Doing the Right Thing: a framework for Business Ethics
This paper will discuss the relevancy of ethical theory to the daily outcomes of business
professionals. I hope to establish the basic need for well thought out and reasoned work in the
value culture of organizations. The language of an organization’s value culture is ethics. And
further, that the purchasing professional is uniquely situated in the organization to bring dialog in
the area of value centered action.
Purchasing is a profession:
A distinguishing characteristic of a profession is that its practitioners combine ethical
standards with the performance of technical skills. In fact, "professional" is described in
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as "characterized by or conforming to the technical
or ethical standards of a profession." Webster's goes on to define "ethic" as "a theory or
system of moral values, the principles of conduct governing an individual or group." In
order to achieve stature as a profession, those in supply management must establish and
subscribe to a set of ethical standards to guide individual and group decisions and actions.
From Institute of Supply Management (ISM)
Our own organization, NAEP, offers a written standard of conduct.
Code of Ethics from National Association of Educational Procurement (NAEP)
Purchasing professionals must have a highly developed sense of professional ethics to
protect their own and their institution’s reputation for fair dealing. To strengthen ethical
awareness, and to provide guidelines for its members, NAEP has long promoted a code of
ethics.
1. Give first consideration to the objectives and policies of my institution.
2. Strive to obtain the maximum value for each dollar of expenditure.
3. Decline personal gifts or gratuities.
4. Grant all competitive suppliers equal consideration insofar as state or federal
statute and institutional policy permit.
5. Conduct business with potential and current suppliers in an atmosphere of good
faith, devoid of intentional misrepresentation.
6. Demand honesty in sales representation whether offered through the medium of
a verbal or written statement, an advertisement, or a sample of the product.
7. Receive consent of originator of proprietary ideas and designs before using
them for competitive purchasing purposes.
8. Make every reasonable effort to negotiate an equitable and mutually agreeable
settlement of any controversy with a supplier; and/or be willing to submit any
major controversies to arbitration or other third party review, insofar as the
established policies of my institution permit.
9. Accord a prompt and courteous reception insofar as conditions permit to all
who call on legitimate business missions.
10. Cooperate with trade, industrial and professional associations, and with
governmental and private agencies for the purposes of promoting and developing
sound business methods.
11. Foster fair, ethical and legal trade practices.
12. Counsel and cooperate with NAEP members and promote a spirit of unity and
a keen interest in professional growth among them.
Members are also encouraged to participate in continuing open discussions of ethical
principles with their colleagues and with others.
The Relevancy of Business Ethics:3
Joseph Campbell has long been a proponent of a shared human experience. His work has been in
the common mythical iconology and imagery among all peoples. Campbell suggests that
western society is in decline because we have lost our poets. It is the poets who render a
transcendent experience to the world we live. Our religious life is now ethical. It has lost the
mystical. (Campbell, 1998)
I can’t help wondering if that is what is so troubling about behaviors garnering headlines about
business leaders who fall from grace. In these cases, society is at least holding them to shame
and to a certain degree, we are holding our leaders accountable. But what is it that prevents
unethical behavior and encourages organizations to develop a culture demanding the ethical? It
seems that our understanding of what is ethical has deteriorated into what is legal, or at least
what is codified. Ethics has deteriorated into a list of admonitions or at best a list of
proscriptions. Increasingly we find government providing oversight to behavior through the
passage of more and more legislation. Including, to name but a few:

OMB 110 Appendix A
o Equal Employment Opportunity (Fair Labor)
o Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (Fair Competition)
o Davis-Bacon Act (Fair Labor)
o Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Fair Compensation and
Safety)
o Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Environmental)
o Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (Fair Competition)
o EO 12549 and 12589; Debarment and Suspension (Sanctions)

Statement of Accounting Standards, SAS 104 – 111 (Internal Control)

Freedom of Information Act – Sunshine laws (Accountability)

Sarbanes-Oxley (Control and Accountability)

