Ethics

Subscribe to Ethics via RSS

Yesterday was the last day of a fantastic three-day conference at the UN in Geneva on business and human rights, and I will blog about it next week after I fully absorb all that I have heard. As I type this (Wednesday), I am sitting in a session on corporate governance and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights moderated by a representative from Rio Tinto. The multi-stakeholder panel consists of representatives from Caux Roundtable Japan  (focused on moral capitalism), the Norwegian National Contact Point (the governmental entity responsible for responding to claims between aggrieved parties and companies), Aviva Public Limited (insurance, pensions UK), Cividep (a civil society organization in India), and Petrobas (energy company in Brazil).

If you want to learn more about the conference, I have been tweeting for the past two days at @mlnarine, and you can follow the others who have been posting at #UNForumWatch #unforumwatch or #businessforum. 1700 businesspeople, lawyers, academics, NGOs, state delegates and members of civil society are here.  Economist Joseph Stiglitz presented a fiery keynote address. Some of the biggest names in business such as Microsoft, Unilever, Total, Vale and others have represented corporate interests.  

Depending on where you…

On Saturday evening I leave for Geneva to attend the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights with 1,000 of my closest friends including NGOs, Fortune 250 Companies, government entities, academics and other stakeholders.  I plan to blog from the conference next week.  I am excited about the substance but have been dreading the expense because the last time I was in Switzerland everything from the cab fare to the fondue was obscenely expensive, and I remember thinking that everyone in the country must make a very good living. Apparently, according to the New York Times, the Swiss, whom I thought were superrich, “scorn the Superrich,” and last March a two-thirds majority voted to ban bonuses, golden handshakes and to require firms to consult with their shareholders on executive compensation. Nonetheless, last week, 65% of voters rejected a measure to limit executive pay to 12 times the lowest paid employee at their company. According to press reports many Swiss supported the measure in principle but did not agree with the government imposing caps on pay.

Meanwhile stateside, next week the SEC closes its comment period on its own pay ratio proposal under Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Among…

“Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!” 
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

This week two articles caught my eye.  The New York Times’ Room for Debate feature presented conflicting views on the need to “prosecute executives for Wall Street crime.” My former colleague at UMKC Law School, Bill Black, has been a vocal critic of the Obama administration’s failure to prosecute executives for their actions during the most recent financial crisis, and recommended bolstering regulators to build cases that they can win. Professor Ellen Podgor argued that the laws have overcriminalized behavior in a business context, and that the “line between criminal activities and acceptable business judgments can be fuzzy.” She cited the thousands of criminal statutes and regulations and compared them to what she deems to be overbroad statutes such as RICO, mail and wire fraud, and penalties for making false statements. She worried about the potential for prosecutors to abuse their powers when individuals may not understand when they are breaking the law.

Charles Ferguson, director of the film “Inside Job,” likened the activity of some major financial executives to that of mobsters and argued that they have actually done more damage to the…

In 2011, I met with members of the SEC and Congressional staffers as part of a coalition of business people and lawyers raising concerns about the proposed Dodd-Frank whistleblower provision. Ten days after leaving my compliance officer position and prior to joining academia, I testified before a Congressional committee about the potential unintended consequences of the law. The so-called “bounty-hunter” law establishes that whistleblowers who provide original information to the SEC related to securities fraud or violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act are eligible for ten to thirty percent of the amount of the recovery in any action in which the SEC levies sanctions in excess of $1 million dollars. The legislation also contains an anti-retaliation clause that expands the reach of Sarbanes-Oxley. Congress enacted the legislation to respond to the Bernard Madoff scandal. The SEC recently awarded $14 million dollars to one whistleblower. To learn more about the program, click here.

I argued, among other things, that the legislation assumed that all companies operate at the lowest levels of ethical behavior and instead provided incentives to bypass existing compliance programs when there are effective incentive structures within the existing Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations.  Although they…

CEOs and executives just can’t get a break in the news
lately.  A jury found both former Countrywide
executive Rebecca Mairone and Bank of America liable for fraud for
Countrywide’s “Hustle” loans in 2007 and 2008 (see
here). Martha Stewart has had to renegotiate her merchandising agreement
with JC Penney to avoid hearing what a judge will say about that side deal in
the lawsuit brought against her by Macy’s, with whom she purportedly had an
exclusive merchandising deal (see
here).  JP Morgan Chase is in talks
to pay $13 billion to settle with the Department of Justice over various
compliance-related failures, but the company still faces billions in claims
from angry shareholders. The company isn’t out of the woods yet in terms of potential
criminal liability (see
here). CEO Jamie Dimon isn’t personally accused of any wrongdoing, and in
fact has been instrumental in achieving the proposed settlements. But in the
past he has faced questions from institutional shareholders about his dual
roles as chair of the board and CEO. Those questions may come up again in the
2014 proxy season.

The Bank of America verdict and the recent JP Morgan Chase
settlement may herald a…

1. Russell
G. Pearce & Brendan M. Wilson on Business Ethics

 

This Essay
makes three contributions to the field of business ethics …. First, the Essay
identifies the dominant approaches to business ethics as profit maximization,
social duty, and ordinary ethics, and summarizes the claims made by proponents
of each perspective. We intend this categorization as a way to refine the
distinctions between and among various views of business ethics and to address
the conundrum that John Paul Rollert has described as the “academic anarchy
that is business ethics…. Second, the Essay explores the strengths and
weaknesses of these three approaches. It suggests that their emphasis on
viewing business persons and organizations as existing autonomously, rather
than within webs of relationships, helps explain why the field of business
ethics has had minimal influence on business conduct, as does the false
dichotomy between economic and ethical conduct that proponents of these
approaches often embrace…. Third, the Essay proposes an alternative approach
that would locate business ethics at the center of business conduct. This approach
embraces the relational character of business behavior. It offers a conception
of self-interest that recognizes the relational dimension of self-interest and
identifies mutual benefit as the…

Dodd-Frank requires the SEC to issue rules barring national exchanges
from listing any company that has not implemented a clawback policy that does
not include recoupment of incentive-based compensation for current and former
executives for a three-year period.  Unlike the Sarbanes-Oxley clawback rule,  Dodd-Frank requires companies to recover compensation,
including options, based on materially inaccurate financial information,
regardless of misconduct or fault.

Although the SEC has not yet issued rules on this provision,
a number of companies have already disclosed their clawback policies, likely
because proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services
have taken clawback policies into consideration when making Say on Pay voting
recommendations. Equilar has reviewed the proxy statements for Fortune 100
companies filed in calendar year 2013 for compensation events for fiscal year
2012. The organization released a report
summarizing its findings, which are instructive. 

Of the 94 publicly-traded companies analyzed by Equilar, 89.4%
publicly disclosed their policies; 71.8% included provisions that contained
both financial restatement and ethical misconduct triggers; 29.1% included
non-compete violations as triggers and 27.2% had other forms of triggers.  68% of the policies applied to key executives
and employees including named executive officers, while only 14.6% applied to
all employees. 7.8%…

Too bad I
didn’t have this information from today’s
Wall Street Journal to add to my arsenal of reasons of why I think the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals
SEC disclosure is a well-intentioned but bad law to address rape, forced labor,
plundering of villages, murder, and exploitation of children in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. I won’t reiterate the reasons I outlined in my two-part blog
post a couple of weeks ago.  According
to press reports, while acknowledging her responsibility to uphold the law, SEC Chair Mary Jo White mirrored some of the arguments about
discretion that business groups and our amicus brief raised on appeal to the DC
Circuit, and further explained, “seeking
to improve safety in mines for workers or to end horrible human rights
atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are compelling objectives,
which, as a citizen, I wholeheartedly share … [b]ut, as the Chair of the SEC, I
must question, as a policy matter, using the federal securities laws and the
SEC’s powers of mandatory disclosure to accomplish these goals.”  I couldn’t agree more. While I have no problems with appropriate and relevant disclosure, corporate responsibility, and due diligence related to human rights, Congress should…

I have spent the
past two days at West Virginia University attending a conference entitled “Business
and Human Rights: Moving Forward and Looking Back.” This was not a bunch of academic
do-gooders fantasizing about imposing new corporate social responsibilities on
multinationals. The conference was supported by the UN Working Group on
Business and Human Rights, and attendees and speakers included the State
Department (which has a dedicated office for business and human rights), the Department
of Labor, nongovernmental organizations, economists, ethicists, academics,
members of the extractive industry (defined as oil, gas and mining),
representatives from small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”), Proctor and
Gamble, and Monsanto.

Professor Jena
Martin organized the conference after the UN Working Group visited West
Virginia earlier this year to learn more about SMEs and human rights issues.
She invited participants to help determine how to ground the 2011
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into business practices
and move away from theory to the operational level. The nonbinding Guiding
Principles outline the state duty to protect human rights, the corporate duty
to respect human rights, and both the state and corporations’ duty to provide
judicial and non-judicial remedies to aggrieved parties.  Transnational corporations…