Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections
Personal tools
You are here: Home Discussions Responsibility Ethics for social entrepreneurs
Document Actions

Ethics for social entrepreneurs

Hosted by Charles (hipbone) Cameron (June 2009)

ethicsIs there a code of behavior for social entrepreneurs?

Turn inwards where morality meets ethics, and you'll likely find some sense of what lines cannot be crossed, a moral sense -- but if you look around outside, can you also find a code that's agreed by your peers, that guides you in cases where your personal sense of morals may be conflicted -- and perhaps even instructs you to a narrower range of choices on occasion?

Does the community of entrepreneurs answering a social vision have a formal code?

Professor David Batstone offers ten Principles for entrepreneurial ethics. Reading them, I wonder how far they go towards converting an "entrepreneurial venture" into a "social entrepreneurial venture" by their very nature:

1. Company directors and management will consider their work force valuable team members, not merely hired labor.
2. A company will think of itself as a part of a community, not just a "market."
3. A company will take every possible care to ensure the quality and safety of the products it brings to the public.
4. A company will treat the environment as a silent "stakeholder," a party to which it is wholly accountable.
5. A company will strive to diversify the kind of people who lead and manage its affairs.
6. A company will pursue international trade and production based on reciprocal exchanges that respect the same rights accorded its own people.
7. A company will nurture an organizational culture that encourages its employees to give critical feedback on unethical practices, and even "blow the whistle" when their voices are ignored.
8. A company will protect the privacy rights of its suppliers, customers, and employees.
9. A company will deliver what it promises, and promise what it can deliver.
10. A company will not seek to generate any revenue from practices that threaten life.

What further principles would be required for social entrepreneurs?  Do any of Dr Batstone's principles seem impracticable or not relevant in the culture you are working in? What stories can you tell about ethical problems, lapses, and successes in the field (you may want to read Leila Chirayath Janah's experience)?

  • Does your social enterprise have a code of ethics? Formal or informal?
  • If not, would it help to have one?
  • If informal, would it help to formalize it?
  • If formal, is it ever a problem rather than a solution?

 

 

  • Does the world of social enterprise have a code of ethics?
  • If not, would it help to have one?
  • If informal, would it help to formalize it?


What should such a code contain?

How would it address the very different circumstances (ranging from government support to active governmental opposition, persecution or suppression, from richest and most advanced to least advanced and poorest, and from the purely local and marginal to the global and widely supported) in which social entrepreneurship is practiced?

Bribery, for instance:  is it ever even remotely acceptable -- or is it sometimes a necessity if you intend to get food supplies to the starving?

Dive in, have your say -- join Charles (hipbone) Cameron in discussing the ethics of social entrepreneurship.

Ethics ... and values

Posted by Laurinda at Jun 09, 2009 04:59 PM
Hi Charles (again)

Here's our input on your questions:

Does your social enterprise have a code of ethics?
YES

Formal or informal?
Both. We have a general formal code, plus we have added a specific one for Directors, Senior personnel, trustees.

If formal, is it ever a problem rather than a solution?
No. They are guidelines ... it expresses in writting our own values.
 
Does the world of social enterprise have a code of ethics?
Don't know. But it should.

To see our general one visit our website, www.empowerment-gateway, under about. if you want a copy of our directors governance policy, I can e-mail it.

In our new project the Adopt-a-Pothole programme the following applies:

This is a social enterprise development model that has the twin aims of generating profit and social return. Those aims are clearly defined in the trusts deeds and in supportive policies and procedure documentation.

The Participating Stakeholders:

Shall take a custodianship role and be responsible operators, leaders, managers, trustees, patrons, sponsors or adopters.

Participating businesses in this programme, including large corporations, shall accrue fair returns and value for their shareholders, but not at the expense of the legitimate interests of the other stakeholders of this programme.

Shall operate sustainably, meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Shall govern in a manner that is participatory, transparent, ethical, and accountable.

Shall not infringe on universal human rights.

Bribery in our view is NEVER ACCEPTABLE.

Promotion of Custodianship rather than Ownership will assist in alleviating bribery and corruption:

Our tatement is:

In the same way that no one owns the oxygen that we all breathe, and there is always enough to sustain life on a day-to-day basis, the same principle must apply everywhere else … but it needs a paradigm shift.

Empowerment Gateway founders believe that every single person on the planet has a custodianship role and responsibility on behalf of current and of future generations.

They believe that too much emphasis has been placed on “ownership” which is detrimental to society, as instead of reducing poverty and unemployment, addressing such things as climate change, deforestation, etc, the ownership myth continues to widen the economic gap and negatively impacts on the sustainability of the planet for future generations.

We have found that the ownership myth, places more emphasis on the intangible value and limited-life-use of “property and physical assets” than on people or planet, while, custodianship emphasizes the value of safeguarding the “property, tangible and intangible assets” for all future generations and planet.

Ownership fosters competition and conflict while custodianship fosters cooperation and empathy.

Hope this gives a view of our values.
Regards
Laurinda Seabra



shared ethics

Posted by jo davidson at Jun 09, 2009 07:30 PM
Laurinda you're right, words matter- as a code of ethics, custodianship trumps ownership, hands down everytime, you sound like you've got it sorted.

Hi Charles, the timing of recent world events has lead us to question a lot of society's ethics, I think it was Abraham Lincoln who once said "when I do good I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad. That is my religion." Since self knowledge on a self-realized path is the compass, or to use a Wordsworth metaphor, is the "flash upon the inward eye" this sometimes clashes with society's consumer world, where the status quo is the instant gratification of individual interests. Imagine if shared ethics combined to build and strengthen communities, in a way that Buddha understood when he had said, "neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds."

shared ethics

Posted by Laurinda at Jun 10, 2009 04:21 AM
Hi Jo

Thanks for your kind words. We are trying ... and slowly acheiving our vision through our ethics and values ... but it is a long process.

Yes, both Budha and Abraham Lincol were right ... we all KNOW what is really right or wrong ... but then there is JUSTICE and LAW and the two are not the same thing. "If you have enough power, influence and money ... law is more often than not bought off" ...

In addition many Acts are written to protect the "markets, greed, and thrist for power disguised as "good for all".

To address the ethical issues ... the international legal systems would need to be simplified ... after all there's law and its interpretation ... which often means that there are opposion views on the same law and it just boils down to argument and who are the judges and/or jury.

This is a mine-field in itself ... but one that is central to the ethics, values and good governance issues.

Lift the rock, shine the flashlight

Posted by Jeff Mowatt at Jun 10, 2009 03:01 AM
Hi Charles, The problems we tackle as a social enterprise are almost invariably brought about by corruption as our website describes.

http://www.p-ced.com/about/what/

Out code is otherwise informal, expressed in what we campaign for.

For founder Terry in Russia it came from FSB (KGB rebranded) and a bribe demand which involved drugged food, arrest at gunpoint and lockup. In Ukraine it was government who tried to go round him with non transparent project modifications. He took to press and radio to condemn them publicly. Lift the rock, shine the flashlight and watch the insects scatter, is his and now our approach.

http://eng.maidanua.org/node/331

We are operating within territory where major agencies fall down on ethics, for example as revealed in David Mclintick's article describing 'How Harvard Lost Russia'. Being ethical attracts detractors and smears as we so often discover.

Politicians, even our own often fail to grasp the consequences of their actions on other parts of the world, or perhaps aren't concerned. I was blogging recently about how politicians and businessmen collude to support those who do harm to the ordinary people of their own countries, while at the same time obstructing our own efforts.

http://tinyurl.com/nwdlw9

It's also a question which should be levelled at Google, now 3 years into hosting a smear campaign about our social enterprise. We stand accused publicly of fabricating an humanitarian crisis in an attempt to scam 1 billion dollars from US government.

It is of course a smokescreen, and we've been vindicated by other revelations for more than a year and yet Google continues to host the smear, refuses to respond to complaint. "Do no evil" needs to be more than a branding exercise.

Jeff
   
            

 

His

bureaucracy

Posted by Krie Reyes Lopez at Jun 10, 2009 09:15 AM
It's funny this came up now, as I've currently been overwhelmed by bureaucracy as we try to grow our social enterprise here in the Philippines.

As in other developing countries, our red tape is unbelievable. To explain to you the processes and permits we need to go through to get a simple business going will require too many words.

While the system remains this way, being law-abiding will always be conflicted by being realistic.

I'm beginning to learn now that a lot of the corruption stems from inefficiencies in the processes adapted by the government. When it's too complicated, for example, to secure a certain permit, many level-headed people opt to just pay a "facilitation fee" to speed up, or sometimes simply finish, a simple process.

We are trying our best to go with the rules -- to line up on every line, to pay every legitimate fee, to get our businesses going. It continues to be daunting.

I'm hoping that we social entrepreneurs lead the way in making things better -- not only by setting an example of being ethical, but in lobbying to make things better -- and perhaps even showing how.

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Charles "Hipbone" Cameron at Jun 10, 2009 11:46 PM
Hi Laurinda, Jo, Jeff, Krie...

What do you want to talk about - ethics in general, or bribery specifically?

I notice Laurinda says pretty forcibly, "Bribery in our view is NEVER ACCEPTABLE." And that Jeff says "The problems we tackle as a social enterprise are almost invariably brought about by corruption as our website describes." And that Krie writes: "When it's too complicated, for example, to secure a certain permit, many level-headed people opt to just pay a "facilitation fee" to speed up, or sometimes simply finish, a simple process. We are trying our best to go with the rules - to line up on every line, to pay every legitimate fee, to get our businesses going. It continues to be daunting."

I'm getting the impression that bribery may be a really major ethical issue for social entrepreneurs. I just mentioned it in passing, thinking it might be a good illustration - and maybe that just happened to trigger several posts that addressed it in various ways. but if it's really the prime ethical issue, we need to dig a little deeper into it.

And if it's not - then I'd be interested to hear more about some of the others.

Friends all, what do you have to say by way of comment?

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Laurinda at Jun 11, 2009 01:25 AM
If we are going to debate Bribery, I think it should be defined:

Bribery is the "corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value in return for official action." and it originally started in public services.

In most cases this definition has been extended to include people who are not public officials (for example, athletes, procurement personnel, traffic police, businesses employees, managers and owners, etc).

Often bribery is requested subtly, other times blatantly ... myself I tend to loose my command of the English language in South Africa for example when I an faced with those type of situations ...

Then we have the situation where it is so entrenched in a local culture that it is seen by some African goverments for example as part of the manner in which public employees are paid thus placing less pressure on goverment coffers. It then is the norm and not frowned upon ... Mozambique is a clear example.

The question no-one is asking is what has given rise to this growing "curse"?

Take care
Laurinda Seabra

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Laurinda at Jun 11, 2009 01:35 AM
As an engineer, a few years back, I was part of a project that had in its budget report an item referred to as:

"project acceleration fees"

This was the first time I had seen this type of cost. When I queried it, I was told that this was the way this large organisation made provision for the payment of bribes to goverment officials and client representatives.

Now looking at it from an English language perspective could it have started because:
you must PAY attention
you must PAY respect
you must PAY homeage
you must PAY a compliment

and taken out of context ... to literery mean pay = money or other valuable?

Though I would just share this with you
Laurinda Seabra

Consumerism ... leading to "NEED" for bribes?

Posted by Laurinda at Jun 11, 2009 02:08 AM
Instant gratification and I have to HAVE "that or this" NOW ... not a marketing / advertising tool used by businsses that entrenches bribery and reeinforces corruption?

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Jeff Mowatt at Jun 11, 2009 03:39 AM
Laurinda,

We've had this experience with government as a social enterprise 3 years ago. An internal outsourcing business demanding on site meetings with "our customer DCMS" who refused to describe what was wanted. We had a telephone support contract for £10/week and a no fault history and to my mind they were demanding tribute. Then we were pushed out of this contract by the outsourcer, not the department.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/[…]/

In the follow up complaint that I raised through my MP the department minister replied, omitting my email which they's replied to. So as far as I'm concerned whether he's been misinformed or not, he as a minister, was prepared to bear false witness against us. Though invited to follow up I never got any answer.

We are dealing with people in government who are moral jellyfish, as they kowtow to corporations and talk the talk of third sector participation.

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Jeff Mowatt at Jun 11, 2009 02:10 AM
Charles,

If there's one thing that defines our stance on ethics, it's the question of humans rendered disposable by greed and corruption. From the founding paper, proposing a more inclusive form of capitalism, through the campaign to raise awareness of 'Death Camps for Children' and the 'Marshall Plan' strategy paper which targets disenfranchised humanity with the aim of ending a vicious cycle of poverty, with consequences that include child exploitation and prostitution, human trafficking, drug abuse and HIV proliferation.

Human beings by nature want to accumulate wealth and protect their interest and that applies top to bottom, where humans take advantage of a position of influence. Even in aid agencies and where NGOs have been know to sabotage each others efforts.

There was an ethical issue as far as we were concerned for example in the tendency not to speak out about conditions inside disabled children's homes. Workers and NGOs were well aware of the dangers, where we've since learned, 80% of funding is siphoned by organised crime. They could be harmed or excluded from those they most wanted to help. So they were co-opted into silence.

We've good reason to believe that efforts to tarnish our organisation are based on the intention of passing off the paper described above as their own work. We decided to go public with the slightly amusing result was that one clan leader accused another of being behind it. At least they can't deny reading it.

http://www.ibyut.com/arch07_files/104.html

Even within the realm of social enterprise, one may find those who would keep quiet to protect personal interests. For example, my experience of seeking help when Terry, whose work all this is was blocked from visiting the UK.

In Russia, Terry's proof of concept for more inclusive capitalism started in 1999 with the Tomsk initiative and by 2007 had begun to have influence again with government agreement for 400+ rehab centres. When it came to seek funding to lead the way, again we were locked out.

Soon it seems our efforts may be obstructed again as new visa rules are introduced which will lock out long term visitors.

The things that both of us have described here on Social Edge over the past 4/5 years are for us, part of the social purpose of inclusive capitalism in the knowledge we share and yet, as with the link above about the clan leaders, there's inclination to attribute ideas to other people. A recent example is this:

http://oxfordhub.org/oxsef

Perhaps describing this last item as unethical or even disingenuous is stretching the point, but for me it does illustrate how successive exclusion from countries and then one's own ideas and achievements is at least a tilted playing field.

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Terry Hallman at Jun 23, 2009 06:11 PM
I just received the weekly SE mailing, and just got to this thread tonight after noticing the 'ethics' topic in the emailing.

Quick point of clarification regarding Jeff's link to ibyut.com/arch07_files/104.html , for the record. The "Marshall Plan for Ukraine" that opposition leader (now PM) Tymoshenko was referring to is NOT the "Marshall Plan for Ukraine" I published the previous month. I don't know about the one she's referring to, except that noise about it appeared after mine was submitted privately to govt. officials for review and time for them to think it over before publication.

I suppose that what I'd researched and written over a three-year period was subjected to attempted theft/plagiarism/hijacking, which is pretty normal in Ukraine.

Ethics. Jebus, Charles, what a can of worms. I've yet to find one single funding org with bona fide ethics. This is an issue better addressed to them more than social entrepreneurs in the trenches.

Re [y'all] Ethics in general, bribery specifically?

Posted by Terry Hallman at Jun 23, 2009 06:30 PM
Here is a short course in bribery:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/blackmoney/view/
One-hour video from Frontline. Online video, near the top of the page.

Key: US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 1977

Two hour movie: Syriana
http://tinyurl.com/ox7z5g

(co-exec. producer: Jeff Skoll)

Yes,

Posted by Andy Healy at Jun 23, 2009 10:05 AM
In the age of greenwashing, social entrepreneurs (SE) must uphold a code of ethics that allows society to differentiate a true social entrepreneur from just another big box company being 'green.' Currently, it seems that the majority of society has not heard the term 'social entrepreneur,' let alone have a definition for it. By implementing a code of ethics, this will help define what diffenentiates a SE from a capatalistic entrepreneur.

Words of Ethics

Posted by Amy at Jun 23, 2009 07:25 PM
Words of ethics are important. In court, any witnesses are required to take the oath of telling the truth. In a U.S. naturalization ceremony, new to-be-naturalized citizens are required to take the oath. Words are our promises and commitment. Putting code of ethics in words can remind everyone their firm's purpose. NYTimes had an article--A Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality on 5/30/09, talking about new Harvard Business School graduates can take optional oath to show commitment for greater good. And many business schools have also implemented such similar code. Thanks to Enron's "misconduct", ethics have been receiving long overdue attention and exposure.

When it comes to bribery, I have to say, it should be avoided unless there is no other way (even though this is often the case). Sometimes bribery is the only way to get things done, unfortunately.

Ethics: Across the board

Posted by Terry Hallman at Jun 26, 2009 06:36 PM
I've thought about this thread for several days now, and for several years before now. I'm pleased to see that Charles raised the issue here.

I mentioned above that ethics is an issue that should at least also be addressed to funding organizations as well as social entrepreneurs working in the trenches. I'd like to expand on that, but one thread in one forum really is not sufficient to elaborate the matter sufficiently. In my opinion, such elaboration would go straight to the core of what is impeding social enterprise as a new economics paradigm. That, at the same time when the world at large is searching for such a paradigm.

It would be much more appropriate to discuss in a separate blog. There are a host of conflicted interests involved, all of which go straight to the point of ethics across the board and matters impeding the development of social enterprise as a major economic force in the world today. Bribery is of course one issue, but there are many other interrelated issues in play. I'm not aware of any discussion blog so far that has tackled the whole matter head-on.

If someone can kindly point me to how to do a guest blog here, I'll do that.

Regards,
Terry

Re: [Terry] Ethics: Across the board

Posted by Charles "Hipbone" Cameron at Jun 27, 2009 01:56 AM
Hi Terry:

I have used the internal message service here on SocialEdge to send you a message. I imagine you'll see it if you click on your name...

Re: [Terry] Ethics: Across the board

Posted by Terry Hallman at Sep 27, 2009 08:53 PM
Got it.

I've since decided it's better to work the issues I had in mind into a few discussion threads instead of a blog. Blogs seem to stake out meta positions w/o much discussion, whereas discussion is essential to the issues I had in mind.

Key on aid agencies, misfeasance, corruption, reform v. liquidation (of lost agencies, can't be reformed).

Some Thoughts

Posted by Caitlin Goold at Jun 28, 2009 07:58 PM
Hi Charles,

Very interesting discussion topic. Your questions are extremely poignant and rather difficult to answer. I believe that every social enterprise should have a code of ethics and that it should be formalized. In this way all employees have a strong understanding of how to guide their actions with in the organization as well as how to further the business in the world. Much like how a mission statement is expected to guide a corporation, a code of ethics can do the same thing in a social enterprise. Would this formal code of ethics ever become a problem rather than a guide? I think that depends on the ability to adapt and change the ethics. Of course, that change would have to be positive for example from "helping people" (extremely basic) to helping people in a more specific way. I do believe that the world of social enterprise has a code of ethics, although I'm not exactly sure what it is. Perhaps somewhere in that is the concept that helping others has equal importance to making a profit. The question of whether or not bribery is acceptable is a difficult one to answer. My instinct would say no, however, if peoples lives are at stake then I feel like the answer should be yes, although I know that this just furthers the problem. These are very compelling questions, ones I believe may never fully be answered.

~Caitlin

Re: {Caitlin] Some Thoughts

Posted by Charles "Hipbone" Cameron at Jun 29, 2009 05:57 PM
Hi Caitlin:

You write, "The question of whether or not bribery is acceptable is a difficult one to answer. My instinct would say no, however, if peoples lives are at stake then I feel like the answer should be yes, although I know that this just furthers the problem." - and that's just the thing, that's where it is so hard to specify a code of ethics...

Perhaps that's part of what Lat Tsu was getting at when he wrote "the way that can be set down in words isn't the way of life..."

Re: [Caitlin] Some Thoughts

Posted by Charles "Hipbone" Cameron at Jun 29, 2009 05:58 PM
Lao Tsu, I meant.

Re: Lao Tsu and specifiying a code

Posted by Carla H. at Jul 20, 2009 02:43 AM
I think Lao Tsu's wisdom nails it. Thus a code of ethics might better acknowledge the inevitability of conflicts and dilemnas posed by the ethical principles and values that an agent upholds, given various contexts. As such, principles could be ordered and weighted and then the associated values considered against various scenarios... as a way of applying decision-rules to assess (at least) the better of available options. It's not perfect, but aren't values and principles inherently fuzzy anyways?