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
We find that our terms and conditions on contracts are ever expanding to cover circumstances
that 20 years ago were simply understood. How have we moved from a society in touch with the
mystical to one in which we parse words and actions based upon codes and laws? Ethics can not
be reduced to the conflict of interest and fraud front page stories. Some have said that we
understand business ethics as the “common good” (Kaler, 1999), we learn the ethical at our
mother’s knee (Sorell, 2000), or that perhaps we have learned our basic ethical tenets through
evolution (Pinker, 2007). Unfortunately, our efforts to develop an ethical theory, especially a
business ethical theory, are circular. Any theories we might develop are judged against the
preconceived and must handle complex, conflicting forces in actual practice.
We are often faced with an apparent contradiction between our ethics being both universally
shared by humanity and variable by culture or life experiences. Noam Chomsky suggests we are
born with a universal moral grammar that forces us to analyze human action in terms of its moral
structure, with little awareness of this structure. (Pinker, 2008) The experiments and surveys
conducted by moral psychologists and anthropologist are summarized by Haidt’s list; harm,
fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity. All of these are ranked and
brought in to our lives based upon cultural norms.
The value of business ethics lies in the ability to influence business outcomes to produce a social
good. I intentionally refer to outcomes as opposed to outputs. We may efficiently and
effectively process a huge volume of food sale transactions (output) but what is really of social
value is the distribution of food in an equitable manner (output). It is the ethical manner which
business ethics must define. These outputs are also what put purpose and meaning into our
everyday workdays. And it is action with a focus on social values which enhances a
corporation’s bottom line. It is the creation of a social value which creates wealth. So let’s
explore actions briefly.
Today’s changing world brings us new conflicts for example the idea that an individual should
be rewarded for their efforts through intellectual property rights and the social good of providing
health enhancements in an AIDS epidemic. Applied ethics should be able to help us to establish
standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which
they find themselves.
The Business Culture of Action:
I really wish that I could tell a story like Baxter Black, but I’d like to share an adventure to
illustrate decision junctures in all our actions. We can and should evaluate all action in terms of
its ethical dimensions. Last summer I was visiting my daughter and her family in upper
Wisconsin. It’s so far north that I’ve only about a four month window in which I can
comfortably travel and visit. We had a really harrowing Thanksgiving drive back to Saline, MI
one Thanksgiving but that is another tale.
Jenny, my daughter, thought it would be fun as a family outing to float down the Brule River one
morning. Sharon and I weren’t aware exactly of our plans so we had a leisurely breakfast. By
the time we got to Jenny’s and loaded the gear we were a little late in arriving at the launch site.
We shuttle the vehicles and were set to go.
I don’t know if many have seen the Midwest skies when it begins to darken off on the horizon in
preparation for an afternoon thunderstorm, but it is clearly foreboding. We got to the river and
Jenny made suggestions on how she thought we should split the three canoes for our trip. Jenny
would have the fourteen and eleven year old. The twelve year old boy and girl would have a
canoe. My wife and I would go with the eight year old. A pretty good split with what appeared
to share skills in all the boats. We are often faced with decisions on the division of skills.
One problem, we were a paddle short, so since I had the most river skills (even though I’d
always used rafts in western white water) our boat had only one paddle. I think this is the first
time I felt a little tightening in my seat and the toes were beginning to curl. So it was all smiles
and onto the water.
We hadn’t pushed off the dock ten yards before the heavens opened up on us. My western hat
had a two inch stream of water running off the back directly down the gap between my life jacket
and the light jacket I had under it. My glasses were instantly spotted. And the twelve year olds
were doing circles in their canoe because they couldn’t work together. The three boats are down
the river, goal driven, but essentially each crew is working on their own.
We enjoyed a brief breath under the highway bridge and it was then I noticed as almost all would
expect that the river had risen significantly and the speed had increased. But not to worry,
onward. Our journey was soon to end. I pulled back to let the twelve year olds continue their
donut approach to river navigation. But just when I was setting in for my wet, blind rush
downstream our canoe was broadsided. The single paddle didn’t afford me any comfort when
we breach a large rock midstream. Rock, shaking, pushing did apparently no good and it wasn’t
until the canoe was lightened by my attempt to apply additional leverage with my left leg against
the rock. It was a pretty quick swim and thank goodness the water was not very deep. But now
totally wet the chill was numbing. Both canoes made it to shore and we waited for the third.
First a sandal, then a vest, then the cooler but finally the third canoe arrived wet and shivering.
We were pretty nervous by the time they arrive. They’d been pushed to the bank and were stuck
in the trees when the fourteen year old stood up to free them. Well it did. As we regrouped, all
looked toward one another but it was me who called it a day. We began our long haul of
equipment and boats up the embankment and out to the highway, eventually back to the warmth
of dry clothes and a fire.
Contingency planning, focus on tasks and individual responsibilities, how much do we sacrifice
of ourselves to benefit the group? How do we prepare to respond appropriately? How do we
influence others? How far do we compromise?
Business training has long developed activity into buckets: preparation, planning, contingencies,
risk aversion, decision quality and acceptable loss. I would suggest that all of these decisions
have an element of ethical consideration contained within them. The balance was in this instance
between the safety of the individuals and the completion of a shared adventure. Adequate
guidelines were never established or thought through; instead a shared culture of achievement
ruled the day. How many warnings did it take to abort the trip? How were resources allocated?
In this case, I hope to illustrate several conflicting systems in a simple example including the
pursuit of a shared goal, social interaction, development of the kids, protection of the group and
safety of the youngest.
There were several points in which individual values conflicted with organizational values or
goals. There was an eventually point in which the safety of the party was more important than
the completion of the trip. The family group had a shared understanding, unspoken but cultural.
There were no written rules of behavior, just a shared culture of achievement. Acceptable
behavior was defined by criticism and shame. Using Danielle Beu’s (Beu, 2003) construct for
ethical decisions, this model demonstrates the complexity of decisions. There are many
dimensions to our actions and consequently we have many dimensions to our ethical decisions.
Their study showed that the moral intensity of a situation, the environment and the individuals
characteristics do influence decisions. Beu suggests that examining why individuals act as they
do we can “provide information to organizations on how to create more ethical, and therefore
successful, organizations.”
Our drive and desire to do the right thing is not necessarily out of self interest. We are motivated
by many factors. How do we explain non-rational behaviors which are not self interested?
Tipping at a restaurant you’ll never return to, returning the money in a wallet, or voting. They
find satisfaction in the very act of contributing to the common good. Morally praiseworthy
behavior shifts with context. Self interest is never the only motive. (Frank, 2008)
Besides a sense of universal application of morality we generally feel that violations of the code
warrant blame. Individuals operating outside of societal norms are often shamed. But we also
have a tendency to consider intentions before we affix blame. While we have all learned in a
legal sense that there is strict liability in tort claims for our actions, we also understand that
mistakes happen. Suppose I’m cleaning my parts using gasoline in my driveway and the gas
spills running down the gutter to the neighbor’s house and to the drain. Should a spark ignite it, I
have strict liability and hence am required to pay for damages but can I be blamed? Have I acted
unethically, other than being “unintentionally negligent”, unthinking or stupid? Suppose we
want to reduce global warming by moving away from fossil fuels. We produce a fuel from corn
only to find it pollutes as much or more at the expense of the food supply for many. Are we to
blame? Are our actions unethical?
Appiah in an article for the New York Times Magazine talks about an executive reviewing a new
program that will clearly improve profit and help the environment. The executive clearly states,
“I don’t care at all about helping the environment, I just want to make a profit.” Did he intend
to help the environment? In one survey, 23% say yes. Using the same scenario but the program
improves profit and harms the environment; did the executive intend to harm the environment?
In that same survey, 82% say yes. (Appiah, 2007)
I always found blame an interesting element in our moral evaluations. I loved to attend hockey
at the University of Michigan. You really get a feel for the unruly home crowd. One of the
cheers was, “Sieve, sieve, sieve, it’s all your fault, it’s all your fault” chanted to the other goalie
whenever we score. Meant of course to humiliate and taunt him to distraction. But how is it the
goalie gets the blame when the puck has moved past the center and two defensemen on its path
to a score. Why isn’t blame shared in all circumstances, especially when we evaluate a team
loss? Is it rationalization?
An additional element (after consequences, intentions, shared blame) in action related ethical
considerations I’d like to consider is expediency. In his article “We Don’t Need Another Hero”
Badaracco argues that we could use more effective quiet moral leaders. The indignant, morally
rigid “hero” who goes out in a blaze of glory is far less effective than an individual who
swallows hard and works to steer the course of action. While we may all appreciate the hero
stories of strong moral leadership, in business the most effective moral leaders use modesty and
patience. The ones that have the most influence don’t flame out in moral indignation but work
creatively within the system to bring about real change. Badaracco found that the four rules are:

Put things off until tomorrow, allow time to calm matters.

Pick your battles; don’t waste your political capital.

Bend the rules, don’t break them. Resolving a complicated situation requires creativity.

Find a compromise; don’t view situations as polarized tests of moral fortitude.
These leaders have mixed motives and are firmly planted in the day to day reality of business.
Our culture of action and our ethical evaluations are nuanced not only in terms of the traditional
consequential or duty considerations by intentions and expediency.
An Outline of Organizational Development:
On an individual level, we can intuitively examine our actions to realize that action spring forth
from out thoughts which are at least influenced in part by our values derived from basic
principles or beliefs. Behavior and results reinforce our belief systems. The concept of
praxis demonstrates that our beliefs are also influence by our actions. Praxis holds that
our behavior also influences our thoughts and our feelings. “What we pay attention to,
spend time with, or serve, we become attached to.” (The Choice, p149) The more we
curse the less likely we are to maintain the belief that it is inappropriate.
The field of organizational development has established well accepted business formulation of
this causal relationship with the string beginning with organizational culture and norms followed
by vision, mission, strategic planning and culminating in implementation. We have found that
an organization which develops a strong ethical sense in their managers while developing a
culture of integrity has better outcomes in more complex and varied situations than those
developed around ethical codes. Organizations with a culture of integrity do first have a concern
for the law but they move beyond that with an emphasis on managerial responsibility for ethical
behavior.
Corporate social responsibility has moved into the business mainstream. Ninety one percent of
chief executives believe that a good corporate social-responsibility program creates shareholder
value. (Dee, 2007) The corporate model now depends less on a cost-analysis than on adoption
at the top. And that aspiration now appears to be mostly genuine.
This is explicitly expressed in examples such as Bell South’s code of conduct statement:
This revised BellSouth Code of Conduct serves as a clear guide for our decision making
at work, especially when the right path is not immediately clear. We wove our values
more tightly into the fabric of the document. And, we think the language is more
straightforward and easier to apply in everyday life. (Ackerman, 2005)
Unlike a code of conduct, a statement of vision, purposes, and beliefs lays out in very simple
terms the company’s central purpose and core values. For example NovaCare’s purpose of
meeting the rehabilitation needs of patients through clinical leadership is supported by four key
beliefs: respect for the individual, service to the customer, pursuit of excellence, and
commitment to personal integrity. (Paine, 1994) These statements of vision and purpose guide
staff to action.
Moss Adams explains the control environment characteristics as having competent people,
enterprise-wide attitude of integrity and control consciousness, the tone from the top, and
policies and procedures which foster shared values and teamwork in pursuit of an organization’s
objectives. An integrity-based approach to business ethics combines both the compliance with
legal requirements plus an emphasis on managerial responsibility for ethical behavior. (Paine,
1994) These programs strive to define an organization’s values.
Creating an Organization’s Values:
We have the ability to influence and change our organizational culture in both small and large
ways.
Management’s philosophy and operating style establishes “acceptable” behavior, achievement
methods and general beliefs. (Moss, 2008) “An entity’s objectives and the way they are
achieved are based on preferences, value judgments and management styles, which reflect
management’s integrity and commitment to ethical values. Effectiveness of internal control
cannot rise above the integrity and ethical values of the people who create, administer and
monitor them.” This audit firm, in compliance with the new SAS regulations, looks for
organization programs which include:

Codes of conduct, ethics, behavior

Whistleblower hotline

Policies and procedures manuals and behavior manuals

Formal ethics training

Corporate culture

Management example

Setting the tone

Rewarding of ethical acts

Praise of employee actions that show integrity

Standard language in vendor, supplier or customer contracts
Marin Marietta since 1985 has implemented an integrity based ethics program. The culture
moved from a belief that ethics was something personal. President Thomas Young recalls,
“Ethics was something personal. Either you had it, or you didn’t.” With corporate counsel
playing a pivotal role their program emphasized corporate core values of honesty and fairness.
Over time they have included quality and environmental responsibility as well. (Paine, 1994)
Some people believe that the rules of ethics are different for the business world. They are not. It
is just as important in terms of issues of trust and long-term success for an organization to be
perceived as ethical as it is for an individual. Explicit attention to ethics in the workplace will
provide a “moral compass” for the organization that helps to discourage illegal or questionable
behavior. More importantly, it will ensure that employees at all levels have the support they need
to make ethical decisions regarding complex issues such as conflict of interest, acquisition and
use of resources, and contract management. This is particularly critical during times of change
for the organization when anxiety and confusion surrounding the change may push values and
ethics out the door. (ESI, 2005)
A Brief Outline of Thought:1
Ethics can not be based upon feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science. There
has been a long and rich history of thought on how we can determine our ethics. Here is a brief
outline of the major thinking in this field.
The Golden Mean (Aristotle): the path of moderation between the two extremes of excess and
deficiency. In order to make moral decisions, one must avoid extremes and implement
moderation.
The Golden Rule (Jesus): Love, do unto others, as you would have done unto you.
Teleology (Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas): From Cicero, “Law is the highest reason, implanted in
Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when
firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law.” Moral truths which can be
discovered in nature. That purpose and design are a part of or are apparent in nature. Using
Aristotle’s formulation the moral imperative is to pursue a thing’s purpose. And that purpose is
happiness which is defined in accordance to Nature. For human’s this purpose is reason, so the
development of the rational became a philosophical imperative. We have a natural inclination to
preserve our life. Reason leads us to an obligation to take care of our health, not kill ourselves,
and not put ourselves in positions in which we might be killed. And since we see others as
rational beings we see that we are bound to treat them with the same dignity and respect. Society
is required for human development; therefore we have an obligation to support laws and
practices which make society possible. Propagation leads to institutions of marriage. (Munson,
1991)
One line of thought extended from this reasoning suggests that we are social beings and therefore
life in a community is a good in itself. Ethical decisions are based upon the common good and
interlocking relationship in society. Respect and compassion for others.
Will (Augustine): Augustine argues against reason as the final arbiter of what is the moral
behavior. In his Confessions 2.4.9 he writes:
And this, but to do what we liked only, because it was misliked. Behold my heart, O
God, behold my heart, which Thou hadst pity upon in the bottom of the bottomless pit.
No, behold, let my heart tell Thee what it sought there, that I should be gratuitously evil,
having no temptations to ill, but the ill itself. It was foul, and I loved it: I loved to perish,
I loved mine own fault, not that for which I was faulty, but my fault itself. Foul soul,
falling from Thy firmament to utter destruction: not seeking aught through the shame, but
the shame itself! (Hauch, 2008)
How is it that will trumps reason in situations like this? We take pleasure in doing the unethical
not for some value but simply because it is unethical in the first place. Ethical decisions must
involve the will which asks questions of intention. This is resolved theologically by
distinguishing our choices “ad arbitrium” as opposed to purpose or inclinations “voluntas”. This
is the Eros of Plato when, “ Rather than giving the auditor sufficient, better, or even
overwhelming reason to seek divine eros, Socrates aims to make the auditor feel the attractions
of divine eros so intensely that he will desire that eros himself and move towards it on his own.”
(Yunis, 2005) This transcendent desire leads to a discussion of grace along theological lines.
The Augustinian model of a physical infusion, such as we see a physical teabag in a cup of hot
water, would proved less disruptive to the then current church than the Palagian good by works
following a guiding light.
Virtue theory: Ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for
the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to
act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and
beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness,
self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. The focus is on the person.
The Principle of Utility: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. We should choose the one that produces
the most benefit (happiness) at the least cost (unhappiness). Focus is primarily upon
consequences.

Act utilitarianism: principle applied to particular acts

Rule utilitarianism: principle applied to rules which are then applied to particular acts

Mills Ethics: Those actions are right that produce the greatest happiness (sometimes
referred to as good) for the greatest number of people. (social contract) (Munson, 1992)
The theory seeks to maximize value and minimize lose.
Deontology, Categorical Imperative (Kant): Act only on that maxim which you can will to be a
universal law. Or as another formulation; always act so as to treat humanity, either yourself or
others, always as an end and never as only a means. (Munson, 1992)
There are three criteria which must be met for an action to be judged moral:

You must act as you would wish to see others act

You must not use people as simply a means to an end.

You must be able to apply your actions universally.
If any of the criteria are not met, then the action cannot be considered moral. Focus is primarily
upon duty and rights.
Ross’s Ethics: We must consider consequences in making a moral choice, even though it is not
the results of an action taken alone that make it right. (Munson, 1992) General guides can be
obtained through experience and recognized as well as through intuition. There is never a true
ethical dilemma because one of our obligations is always the weightiest, and overrules all the
others. This is the “absolute obligation”.
Justice (Rawls): Attempts to combine both Utilitarian theory with the Duties recognized by the
Categorical Imperative (Deontological). Suggest an original group placed behind the veil of
ignorance would derive two principles:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the
greatest benefit of the least advantaged.., and (b) attached to offices and positions open to
all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Ethical decisions can only be made when all discriminating factors (social position, money,
prejudices, personal beliefs, and so on) are removed. Decisions made under the “veil of
ignorance” will always be completely fair because the decision maker has no basis on which to
discriminate. Focus is upon social relationships. Equals should be treated as equals. In
situations of inequity, a fair standard should be applied.
Experimental Philosophy: The current work being done by neuroscientists, psychologists and
anthropologists to ground philosophy in the real world is not new. Many philosophers have had
an experimental side including Hume and even Kant. But can you really determine what should
be done by a show of hands? Work done by Jonathan Haidt suggests that disgust is a powerful
trigger for moral condemnation. (Bloom, 2008) And of course there are many examples of what
once was acceptable generations ago are no longer considered moral. The progress of humanity.
So how can the common good, intuition or gut feelings form a basis for our ethical structures?
Pinker would suggest that we are born with a “rudimentary moral sense” which is built upon by
moral reasoning. Just as the laws of mathematics lead us forward to complex conclusions, so
moral reasoning can lead us to a “moral reality”. He points to two examples which suggest an
external “moral reality”. The first is that situations are not always a zero-sum gain. There are
times when two parties are better off acting unselfishly rather than in the individual best
interests. Secondly, “Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of purity
and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of
doing the right thing.” (Pinker, 2008)
What is important is to study the facts about human capacity. Some have thought that living a
good life consists of processing virtues such as honesty and kindness. But experimental
philosophy suggests that these characteristics do not play much of a role in action. Our behavior
is to a large extent determined by the situation. (Bloom, 2008) How we feel about an action’s
blameworthiness often depends upon whether we think it intentional. And oddly enough
experiments have suggested that we alter our view of intention dependent upon whether we view
an action good or bad. (Appiah, 2007) Edouard Machery has concluded that “foreseen side
effects of our actions are taken to be intended when we conceive them as costs incurred for a
benefit”. (Appiah, 2007)
What is the right answer?
As a member of a broader organization my actions reflect both on me as an individual and as a
member of the organization. We come to an organization with our own basic ethical norms;
such as, doing no harm, but find that we are significantly influenced through a desire for
achievement and expediency to compromise our individuality to the collective norms and culture
of an organization. I would suggest that in most circumstances we are wise to be the quiet moral
leader influencing change in an organizations culture. It is our contribution to a moral goodness
that gives each of us the sense that we are worthy human beings. The concept of morality is
bigger than any of us. (Pinker, 2008)
I suggest we might start as Novak argues in his book for three virtues of any organization: the
virtue of creativity, the virtue of building community, and the virtue of practical realism. By
creativity he does not mean the strict labor theory of adding value but the curiosity and enterprise
of discovery, innovation and surprise. I’d like to emphasize that this creation of wealth
contributes to the common good. We are well served to evaluate our actions as individuals and
collectively in our respective business organizations in terms of these virtues. Develop a clear
expression of these virtues specifically as it relates to our organizations purpose; develop a
culture of integrity by alignment of all staff actions to these virtues. So that when moments of
complexity arrive we can determine the appropriate course of action by examination. It is at
these difficult times that we define ourselves and our organizations. It is our role as managers to
transform vision into reality.
It may be quite true as Mike Presser says, “Adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it”
(Stump, 2008) We need to begin by defining what winning is. Is it profit or is it the ability to
stick out our values? Without a strong and well defined foundation we can not stand for
something. When Mike Presser was working his way through his personal trials he started each
day by looking in the mirror and saying “Do the right thing today, Mike.” What makes him
continue is to stick to the virtues of loyalty, trust and patience.
Bell South’s written expression of their code states:
The principles in this Code bring our values and beliefs to life by setting clear expectations for
our behavior. While the Code helps us address some of the most common ethical issues and
dilemmas we may face, it cannot cover every situation. All of us are expected to use good
judgment and take responsibility for our actions. (Ackerman, 2005)
With generational pressures, immigration and cultural diversification answers are not monolithic
but can be examined with frameworks suggested by Nash or Valesquez. Trained and reasoned
thought can be applied to situations and clarity improved through discussion and dialog.
We must first recognize the dilemma. In the context of our cultural environment, we begin by
defining the problem as we see it and as others might see it. Creatively explore alternative
courses of action. Consider ethical lines of thought such as consequential impacts versus our
sense of duty. Examine intentions and those impacted. Evaluate the potential consequences
including the symbolic meaning to all who may come to know your solution. Test it if at all
possible. Use patience to reflect and then act. (Velasquez, 1988) (Nash, 1981)
Succisa Virescit 2
End Notes:
1. Originally I thought that this would be the entire paper with a brief background laying
out several ethical theories and a discussion of what considerations were important to
business. I had attended a lecture with NAEB several years ago in Blackfoot, ID by Dr.
Paul Tate which to this day I find thought provoking. His “framework” discussed four
constructs: faith based, utilitarian, duty, and natural law as I recall. Since that time I
thought it more meaningful for the audience to push to a point where I believe that
purchasing professionals can have an influential role in guiding their organizations.
While exploring the web I soon discovered a lot of work had been done, and many
frameworks simply were established on how you aggregated the schools of thought.
2. Personal reference. A Benedictine theme which translates “Pruned it grows back
stronger”.
3. The body of this paper is greatly influenced by the participation and discussion in a
course on business ethics through the University of Idaho. Appreciation and gratitude is
extended to Jason Johnstone-Yellon.
Resources:
Ackerman, D. 2005. ‘Our Values in Action: Bell South’s Code of Conduct’
http://ethics.bellsouth.com/OVIA_K00801W.02.pdf March, 2005
Appiah, K.A. 2007. ‘The New New Philosophy’ The New York Times Magazine, 12.9.07: 34-36.
Badaracco, J.L. 2001. ‘We Don’t Need Another Hero’ Harvard Business Review, September
2001. Reprint R0108H.
Badaracco, J.L. 1998. ‘The Discipline of Building Character’ Harvard Business Review, March
– April 1998. Reprint 98201.
Barbaro, Michael, 2008. ‘WalMart: The New Washington’ The New York Times Sunday,
February 3, 2008: Ideas and Trends 3.
Beu, D.S., Buckley, M.R., Harvey, M.G. 2003. ‘Ethical decision-making: a multidimensional
construct’ Business Ethics: a European Review, 12:1, 88-107.
Bloom, P. 2-3-08. ‘Morality Studies’ (A review of Experiments in Ethics by Appiah) The New
York Times Book Review: 2.3.08 22.
Campbell, Joseph 1998 (DVD) Sukavati, “The Mythic Journey”
Dee, Jonathan, 2007. ‘A Toymaker’s Conscience’ New York Times Magazine, December 23,
2007 34-39.
Engel, R.J. 2006. ‘The Impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on Supply Chain Management’ Supply and
Demand Chain Executive, April/May 2006: 18-20.
ESI International, May 2005 and The George Washington University, ‘Project Leadership,
Management, and Communications: Reference Material” Chapter 6: 72-77.
Frank, Robert H. 2008. ‘When Self-Interest Isn’t Everything’ New York Times Sunday Money,
2/10/08, 5
Hauch, R. 2-9-08. Gonzaga University, Lecture ‘Church History: 300 AD – Vatican II’
presented Moscow, ID.
ISM: http://www.ism.ws/tools/content.cfm?ItemNumber=4740&navItemNumber=15959#top
International Business Ethics Institute, http://www.business-ethics.org/primer3.html
Johnson, John R., 2008. ‘the green team’ DC Velocity, February, 2008: 32-34
Kaler, J. 1999. ‘What’s the good of ethical theory?’ Business Ethics: a European Review, 8:4,
206-213.
McCoy, B. H. 1997. ‘The Parable of the Sadhu’ Harvard Business Review: May-June 1997
Reprint 97307
Moss Adams, LLP 1/29/2008. “Risk Assessment Standards Training” presented at University of
Idaho.
Munson, Ronald 1992. Intervention and Reflection Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, Wadsworth,
Inc. “Moral Principles, Ethical Theories, and Medical Decisions: An Introduction” p.1-45
NAEP:
http://www.naepnet.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutNAEB/GovernancePolicy/CodeofEthics
/Code_of_Ethics.htm
Nash, 1981. ‘Ethics Without the Sermon’ Harvard Business Review, November-December 1981
Reprint 81609
Novak, Michael, 1996. Business as a Calling: Work and the Examined Life. The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Paine, L . S. 1994. “Managing for Organizational Integrity” Harvard Business Review, March –
April 1994, 106-117
Pinker, S. 2008. ‘The moral instinct’ The New York Times Magazine, 1.13.08, 32-58.
Sorell, T 2000. ‘The good of theory: a reply to Kaler’ Business Ethics: a European Review, 9:1,
51-57.
Stump, Bill 2008. ‘Convicted Without Trial’ Men’s Health March 2008: 116-123.
Velasquez, Manuel, et. al. 1988. ‘A Framework for Thinking Ethically’ Issues in Ethics, V.1,
N.2, Winter 1988. This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at
the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include
Manuel, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David
DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O. Hanson.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html
Yunis, H. 2005. ‘Eros in Plato’s Phaedrus and the Shape of Greek Rhetoric’ Arion 13.1
spring/summer 2005