? Quelle est la stabilité et la force de ma position ou de celle de mon organisation pour m’engager dans la résolution de cette situation ? Horizon, intentions & résultats A qui / à quoi veux-je accorder en premier lieu ma loyauté ? Quelle est mon intention en prenant cette décision ? En quoi cette intention est-elle en ligne avec les résultats probables ? Processus & attitudes Quel processus ai-je ou dois-je orchestré pour permettre à mes valeurs d’émerger au sein de mon organisation ou parmi les stakeholders ? Quelle combinaison d’opportunisme, ruse, imagination et courage doivent me permettre de me rapprocher de mes objectifs? Dois-je jouer le rôle du lion ou du renard ? Ai-je pensé de manière créative et imaginative quant au rôle sociétal de mon organisation et aux relations avec ses stakeholders ? Ma stratégie doit-elle vraiment me permettre de faire prévaloir ma vision de la réalité? “ Tests-éthiques” Ma décision passe-t-elle le filtre des 12 tests (ou du ou des tests que je juge prioritaires) ? Prise de distance critique Suis-je confiant dans la validité de ma position dans le long terme ? Sous quelles conditions pourrais-je accepter des exceptions à ma position ? Quel est le potentiel symbolique de mon action si elle bien ou mal comprise ? Si tests négatifs

Pourquoi ? Qui ? Où ? Pour qui ? Quand ? Grandes questions relatives à la RSE & Co

Par obligation légale ? Par opportunisme “ marketing” ? Par obligation morale ? Par volonté propre ? Ethique ou étiquettes ? 1. Pourquoi ? – Pourquoi agir selon la RSE ou l’éthique des affaires ? Ordre juridico-politique Légal vs. Illégal Ordre économico-technico-scientifique Possible vs. Impossible (lois de la nature et de la raison) limitent Ordre de(s) éthique(s) Bon vs. Mauvais Ordre de(s) morale(s) Bien vs. Mal limitent limitent complètent 1 2 3 4

Source: Webley and More , 2003 L’éthique paye ? 15 20 25 30 35 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 % ROCE 1. Pourquoi ? – Pourquoi agir selon la RSE ou l’éthique des affaires ? ROCE annuel pour 42 grandes sociétés quotées à Londres Moyenne soc. avec Code éthique Moyenne pour toutes les sociétés Moyenne soc. Sans Code éthique

x Does business ethics pay? Does it improve return on capital? Source: Webley and More , 2003

Obligation de rétribution Responsable des effets Dilemme Responsabilité juridique limitée Irréversibilité, Imprévisibilité & anonymat Responsable d’ autrui Responsabilité morale illimitée Promesse, garantie, arbitrage levée d’incertitude Responsable de l’ « avenir » Responsabilité éthique « équilibrée » Jugement circonstancié (phronésis) Rationalité Rationalité + Respect 1. Pourquoi ? – Pourquoi agir selon la RSE ou l’éthique des affaires ? Ordre juridico-politique Légal vs. Illégal Ordre économico-technico-scientifique Possible vs. Impossible limitent Ordre de(s) éthique(s) Bon vs. Mauvais Ordre de(s) morale(s) Bien vs. Mal limitent limitent complètent 1 2 3 4

2. Qui ? – Qui est responsable ? Les entreprises ou les individus ? Entreprises Individus Ethique des affaires RSE

3. Pour qui ? – A qui rendre des comptes ? Gouvernance des entreprises limitées ou pas aux seuls actionnaires et dirigeants ? Vision «contractuelle» Vision «symbolique» Société Responsabilité « sociétale » en voie d’institutionnalisation Actionnaires Responsabilité « économique » Parties prenantes Responsabilité « sociétale »

