Category: Business Ethics

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Social and Economic Justice

Yikes! Seven hundred billion of our tax dollars to bail out Wall Street–and that’s on top of what’s already been spent on Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.

That’s $700,000,000,000. Now, I might support a bailout if we got our money’s worth out of it–but not this bailout–not only doesn’t it give us what we want, it includes one of the most dangerous and far-reaching clauses ever included in any legislation in this country:

“Decisions by the Secretary [of the Treasury] pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

That’s worse than a mere blank check. It’s complete and total immunity from oversight.

What on earth is the rush to pass such a bill? No one should have that kind of power.

Then let’s look at the rest of the bill. As I understand it, it…

  • Passes bad debts and other liabilities to the taxpayers, but not good assets–or control
  • Sets no limits on CEO compensation, so the same people who wrecked the economy get to take home annual compensation packages in the tens of millions
  • Allows the government to subcontract out the management of these firms…probably to the same bunch of ethical midgets that broke them in the first place
  • Doesn’t do much to help homeowners facing (or already in) foreclosure

    In short, this is a free gift: break our economy and bring home a prize. Can you say, “corporate welfare”? And rather than paying for it out of general revenues, forcing those who never benefited to cough up the dough, let’s look at the bailout funding plan proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, taking the revnue from a surtax on those who made their killing and now want to get off with no consequences–yeah, it was OUR economy that they killed.

    If it were up to me, I’d say the public should gain equity in the rescued companies, and any CEO compensation package should not exceed a percentage of the net profits to the company, and layoffs or bankruptcies mean automatic forfeiture of all bonuses. And salary, as opposed to bonuses, could be set at something realistic, say, $200,000-$500,000 (or as a reasonable multiple, say, 10-20x, of the lowest-paid full-time worker’s income). That’s still far more than most Americans have to live on. Bonuses beyond that should be based on performance: creating profitable companies, jobs, investments in renewable energy, etc. This system of rewarding the worst behavior and the worst performance is just plain crazy.

    I’ve already told my Congressional representatives. Have you?

    • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics

    I can’t help wondering–would Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and other fallen giants be in such trouble if they’d followed common-sense ethical principles?

    My award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, suggests a number of reasons to say no to a sale, focused on core ideas of honesty, integrity, and quality. In other words, successful businesses have standards both for how they behave and for whom they choose to do business with.

    So many of the loans coming apart in the subprime crisis didn’t meet the basic criteria of quality–there was no assurance that the borrowers had enough resources to pay back the loans.

    Yes, these loans provided a path to home ownership for many Americans who could not have otherwise afforded them–a worthy goal. But those ownerships turned out to be temporary, and those forced from their homes are now in worse shape. Perhaps if proper lending criteria had been applied, the market would have responded by lowering inflated home prices–and those who got burned would have had a safer and more secure path to real home ownership, and the financial titans wouldn’t be fighting for air.

    Oh, and one more question: Why was Bear Stearns considered worthy of a bailout (something I wasn’t at all sure was a good idea) but not these latest casualties?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability

    Here’s another entry in the Alice-In-Wonderland contradictions of our world: An auto-industry trade group, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, launched a national campaign to cut fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, caled Eco-Driving.

    All well and good–except that this is the same group that bitterly resisted attempts to achieve a fleet average of 52 miles per gallon by 2030.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, People Helping People

    Found both of these links in the How Online blog–found the juxtaposition quite telling:

    First, an inspiring (and long-overdue) article on MarketWatch about how people are seeking MBAs not just to acquire personal wealth but to make a difference in the world. I could quote many parts of this terrific article, but I’ll pick just one:

    “The New Green Focus for Future MBAs” headlines Greenbiz.com. And, it’s the most popular story on the site. At the same time, a new poll by Experience Inc. shows more students are hoping for a job with a green-minded company. The poll says 81% of students believe there is value in working for an environmentally aware company, while 79% would likely accept a job at an eco-friendly company over a conventional one.

