Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in The Comcast Kerfuffle: What About Corporate Ethics?

Re: The Comcast Kerfuffle: What About Corporate Ethics?

Steve_R — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:00:30 -0000

When I got home, I was greeted with a Forbes Magazine (Nov. 12, 2007) editorial "Just Trust Us" by Thomas McCraw. Similar to the issues with Comcast and Verizon failing to clearly disclosing their business practices, he writes: "And now we see a real mess in the credit markets: the reckless availability of subprime mortgage lending, the just-trust-us stance of many hedge fund managers, the irresponsible rating of securitized debt, the invisible practice of universal default to raise interest rates on credit cards, the student loan fiasco. What do these messes have in common? Opacity. (emphasis added)

He then goes on to state: "The core problem here is mainly not one for business but for government. ... So my purpose here isn't to predict apocalypse but to praise transparency. The dots of opacity are there, in abundance, for all to see. ... Investors, now a hundred million strong, must be convinced that government will resume its proper job of enforcing transparency."

Which supports your call for transparency. "Transparency is a similar meta-characteristic that helps garner and protect trust. I think the absence of a call for ethics here on TLF during the Comcast Kerfuffle is the product of the fact that Comcast’s main failing was in transparency. It’s still a matter of debate whether Comcast did anything wrong. It’s almost unanimous that Comcast did something opaque, and that hurt them."

I guess that I now need to put-out a call for improved transparency regulation. Again, Thank-you for this good discussion.

Re: The Comcast Kerfuffle: What About Corporate Ethics?

jeff — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:41:09 -0000

Expanding on the points already made, I don't think corporations are moral agents, but they do induce their constituents to act unethically by diffusing responsibility (the actions of employees, executives, board of directors, shareholders are all seemingly insignificant until taken in aggregate; it's always someone else's fault) and by 'transference' of ethical responsibility to the abstract corporation itself. How convenient to be able to assign ethical responsibility to something with "no soul to save and no body to imprison". Unfortunately, current social norms seem to view these behaviours as acceptable, probably because ascribing moral responsibility to the agents of a corporation would mean that most people would need to accept responsibility for their actions at their own jobs.

Re: The Comcast Kerfuffle: What About Corporate Ethics?

Steve_R — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:31:53 -0000

Thank-you.

Re: The Comcast Kerfuffle: What About Corporate Ethics?

jimharper — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:35:02 -0000

Thanks, sccarper. I think you're essentially restating what I said, perhaps with a little more hyperbole to keep things agitated/confused - particularly the term "stealing," which is not at issue in the Comcast Kerfuffle.

I imagine that corprorations in the aggregate make rational risk calculations about whether they'll be caught and how much they'll be punished for doing something wrong - criminal or not - just like you and I do when we drive faster than the speed limit, cut out of work early, etc.

Don't be angry at your shovel. Our task is to get the most productivity out of it at the least cost.

Re: The Comcast Kerfuffle: What About Corporate Ethics?

sccarper — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:08:23 -0000

Corporate Ethics? Surly you jest! Corporations are inherently amoral. Corporate ethics are tools to establish a cost benefit ratio to determine what rules the corporation should follow and what rules and laws it can ignore based on the chance of being caught, likelyhood of being fined or prosecuted, cost of defense, cost of fines, and cost to good will. "Stealing" from your customer is merely an entry in a balance sheet.