Theories of the firm and their ethical implications Issue Classical liberal economic Pluralist (A and B) Status of the category For its advocates it is the only game in town, not merely the most efficient, but the most ethically justifiable. For others the “pure” model must be tempered by interventions to (a) minimise problems of short-termism, or (b) correct power imbalances. Whilst for others the neo-classical model is a corrupting camouflage the interests of the powerful. Type A. A stakeholder perspective is advocated in corporate decision making, with key interest groups physically represented on decision-making boards. Type B. Individual managers weigh the full ethical and social considerations of their actions and decisions. Stakeholder groups would not necessarily be present at decisions. Critical Ranging from descriptive theories of the firm that portray how organisations appear to be (or are), rather than how they should be, to critical theorists who portray an organisational world beholden to the demands of capitalism or managerialism (these terms are not the same). Both approaches reflect messier and more ethically fraught worlds than tend to be suggested in the other three categories. Number of objectives recognised One – meeting the demands of equity shareholders. Multiple, reflecting an array of stakeholder perspectives, although the actual mechanics remain problematic. Multiple, reflected by the various coalitions and power groups within an organisation, particularly economic interests. x Corporatist Refers to the business relationships in countries such as Germany, Sweden and Japan (although the approaches adopted are not identical). The interests of employee groups, non-equity finance, and sometimes the state, are represented alongside the interests of equity shareholders, on senior decision-making boards. A mix of equity shareholder, employee and non-equity finance perspectives, although long-term economic interests of the firm are dominant. Status of financial targets Regarded as the organisation’s primary or sole objective, because they will reflect the efficiency with which resources are being employed. Important, but not to the domination of all other considerations. Ethical as well as multiple stakeholder perspectives are weighed in decision making. In highly competitive markets, or during periods of crisis, likely to be the dominant, although not the exclusive, organisational consideration. During periods of relative stability, other considerations will gain in significance and could dominate. Important, but greater attention paid to the medium to longer-term than appears to be the general case in Anglo-American corporations. Significance of ethical behaviour (both individual and corporate) Defined by national and international laws, which are seen as both the minimum and maximum of required ethicality. The neo-classical model is argued to to be the only approach that allows the primary of individual interests to be reflected in economic and social coordination. At the heart of the debate for those who bemoan what is seen as the exclusive, or overly dominant, economic orientation of organisations. An important, but variable, element in defining the reputation of the organisation. Will be shaped by the power of influential individuals and groups within and external to the organisation. No clear evidence that ethical considerations feature more strongly in corporate decision making, although the lack of an exclusive shareholder perspective might offer greater potential for a broader societal perspective.

Theories of the firm and their ethical implications (continued) Issue Classical liberal economic Pluralist (A and B) Role of managers Portrayed as functionalist, technicist and value neutral. Type A. Managers come into direct contact with specific sectional interest groups, which should affect decision making. Type B. Individual managers are required to have internalised a societal ethic into their decision making. Critical Complex, with competing and sometimes/often mutually exclusive interests and demands being required to be satisfied, including the managers’ own agendas. Status of employees Resources to be used by the organisation in its quest to satisfy shareholder interests. Employees represent an important interest/stakeholder group within the organisation, although economic considerations are not ignored. Operating within a capitalist mode of production, employee interests will vary between organisations, depending upon the power of individuals and groups of individuals. x Corporatist The structures of organisations reflect a formal involvement of employee representatives, non-equity financiers, and sometimes state representatives, alongside shareholder interests, on corporate decision-making boards. Employee representation is guaranteed on some of the organisation’s senior decision-making boards, e.g. supervisory boards in Germany. Values Competition seen as the bulwark against power imbalances. Efficient resource allocation facilitated by profit-maximising behaviour. Inherently societal in orientation, but the views of those actually making decisions will be important. A complex interaction of multiple individual and corporate values. Critical theorists would single out the values that underpin capitalism. Those of the shareholders, employees, non-equity financiers (possibly the state) are likely to dominate. The possibilities for moral agency in organisa-tions The individual as consumer, as chooser, is the personification of moral agency, but the individual as moral agent when selling his or her labour is troublesome. The atomisation of society, which appears to be an inevitability of this form of individualism, is seen by many as leading to feelings of alienation and anomie. Type A. Multiple perspectives offer heightened possibilities, but medium to long-term organisational survival will dominate concerns. Type B. Very similar to Type A, but the confidence and integrity of individual managers becomes a critical issue. Empirical evidence indicates that the suppression of moral agency might be more than minor and isolated aberrations in an otherwise satisfactory state of organisational affairs. Critical theorists would see these problems as an inevitable consequence of the demands of capitalism. With employee representatives on the supervisory boards of organisations (as in Germany), the possibilities again appear stronger than with the liberal-economic perspective. However, economic considerations will remain dominant.