    “In a few short years, eco-friendly practices have gone from being new-fangled selling points to becoming essential requirements, with states vying with each other to offer incentives and legislation that promote green technology and business. While the corporate world is scrambling to devise strategies to address sustainability, business schools across the country have been incorporating it into their curriculum for the past several years, both in response to student demand and in line with industry trends,” Greenbiz says.

    But the same page of the same blog links to another story (International Herald-Tribune) that shows, once again, the same-old-same-old of too many giant corporations just doesn’t work. and deceptive business practices have cost General Motors, and its auditor, Deloitte & Touche, over $300 million combined:

    Under the settlement, GM would pay $277 million to investors, while its auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, would pay $26 million, pending approval from U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen in Detroit.

    The two-year-old class-action lawsuit claimed that GM misstated and mischaracterized its revenue, earnings and cash flow, artificially inflating the company’s stock price and debt securities.

    Let’s hope those green and ethical MBAs of tomorrow remember that they know better when they’re presented with opportunities for fraud.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics

    Very interesting discussion about the ethics of disclosure over at Joan Stewart’s Publicity Hound blog.

    A reporter raised the question about whether doctors who endorse products in communication with the press should disclose that they get paid by the drug company.

    The general consensus, of course, is that they should absolutely disclose this relationship, and that PR people who don’t get this are not to be trusted in general.

    One person brought up the example of “Dustin Hoffman playing a crazed PR man who was sick of lying and sold “Boxy but Safe” Volvos.” And that sparked this comment by me, since I believe Volvo’s safety reputation is in serious danger at the moment:

    L.M. Steen’s example of the “boxy but safe Volvo” caught my attention–because I have wondered for several years why Volvo allowed itself to be purchased by Ford–a company that has given the public ample reasons *not* to trust it on safety (two examples: Pintos that explode, Explorers that roll over). Considering that safety was the main brand attribute that Volvo stressed for decades, I think the only reason there hasn’t been a huge backlash is that Ford is very quiet about its ownership.

    Of course, I’ve been saying for years that honest business actually works better. My award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, shows how honesty, integrity, and quality are the cornerstones of business success. And my Business Ethics Pledge encourages businesses to declare their values publicly–not only to create a climate where this kind of behavior is not tolerated, but also to improve the public’s perception of the signing company.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Politics

    Putting subtle pressure on its managers to get a Republican victory in November because they don’t like a particular bill Obama supports. Sheesh!

    Find a gazillion stories about this here, including MSNBC and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

    Particularly cogent analysis article by Ron Galloway on Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-galloway/wal-mart-never-saw-it-com_b_116402.html

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, Shel's Personal Life

    One of my favorite marketers, the brilliant and unconventional Sean D’Souza in far-away Aukland, New Zealand, claims he built his entire Psychotactics business on strategic alliances.

    And I believe him.

    Strategic alliances are that powerful. Two world-class examples:

    Apple, IBM and Motorola joined forces in the 1990s to design the PowerPC computer chip–which dominated at least Apple’s product line (and I think was used in various IBM models as well) for the next several years.

    And a person in the audience of one of my speeches reminded me that until it formed a strategic alliance to supply operating systems, Microsoft was just another two-bit hole-in-the-wall computer business.

    The comments on Sean’s blog page got into a discussion of the typical Internet-marketer JV, but Sean correctly responded,

    The downsides to strategic alliances? I know of few. One is, that because they’re not motivated by money, there’s less momentum–that is they’re less likely to be motivated to help. But this hasn’t been true for me. Our alliances have literally built our business, and continue to do so. And the entire relationship is built on trust. And respect.

    The downsides to Joint Ventures, I can list by the dozen. The essential problem with joint ventures is money. When the money dries up, so does the motivation. But it’s also an upside. I don’t know. Call me crazy. I prefer alliances over joint ventures.

    I agree with Sean. In fact, I posted my own comment, “Most people can’t see beyond the typical JV arrangements to see the much greater power of strategic alliances (and the friendships that can come out of them)” to grow a business.