4. Où ? – Où doit se définir l’intérêt commun ? Privatisation de l’intérêt commun ? Barbarie douce ? Réd. seuil d’accept. risques & Crise de légitimité des entr. Entreprises Etats & Société civile Mondialisation & dérégulation Ordre juridico-politique Légal vs. Illégal limitent 2 Ordre économico-technico-scientifique Possible vs. Impossible (lois de la nature et de la raison) 1

Temps Richesse du concept RSE Source : Jean Pasquero (2005), adapté par Ledoux Philanthropie Dons & mécénat d’entreprise Sollicitude Besoins des employés Limitation des nuisances Priorité à l’environnement Eco. Classique (XIIXe S.) Eco. Traditionnelle (XIXe S.) Début du XXe S. Années 1960 Réceptivité sociale Système de «gestion sociétale» Rectitude éthique Codes de bonnes conduite Reddition des comptes Triple bilan Participation citoyenne «Engagement» proactif Années 1970 Années 1990 Années 2000 5. Quand ? – Quelle est l’évolution temporelle de la RSE et éthique des affaires ? Gestion efficiente (compétence Technique) 8 composantes de la RSE aujourd’hui

Médiation ou instrumentalisation ? Ethique Protestante Naissance du Capitalisme moderne Ethique Progressiste Essor du Capitalisme industriel Temps Capitalisme « Post ou hyper-moderne » * Ethique instrumentalisée ? Selon l’analyse d’Anne Salmon dans « Ethique et ordre économique : une entreprise de séduction », 2002 5. Quand ? – Quelle est l’évolution temporelle de la RSE et éthique des affaires ?

Débat Qu’avons-nous appris ? Que faut-il approfondir ? Avec quoi êtes-vous d’accord ou pas d’accord ?

Ce que j’ai appris (à présenter éventuellement après le débat) La morale ne suffit plus pour se diriger dans un monde devenu complexe L’éthique est un guide plus adapté mais il est aussi plus indéfinissable; car il vient de l’intérieur de chacun Il y a une multiplicité des positions/décisions éthiques possibles par rapport à une situation; la particularisation des situations est souvent plus “utile” que la catégorisation de celles-ci Les valeurs et l’heuristique guident plus souvent les décisions dans la pratique que les grands principes L’imagination “éthique” est aussi très importante Les positions éthiques d’une même personne peuvent évoluer dans le temps par rapport à des cas similaires Le caractère éthique d’un acte se juge au moins en partie dans la délibération qui précède cet acte. En conséquence, pour stimuler l’éthique dans les affaires, il faut moins s’appuyer sur des codes de conduites ou des codes éthiques imposés « top down » mais plus veiller à mettre en place des structures de support et une culture organisationnelle facilitant et stimulant l’ « imagination éthique », la casuistique, le dialogue et le débat sur les questions éthiques en interne et en externe, c’est-à-dire avec les stakeholders D’où la question : comment, moi, manager, je développe et je pratique MON éthique dans le contexte de MON entreprise et de SON environnement particulier ? Pour ce faire, il n’est pas inutile de prendre régulièrement le temps de s’exercer à réfléchir et à résoudre des dilemmes éthiques (évocation de exercices de l’empereur Marc-Aurèle)

A sequence of questions for guiding principled judgement What is the ethical issue to be considered? CASUISTRY DIALOGUE AND DEBATE MORAL IMAGINATION What particularities make this issue ethically different from other, superficially, similar cases? What do the other stakeholders connected with the case think the problem is? What type of problem is it? Does it fit into a general category of problems previously encountered? Is there one particularity that would cause you not to apply your normal solution to the problem? If so, how? Which stakeholder group’s needs should be given priority in this case? In what other ways might you understand the problem? What different particularities do the various stakeholders see? Differences between the particular and the general cases What would you have to do to deal with this peculiarity? Are there issues between the stakeholders that it is more important to solve than issues between the stakeholders and the focus organisation? Which ways of looking at the problem are ethically helpful and which are not? What options are available to you that: You as the focus organisation could do directly You could do to help various stakeholders deal with their ethical disagreements Recognise that the issue is a new type of problem 5

Bibliographie Defining moments , Joseph L. Badaracco, jr, Harvard Business School Press, 1997 La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise comme objet des sciences de gestion , Jean Pasquero dans Responsabilité sociale et environnementale de l’entreprise, sous la dir. de Marie-France B.-Turcotte et Anne Salmon, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2005 La société malade la gestion , Vincent de Gauléjac, Seuil, 2005 Le capitalisme est-il moral , André Comte-Sponville, Albin Michel, 2004 Ethique et ordre économique: une entreprise de séduction , CNRS Editions, 2002 Le fondement de la morale , Marcel Conche, PUF, 1993 Rethinking business ethics – A pragmatic approach , Sandra Rosenthal & Rogene Buchholz, Oxford Press, 2000 Introduction aux “Pensées” de Marc Auréle , Pierre Hadot, Le livre de Poche, 1997 Respect in a world of inequality , Richard Sennett, Norton Press, 2004 Business Ethics & Values , Colin Fischer & Alan Lovell, FT Prentice Hall, 2003 Working ethics , Marvin Brown, Jossey-Bass, 1990 Responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise : Faut-il enchaîner Prométhée ? , Philippe de Woot, Economica, 2005

Bibliographie What’s a business for? , Charles Handy, HBR, december 2002 Can a corporation have a conscience? ; Kenneth Goodpaster & John Mathews, January 1982 Does business ethics pay? , S. Webley & E. More, London IBE, 2003 Managing messy moral matters , C.M. Fischer & C. Rice, in Strategic Human Resources, J. Leopold, L. Harris & T.J. Watson, 1999 The vulnerability of autonomy that denies the exercise of moral agency , Alan Lovell, in Business Ethics: a European review, 2002

The managerial ethical roles as a semiotic square Prophets A monocular ethical vision & an unwillingness to debate Subjectivists Their subjectivism can lead to ethical fragmentation & distorted dialogue Quietists Disengagement from ethical problems in the world Rhetoricians The accommodations necessary to stay in the game may lead to a loss of moral agency Radical critiquer Systems developer Cynic Guru Culture designer Counsellor Mentor Transactional manager Ritualist Intellectual Pragmatist Games player 5

Defining the managerial roles Modernist Radical critiquer x Systems developer Cynic principle policy aporia Neo-traditionalist Guru Culture designer Counsellor Traditionalist Mentor Transactional manager Ritualist Postmodernist Intellectual Pragmatist Games player

The consequences of conflicting perspectives: six types of conflict Conscience What does the respondent think is wrong about the issues? Ethical reasoning What the respondent thinks should be said and done in the given circumstances. Options for action The basis of the respondent’s speech and actions. The expectations of others What does the respondent think is the basis of other’s speech and action? Type 1 Anxiety Type 5 Blame, scapegoating Type 6 Disconnection, lack of integrity Type 3 Conflict, disagreement, lack of trust Type 2 Guilt, shame, remorse, humiliation Type 4 Disdain or disapprobation 5

Analysis of an ethical issue The issue A formal selection process for the job of Director was gone through. It was decided, before the start of the selection process, that the acting post holder was not suitable but he was nevertheless taken through the process. What does R think is wrong about the issue? Denial of the acting post holder’s dignity as a person (ethical awareness) Failure to follow the rules (puzzle) What R thinks should be said and done in the given circumstances On the basis of a personal relationship someone should explain to the post holder so that he could withdraw if he wished (ethical dilemma) Options for action Jobsworth – keeping out of this issue because it could get them into trouble (ethical neutrality) What are the expectations of other stakeholders (senior managers)? Façadism – the importance of being seen to do the right thing even when you are not (cynicism). Dodgy deals – those doing the appointing are responding to the organisation’s politics (ethical negotiation) 5

A suggested analysis of Case study 6.1 We ought to do the right thing, “do everything to ensure other people have independence because all a disabled person wants is independence” but R suspects that she and the organisation will not fulfill this obligation. Ethical awareness – dignity of persons What does R think is wrong about the issue? “ But there is quite a lot of things to do and at some point in time they have to be slotted into some sort of order, to deal with them”. Ethical dilemma – moral judgement Sorting out priorities in a proportional way What R thinks should be said and done Decide to do small low-cost access improvements which are highly visible, e.g. ramps to reception. As a company we want to be seen as a good employer. Ethical dilemma – moral judgement Ethical negotiation – façadism, wanting to look good for minimum cost What is the basis of R’s speech and actions? “ One of the lads we employ, who is disabled, was arguing very strongly for spending all this money – big sums of money and it’s a very sensible argument and he delivers it with force”. He argues we should be meeting the needs of disabled potential employees. Ethical awareness – dignity of persons What does R think is the basis of other’s speech and actions? How much to spend on access improvements? 5

Significant recent reports and developments in corporate governance 5 1992 Cadbury 1995 1998 1999 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 Greenbury Hampel & Combined code OECD principles Turnbull Myners Smith & Higgs Combined Code Sarbanes-Oxley

Integrated Social Contract Theory (ISCT) Hypernorms Consistent norms Moral free space Illegitimate norms 5

Formal and informal pressures for ethical behaviour 5 Broader societal developments Governments NGOs, pressure groups charitable bodies, major customers, etc. The organisation (management) Individual employees External ethical review and/or audit Codes of conduct/ethics, etc. Laws Influence Frameworks, codes or agreements Codes of conduct Professional codes where relevant Ethics hotlines Key = Legally binding requirements and = non-legally binding requirements The competitive environments of both organisations and governments Levels of analysis The macro or political level The meso or organisational level The micro or individual level

The relationship between Hofstede’s cultural dimension and national leadership styles Great Britain USA (Village market) Small Large Power distance Singapore India (Family) Germany Israel (Well-oiled machine) France (Pyramid of people) Weak Strong Uncertainty avoidance Source: Hofstede, 2001: 377 5

Confucian values Long-term Confucian values Persistence and perseverance Ordering relationships by status Thrift Having a sense of shame Short-term Confucian values Personal steadiness and stability Protecting your “face” Respect for tradition, reciprocation of greetings, favour and gifts Source: Based on Hofstede, 1991: 165-6 5

Value attributes of overseas business networks in South-east Asia Attributes Firm Merchants Primogeniture Firm’s lifespan Chinese Reviled None Short Indian Specialised Very strong Medium Japanese Exalted Strong Long Loyalty Family definition Focus Intensity Filial piety v. patriotism Blood Individual Low Opposed Blood Group High No relationship Role Institution High Equivalent Commercial trust Ethical foundation Ethical focus Expectations of benefits Five relationships and social harmony The Way Immediate and up-front Dharma Family Immediate and up-front Mutual self-interest Service to father figure Delayed Source: Haley and Haley, 1998 5

Organisational principles and human behaviour Issue General employees Senior executives Working for other organisations Taking time off to do “other” work would be described as moonlighting and subject to instant dismissal. Working for other organisations considered to be a vice Taking consulting or NED-type role with another organisation invariably seen as broadening for all concerned and a virtue Pay-motivation relationship Paying people low wages incentives employees to work hard. High wages merely breed sloth and inefficiency Senior executives need increasing levels of pay to incentivise them. The higher the pay, the higher the motivation Pensions It is unreasonable to expect the state or organisations to provide for income after employment Generous pension packages are essential to entice the appropriate level of executive talent Working conditions General working conditions should reflect basic functional requirements. To do more would reflect an unnecessary diversion of shareholder funds Require high-quality accommodation and to provide less will act as a disincentive to prospective appointees Perks Very few and where they exist will need to reflect a close relationship between performance and perk. No such thing as a “free lunch” Come in many forms from first-class travel to company cars (when little corporate travel is undertaken by road), to executive boxes at arts or sporting arenas, to company accommodation and company loans. Lunches may still not be free but are paid for by “others” 5

Ethical Imagination

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Ethical Imagination

More from Blogactiv

Recently uploaded

Ethical Imagination