    Strategic alliances have been an essential tool in building my business, and I haven’t yet structured one like the typical Internet-marketer JV (though I may, down the road). At the moment, thanks to a strategic alliance with Sean’s Aukland neighbor Mark Joyner of Simpleology (another fantastic marketer–what’s in the water down there?), I’m about to participate in what could be the most powerful strategic alliance of my career, a partnership that involves one of the most famous names in marketing as well as a large publishing corporation. I’ll tell you all about it once the papers are signed. 🙂

    Meanwhile, if you want to know more about strategic alliances, I cover them in some detail in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First. Incidentally, my alliance and friendship with Mark came about because he ordered this book, and I was brave enough to seize that opportunity to begin a correspondence with him.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies

    Watch out for these snakes! Some people have no ethics at all.

    I got an email this morning that purported to be from the IRS. The subject was “2008 Economic Stimulus Refund. [Scanned]”

    And it started like this:

    Over 130 million Americans will receive refunds as
    part of The White House program to jumpstart the economy.

    Our records indicate that you are qualified to receive the
    2008 Economic Stimulus Refund.

    The fastest and easiest way to receive your refund is by
    direct deposit to your checking/savings account.

    Please follow the link…

    And ended with *a numeric URL*!

    I don’t bother to report most phishing scams–I get a dozen or so every day) but this one, I forwarded to the IRS. Unfortunatley, it bounced.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Other, People Helping People, Politics

    Fascinating and far-ranging interview with European philosopher Slavoj Zizek on Democracy Now this morning.

    He covered war, energy, US presidential politics, and much more. But the statement that really got to me was:

    A true act creates the conditions of its own possibility. That is to say, it appears impossible, you do it, and the whole field changes: it’s possible.

    He went on to cite President Nixon’s opening US relations with Maoist China, and postulated that if Obama becomes president, he will seize a similar window with Cuba.

    But this concept has reach far beyond international relations. In sports, the 4-minute mile was an unassailable barrier for decades; once Roger Bannister broke it, many people followed quickly. In science, it was unthinkable in 1955 that a human being would walk on the moon before 1970. In energy and the environment, the work of Amory Lovins and others show new ways of reinventing society as a more earth-friendly place (see my article here). And in business ethics, I like to hope that my Business Ethics Pledge campaign will make a similar difference in the consciousness that ethical business is actually more profitable.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Media Ethics, media-general, Shel's Personal Life

    Just stumbled across a fascinating article by Malcolm Gladwell, the brilliant and bestselling author of The Tipping Point and Blink, on the ethical issues he faces as a journalist who also writes books and also gives speeches. Among other things, he notes the latitude he has as a staff writer for the New Yorker compared to the extremely narrow ability to express any opinion he faced at his former employer, the Washington Post.

    As a PR writer/consultant, speaker, journalist, book author, and webzine editor with a specialty in the intersection of marketing and ethics, I grapple with these issues every day. and I found myself not only agreeing with almost everything Gladwell says here (amazing considering the piece is four years old), but wishing I had written it.

    Gladwell turns out to be quite good at defining his bo8undaries. An example:

    On behalf of the business side of the New Yorker, I have repeatedly given talks or presentations to representatives of companies that advertise with the magazine. For some of those presentations, I have been paid. And on a number of occasions, those groups have included people from the U.S. automobile industry. Has that biased me in favor of the Big Three? Well, no. As I’ve stated, last January I wrote an article bitterly attacking the SUV, which has been the cornerstone of the financial success of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler over the past ten years. Giving a speech does not buy my allegiance to the interests of my audience. Why? Because giving a paid speech to a group for an hour is simply not enough to create a bias in that group’s favor. It’s a very different sort of transaction. I’m not invited to speak to those medical groups because I promise to agree with their position on health care, and I’m not invited to speak to groups from Detroit because I promise to agree with their position on SUVs. In fact, my position on health insurance or SUVs never comes up. I’m invited because those audiences want to hear about my work.

    I say Bravo, and I recommend the piece highly–with the caveat that (like many great articles in the New Yorker) the piece is quite long and you’d be better off hitting the print button.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail