Live by the Code

Do you ever consider the word "nobility"? It has traditionally referred to a class of people who were born to privilege. It implied that since they had it "easy" they were called upon to be beyond reproach. It conjures images of knights in shining armour, and battles against injustice. Hollywood has kept such images alive for us long after chivalry has gone dormant. In one such movie: Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves (1991), our hero says "Nobility is not a birthright. It's defined by one's actions." I like that, and I believe it to be true. Anybody can have a code by which they choose to live, and for which they would willingly make sacrifices.

Such a code does not necessarily require sacrificing one's life, but it may require making sacrifices to one's livelihood. A good Code of Ethics is one such as the one below from the Association of Computing Machinery (acm.org). It's a commitment to one's peers, clients, and society at large. And while some may limit their adherence to this code to their professional life, I would say that such a code should apply to all aspects of one's life.

Being ethical is not just a 9-to-5 job. It's a way of life... it's a nobility. Is it in you?

---

1. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

   Preamble

   Computing professionals' actions change the world. To act responsibly, they should reflect upon the wider impacts of their work, consistently supporting the public good. The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ("the Code") expresses the conscience of the profession.

   The Code is designed to inspire and guide the ethical conduct of all computing professionals, including current and aspiring practitioners, instructors, students, influencers, and anyone who uses computing technology in an impactful way. Additionally, the Code serves as a basis for remediation when violations occur. The Code includes principles formulated as statements of responsibility, based on the understanding that the public good is always the primary consideration. Each principle is supplemented by guidelines, which provide explanations to assist computing professionals in understanding and applying the principle.

   Section 1 outlines fundamental ethical principles that form the basis for the remainder of the Code. Section 2 addresses additional, more specific considerations of professional responsibility. Section 3 guides individuals who have a leadership role, whether in the workplace or in a volunteer professional capacity. Commitment to ethical conduct is required of every ACM member, and principles involving compliance with the Code are given in Section 4.

   The Code as a whole is concerned with how fundamental ethical principles apply to a computing professional's conduct. The Code is not an algorithm for solving ethical problems; rather it serves as a basis for ethical decision-making. When thinking through a particular issue, a computing professional may find that multiple principles should be taken into account, and that different principles will have different relevance to the issue. Questions related to these kinds of issues can best be answered by thoughtful consideration of the fundamental ethical principles, understanding that the public good is the paramount consideration. The entire computing profession benefits when the ethical decision-making process is accountable to and transparent to all stakeholders. Open discussions about ethical issues promote this accountability and transparency.

   1. GENERAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.

   A computing professional should...

   1.1 Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.

   This principle, which concerns the quality of life of all people, affirms an obligation of computing professionals, both individually and collectively, to use their skills for the benefit of society, its members, and the environment surrounding them. This obligation includes promoting fundamental human rights and protecting each individual's right to autonomy. An essential aim of computing professionals is to minimize negative consequences of computing, including threats to health, safety, personal security, and privacy. When the interests of multiple groups conflict, the needs of those less advantaged should be given increased attention and priority.

   Computing professionals should consider whether the results of their efforts will respect diversity, will be used in socially responsible ways, will meet social needs, and will be broadly accessible. They are encouraged to actively contribute to society by engaging in pro bono or volunteer work that benefits the public good.

   In addition to a safe social environment, human well-being requires a safe natural environment. Therefore, computing professionals should promote environmental sustainability both locally and globally.

   1.2 Avoid harm.

   In this document, "harm" means negative consequences, especially when those consequences are significant and unjust. Examples of harm include unjustified physical or mental injury, unjustified destruction or disclosure of information, and unjustified damage to property, reputation, and the environment. This list is not exhaustive.

   Well-intended actions, including those that accomplish assigned duties, may lead to harm. When that harm is unintended, those responsible are obliged to undo or mitigate the harm as much as possible. Avoiding harm begins with careful consideration of potential impacts on all those affected by decisions. When harm is an intentional part of the system, those responsible are obligated to ensure that the harm is ethically justified. In either case, ensure that all harm is minimized.

   To minimize the possibility of indirectly or unintentionally harming others, computing professionals should follow generally accepted best practices unless there is a compelling ethical reason to do otherwise. Additionally, the consequences of data aggregation and emergent properties of systems should be carefully analyzed. Those involved with pervasive or infrastructure systems should also consider Principle 3.7.

   A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation.

   1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.

   Honesty is an essential component of trustworthiness. A computing professional should be transparent and provide full disclosure of all pertinent system capabilities, limitations, and potential problems to the appropriate parties. Making deliberately false or misleading claims, fabricating or falsifying data, offering or accepting bribes, and other dishonest conduct are violations of the Code.

   Computing professionals should be honest about their qualifications, and about any limitations in their competence to complete a task. Computing professionals should be forthright about any circumstances that might lead to either real or perceived conflicts of interest or otherwise tend to undermine the independence of their judgment. Furthermore, commitments should be honored.

   Computing professionals should not misrepresent an organization's policies or procedures, and should not speak on behalf of an organization unless authorized to do so.

   1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.

   The values of equality, tolerance, respect for others, and justice govern this principle. Fairness requires that even careful decision processes provide some avenue for redress of grievances.

   Computing professionals should foster fair participation of all people, including those of underrepresented groups. Prejudicial discrimination on the basis of age, color, disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, labor union membership, military status, nationality, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, or any other inappropriate factor is an explicit violation of the Code. Harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and other abuses of power and authority, is a form of discrimination that, amongst other harms, limits fair access to the virtual and physical spaces where such harassment takes place.

   The use of information and technology may cause new, or enhance existing, inequities. Technologies and practices should be as inclusive and accessible as possible and computing professionals should take action to avoid creating systems or technologies that disenfranchise or oppress people. Failure to design for inclusiveness and accessibility may constitute unfair discrimination.

   1.5 Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts.

   Developing new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts creates value for society, and those who expend this effort should expect to gain value from their work. Computing professionals should therefore credit the creators of ideas, inventions, work, and artifacts, and respect copyrights, patents, trade secrets, license agreements, and other methods of protecting authors' works.

   Both custom and the law recognize that some exceptions to a creator's control of a work are necessary for the public good. Computing professionals should not unduly oppose reasonable uses of their intellectual works. Efforts to help others by contributing time and energy to projects that help society illustrate a positive aspect of this principle. Such efforts include free and open source software and work put into the public domain. Computing professionals should not claim private ownership of work that they or others have shared as public resources.

   1.6 Respect privacy.

   The responsibility of respecting privacy applies to computing professionals in a particularly profound way. Technology enables the collection, monitoring, and exchange of personal information quickly, inexpensively, and often without the knowledge of the people affected. Therefore, a computing professional should become conversant in the various definitions and forms of privacy and should understand the rights and responsibilities associated with the collection and use of personal information.

   Computing professionals should only use personal information for legitimate ends and without violating the rights of individuals and groups. This requires taking precautions to prevent re-identification of anonymized data or unauthorized data collection, ensuring the accuracy of data, understanding the provenance of the data, and protecting it from unauthorized access and accidental disclosure. Computing professionals should establish transparent policies and procedures that allow individuals to understand what data is being collected and how it is being used, to give informed consent for automatic data collection, and to review, obtain, correct inaccuracies in, and delete their personal data.

   Only the minimum amount of personal information necessary should be collected in a system. The retention and disposal periods for that information should be clearly defined, enforced, and communicated to data subjects. Personal information gathered for a specific purpose should not be used for other purposes without the person's consent. Merged data collections can compromise privacy features present in the original collections. Therefore, computing professionals should take special care for privacy when merging data collections.

   1.7 Honor confidentiality.

   Computing professionals are often entrusted with confidential information such as trade secrets, client data, nonpublic business strategies, financial information, research data, pre-publication scholarly articles, and patent applications. Computing professionals should protect confidentiality except in cases where it is evidence of the violation of law, of organizational regulations, or of the Code. In these cases, the nature or contents of that information should not be disclosed except to appropriate authorities. A computing professional should consider thoughtfully whether such disclosures are consistent with the Code.

   2. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

   A computing professional should...

   2.1 Strive to achieve high quality in both the processes and products of professional work.

   Computing professionals should insist on and support high quality work from themselves and from colleagues. The dignity of employers, employees, colleagues, clients, users, and anyone else affected either directly or indirectly by the work should be respected throughout the process. Computing professionals should respect the right of those involved to transparent communication about the project. Professionals should be cognizant of any serious negative consequences affecting any stakeholder that may result from poor quality work and should resist inducements to neglect this responsibility.

   2.2 Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice.

   High quality computing depends on individuals and teams who take personal and group responsibility for acquiring and maintaining professional competence. Professional competence starts with technical knowledge and with awareness of the social context in which their work may be deployed. Professional competence also requires skill in communication, in reflective analysis, and in recognizing and navigating ethical challenges. Upgrading skills should be an ongoing process and might include independent study, attending conferences or seminars, and other informal or formal education. Professional organizations and employers should encourage and facilitate these activities.

   2.3 Know and respect existing rules pertaining to professional work.

   "Rules" here include local, regional, national, and international laws and regulations, as well as any policies and procedures of the organizations to which the professional belongs. Computing professionals must abide by these rules unless there is a compelling ethical justification to do otherwise. Rules that are judged unethical should be challenged. A rule may be unethical when it has an inadequate moral basis or causes recognizable harm. A computing professional should consider challenging the rule through existing channels before violating the rule. A computing professional who decides to violate a rule because it is unethical, or for any other reason, must consider potential consequences and accept responsibility for that action.

   2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.

   High quality professional work in computing depends on professional review at all stages. Whenever appropriate, computing professionals should seek and utilize peer and stakeholder review. Computing professionals should also provide constructive, critical reviews of others' work.

   2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible risks.

   Computing professionals are in a position of trust, and therefore have a special responsibility to provide objective, credible evaluations and testimony to employers, employees, clients, users, and the public. Computing professionals should strive to be perceptive, thorough, and objective when evaluating, recommending, and presenting system descriptions and alternatives. Extraordinary care should be taken to identify and mitigate potential risks in machine learning systems. A system for which future risks cannot be reliably predicted requires frequent reassessment of risk as the system evolves in use, or it should not be deployed. Any issues that might result in major risk must be reported to appropriate parties.

   2.6 Perform work only in areas of competence.

   A computing professional is responsible for evaluating potential work assignments. This includes evaluating the work's feasibility and advisability, and making a judgment about whether the work assignment is within the professional's areas of competence. If at any time before or during the work assignment the professional identifies a lack of a necessary expertise, they must disclose this to the employer or client. The client or employer may decide to pursue the assignment with the professional after additional time to acquire the necessary competencies, to pursue the assignment with someone else who has the required expertise, or to forgo the assignment. A computing professional's ethical judgment should be the final guide in deciding whether to work on the assignment.

   2.7 Foster public awareness and understanding of computing, related technologies, and their consequences.

   As appropriate to the context and one's abilities, computing professionals should share technical knowledge with the public, foster awareness of computing, and encourage understanding of computing. These communications with the public should be clear, respectful, and welcoming. Important issues include the impacts of computer systems, their limitations, their vulnerabilities, and the opportunities that they present. Additionally, a computing professional should respectfully address inaccurate or misleading information related to computing.

   2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized or when compelled by the public good.

   Individuals and organizations have the right to restrict access to their systems and data so long as the restrictions are consistent with other principles in the Code. Consequently, computing professionals should not access another's computer system, software, or data without a reasonable belief that such an action would be authorized or a compelling belief that it is consistent with the public good. A system being publicly accessible is not sufficient grounds on its own to imply authorization. Under exceptional circumstances a computing professional may use unauthorized access to disrupt or inhibit the functioning of malicious systems; extraordinary precautions must be taken in these instances to avoid harm to others.

   2.9 Design and implement systems that are robustly and usably secure.

   Breaches of computer security cause harm. Robust security should be a primary consideration when designing and implementing systems. Computing professionals should perform due diligence to ensure the system functions as intended, and take appropriate action to secure resources against accidental and intentional misuse, modification, and denial of service. As threats can arise and change after a system is deployed, computing professionals should integrate mitigation techniques and policies, such as monitoring, patching, and vulnerability reporting. Computing professionals should also take steps to ensure parties affected by data breaches are notified in a timely and clear manner, providing appropriate guidance and remediation.

   To ensure the system achieves its intended purpose, security features should be designed to be as intuitive and easy to use as possible. Computing professionals should discourage security precautions that are too confusing, are situationally inappropriate, or otherwise inhibit legitimate use.

   In cases where misuse or harm are predictable or unavoidable, the best option may be to not implement the system.

   3. PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES.

   Leadership may either be a formal designation or arise informally from influence over others. In this section, "leader" means any member of an organization or group who has influence, educational responsibilities, or managerial responsibilities. While these principles apply to all computing professionals, leaders bear a heightened responsibility to uphold and promote them, both within and through their organizations.

   A computing professional, especially one acting as a leader, should...

   3.1 Ensure that the public good is the central concern during all professional computing work.

   People—including users, customers, colleagues, and others affected directly or indirectly—should always be the central concern in computing. The public good should always be an explicit consideration when evaluating tasks associated with research, requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing, validation, deployment, maintenance, retirement, and disposal. Computing professionals should keep this focus no matter which methodologies or techniques they use in their practice.

   3.2 Articulate, encourage acceptance of, and evaluate fulfillment of social responsibilities by members of the organization or group.

   Technical organizations and groups affect broader society, and their leaders should accept the associated responsibilities. Organizations—through procedures and attitudes oriented toward quality, transparency, and the welfare of society—reduce harm to the public and raise awareness of the influence of technology in our lives. Therefore, leaders should encourage full participation of computing professionals in meeting relevant social responsibilities and discourage tendencies to do otherwise.

   3.3 Manage personnel and resources to enhance the quality of working life.

   Leaders should ensure that they enhance, not degrade, the quality of working life. Leaders should consider the personal and professional development, accessibility requirements, physical safety, psychological well-being, and human dignity of all workers. Appropriate human-computer ergonomic standards should be used in the workplace.

   3.4 Articulate, apply, and support policies and processes that reflect the principles of the Code.

   Leaders should pursue clearly defined organizational policies that are consistent with the Code and effectively communicate them to relevant stakeholders. In addition, leaders should encourage and reward compliance with those policies, and take appropriate action when policies are violated. Designing or implementing processes that deliberately or negligently violate, or tend to enable the violation of, the Code's principles is ethically unacceptable.

   3.5 Create opportunities for members of the organization or group to grow as professionals.

   Educational opportunities are essential for all organization and group members. Leaders should ensure that opportunities are available to computing professionals to help them improve their knowledge and skills in professionalism, in the practice of ethics, and in their technical specialties. These opportunities should include experiences that familiarize computing professionals with the consequences and limitations of particular types of systems. Computing professionals should be fully aware of the dangers of oversimplified approaches, the improbability of anticipating every possible operating condition, the inevitability of software errors, the interactions of systems and their contexts, and other issues related to the complexity of their profession—and thus be confident in taking on responsibilities for the work that they do.

   3.6 Use care when modifying or retiring systems.

   Interface changes, the removal of features, and even software updates have an impact on the productivity of users and the quality of their work. Leaders should take care when changing or discontinuing support for system features on which people still depend. Leaders should thoroughly investigate viable alternatives to removing support for a legacy system. If these alternatives are unacceptably risky or impractical, the developer should assist stakeholders' graceful migration from the system to an alternative. Users should be notified of the risks of continued use of the unsupported system long before support ends. Computing professionals should assist system users in monitoring the operational viability of their computing systems, and help them understand that timely replacement of inappropriate or outdated features or entire systems may be needed.

   3.7 Recognize and take special care of systems that become integrated into the infrastructure of society.

   Even the simplest computer systems have the potential to impact all aspects of society when integrated with everyday activities such as commerce, travel, government, healthcare, and education. When organizations and groups develop systems that become an important part of the infrastructure of society, their leaders have an added responsibility to be good stewards of these systems. Part of that stewardship requires establishing policies for fair system access, including for those who may have been excluded. That stewardship also requires that computing professionals monitor the level of integration of their systems into the infrastructure of society. As the level of adoption changes, the ethical responsibilities of the organization or group are likely to change as well. Continual monitoring of how society is using a system will allow the organization or group to remain consistent with their ethical obligations outlined in the Code. When appropriate standards of care do not exist, computing professionals have a duty to ensure they are developed.

   4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.

   A computing professional should...

   4.1 Uphold, promote, and respect the principles of the Code.

   The future of computing depends on both technical and ethical excellence. Computing professionals should adhere to the principles of the Code and contribute to improving them. Computing professionals who recognize breaches of the Code should take actions to resolve the ethical issues they recognize, including, when reasonable, expressing their concern to the person or persons thought to be violating the Code.

   4.2 Treat violations of the Code as inconsistent with membership in the ACM.

   Each ACM member should encourage and support adherence by all computing professionals regardless of ACM membership. ACM members who recognize a breach of the Code should consider reporting the violation to the ACM, which may result in remedial action as specified in the ACM's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct Enforcement Policy.

   ---

   The Code and guidelines were developed by the ACM Code 2018 Task Force: Executive Committee Don Gotterbarn (Chair), Bo Brinkman, Catherine Flick, Michael S Kirkpatrick, Keith Miller, Kate Varansky, and Marty J Wolf. Members: Eve Anderson, Ron Anderson, Amy Bruckman, Karla Carter, Michael Davis, Penny Duquenoy, Jeremy Epstein, Kai Kimppa, Lorraine Kisselburgh, Shrawan Kumar, Andrew McGettrick, Natasa Milic-Frayling, Denise Oram, Simon Rogerson, David Shama, Janice Sipior, Eugene Spafford, and Les Waguespack. The Task Force was organized by the ACM Committee on Professional Ethics. Significant contributions to the Code were also made by the broader international ACM membership. This Code and its guidelines were adopted by the ACM Council on June 22nd, 2018.

   This Code may be published without permission as long as it is not changed in any way and it carries the copyright notice. Copyright (c) 2018 by the Association for Computing Machinery.

Mixed Method Risk Analysis

Some people approach risk analysis from either qualitative or quantitative methodologies. However, both are needed for truly enlightened decision making. The term “Mixed Methods” is taken from social science research, and is particularly appropriate here. It is not enough to base risk analysis solely on the numbers, and it is not enough to merely gather opinions. Both need to be considered along with a reasonable assessment of the probabilities and an appreciation for the risk appetite. Not only for the risk event, but the follow-on events. The last point requires that we consider what the implications of the risk event are. This takes into account things like public opinion, staff morale, and market volatility.

Many people assume that risk analysis is merely a specialization of cost/benefit analysis. That view lends itself to a quantitative approach. How much is the asset worth? What will the down-time cost us? How often will the risk event happen? Punch these values into an equation, and *poof* a magic number. While there is value for such numbers when determining budgets, they miss out on very important details. Would your brand suffer if an event (say, a data breach) occurred? What would it cost you to repair that brand damage? How long would that take? How tightly are sales coupled with public opinion? Failure to ask such questions may lead to a risk mitigation strategy that, while defensible, may not be adequate.

Risk analysis should begin with a survey of key stakeholders to determine the perceived risks and what the impacts of those risks are (some include this in risk assessment).  Once a complete list is established, the list is then circulated again to determine the perceived likelihood of each, and the appetite for the expected impacts. The likelihood of certain risks, such as fire or theft, can be validated through enquiries made at local public records offices. The list of risks can then be sorted based on likelihood and appetite for potential impacts. Even if a risk is highly unlikely, it may be worth mitigation if the appetite for one or more of its impacts is null.

There are generally two approaches to budgeting for risk mitigation: Here’s your budget, do what you can; and Tell me what you need and we’ll discuss it. The first is somewhat easier as the initial boundaries are known. The later is more time consuming as it requires digging into the details for all identified risks and is often followed by “Oh, uhm, what can you do for ____ dollars?” In either case, it is the job (and responsibility) of the security professional to ensure that management knows which risks can be mitigated within the available budget, and which risks cannot be mitigated within the available budget. This is why Mixed Methods research is the correct approach to use in Risk Analysis.

Stollen Cookies?

Have you heard that a frog can be cooked without a shock to its system by placing it in a pot with cold water, and gradually turning up the heat? Well, you are the frog, and internet-based mobile applications are the heat.

Last night, I was working on a blog post that had remained in draft mode for far too long, and part of what I did was to look for appropriate imagery using my phone. I started looking for "Tug of War" images on flickr.com before changing my search to "Sumo wrestling".

Today, Facebook magically showed me a "sponsored" post from NHK Japan for "GRAND SUMO LIVE". I have NEVER searched for sumo until last night, and that search was on the Flickr website.

The way cookies are supposed to work is that they are only accessible to the website that issued them. So, it would make sence for Flickr to keep track of my searches using cookies. But if I search for something on Google and then visit Amazon, Amazon shouldn't know anything about my activities on Google. Clearly, this is not the case with the Facebook Android app. My search history on Flickr should not be visible to any other site, and since I don't have a Flickr account, I don't think Flickr sold Facebook the data. Somehow, either through an astronomical coincidence, or some other means, Facebook managed to figure out that, at least right now, I have an interest in SUMO.

I'm not suggesting that you start making tinfoil hats. Nor have I deleted the Facebook App... yet. The point of this post, however, is that it truly is possible that this is just coincidence. However, Facebook's track record on matters of privacy is not that great. As a result, I am inclined to think that they are harvesting cookies from my phone. Do I have proof? No, but this is an example of what I have written extensively about: Ethical Debt. Because ethics do not seem to be high on the priority list for facebook, one tends to assume that every questionable event is somehow done in the shadows. Companies MUST hold themselves to a higher standard, because the consumer will stop granting credit if the ethical debt gets too high.

WR

Company Culture vs. Freedom of Speech

Credit: Manymeez

Ontario's electricity distribution company, Hydro One, has fired an employee for interrupting a live interview with the now famous FHRITP taunt. For those of you who are not familiar with the FHRITP taunt, it equates less vulgarly to "have sexual intercourse with her". The language used is quite profane and the way it is delivered, in this case anyways, is one of encouraging the male being interviewed to not take the lady seriously, and to view her merely as a sex toy.

So now that I have given you the background, let's discuss Hydro One CEO Carmine Marcello's decision to fire the individual in question. Some people have pointed out that the individual in question was not, at the time of the incident, representing Hydro One; and in fact, even Marcello acknowledged that the Hydro One leadership didn't know that he was an employee when they first discussed it. This person was not wearing any Hydro One branding, so Hydro One's reputation was not at stake. For these reasons, may people feel that he is being unfairly punished for exercising his freedom of speech. Many people feel he shouldn't have been punished at all, while others feel that the punishment was too severe.

I submit to you that he is not being punished at all. He is merely experiencing the consequences for his actions. He had, and exercised, the right to say whatever he wanted wherever he wanted to say it. Good for him. Was the statement that he made worth losing his job over? ...his reputation? ...his pension? I kind of doubt it. It's not like he was protesting some great injustice. He was being a buffoon. He was wasting the fifteen minutes of fame to which we are supposedly all entitled.

What about Hydro One? While their former employee had the right to free speech, I would suggest that Hydro One has the right to determine what kind of person fits in its culture, and what kind does not. Somebody who is willing to use that kind of language on a public (and recorded) platform, would also use that kind of language in a private setting where, perhaps, a single female employee is surrounded by men. This is not a question of defending Hydro One's reputation. This is a question of showing the women who work for Hydro One that the statements of equality that they make are not mere rhetoric. It is a question of doing what is right, regardless of the fallout.

No doubt some left-wing labour lawyer is going to try to take Hydro One and Mr. Marcello to court over this dismissal. I hope that when the dust settles, a precedent is set that gives companies the courage to respond in a similar way in the future. Our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters deserve more respect than morons such as this former Hydro One employee have demonstrated.

Well done Mr. Marcello and Hydro One! In my opinion, you have earned a healthy #EthicalCredit.

Let's Play Damage Control

Credit: US Navy (CC-by-2.0)

Have you ever tried to put toothpaste back in the tube? Maybe shaving cream back into the can? How about words back into your mouth? The first one is hard; the second one, much harder; the third... impossible.

I was reading a story today about a father of a young girl with #CerebralPalsy. Dad would regularly bring his daughter to a particular indoor play establishment in Guelph, Ontario. Though the establishment had a policy of socks only, an exception has always been made for this little girl because she needed to wear her shoes and braces in order to climb on the play structures. I don't want to mention names (against my instinct as a father of a special needs child), because I am trying to make a general point, not point out a single incident. Having said that, if you are on Facebook and live in or near Guelph, Ontario; you probably know to which incident I am referring. As it turned out, at this particular visit, the owner of the establishment was present, and enforced her rules much more stringently than any of her employees have in the past. The father and daughter were shown the door, and forced to drive to a neighbouring town to complete the play date. As a result of the angry posts of this girl's parents, the establishment in question was so overrun with negative feedback that they decided to shut down their Facebook page. Unfortunately for this company, all that they accomplished with that action is to remove themselves from the conversation. 

So, what went wrong? Well, as with most similar incidents, this is the result of a comedy of errors.

1) Employees should have brought the exception to the attention of management.

I understand that this would have been a tough thing to expect of an employee. "Uhm, boss, yesterday I broke the rules, and I thought you should know about it." But maybe, the first visit would have been the place to cut this off at the pass. If the owner had a reputation as being an ethical entrepreneur, her employees might have been willing to ask the father for his contact information and say "I'm sorry, but right now I have to enforce the rules. I will discuss this situation with my boss and have her call you to discuss what options are possible in the future." While the father and daughter would have still been upset, they would have had the comfort of knowing that it was not impossible, just not possible now.

2) The owner and the father should have looked for alternatives that would address all concerns.

Now I don't know what would have been a possible alternative, I know very little about Cerebral Palsy, but a dialog with two experts (the owner as an expert in play structures, and the father as an expert in Cerebral Palsy), must have been able to come up with alternatives. Would it be safe for the little girl to where dad's socks over top of her shoes and braces? If not dad's socks, perhaps some other rubberized covering.

3) The organization should have stayed in the conversation.

Here is the attempt at damage control that the owner put out on Facebook just before the page went down:

The parents have since argued (adequately in my opinion) the first two points.

It was bad enough that the owner didn't stay in the conversation directly with the parents. Had she done that, and conveyed a sense of empathy and a desire to find a solution, the parents would probably not have launched their campaign to boycott the establishment. The entire thing would have been resolved without threatening the bottom line. 

In fact, the parents would probably have bragged about the care that the establishment had given them and the owner may have been sitting on a nice Ethical Credit. Instead, buy "pleading the fifth" and shutting down the Facebook page, the owner is now burdened with Ethical Debt, from under which she may never escape.

In The Art of the Start 2.0, @Guy Kawasaki points out how lawyers should be used. Rather than asking a layer if you should do something, Kawasaki says that you should say "This is what I want to do. Now, keep me out of jail." In my opinion, if you need a lawyer's advice on how to handle an irate customer, you've let it go too far.

What's the FUTURE of SHOPping?

Based on photo by Andrew Todd Phillips (CC-BY-SA-2.0)

Here we go again! CBC is reporting that another 1500 retail jobs are lost in Canada as Best Buy shuts down its Future Shop subsidiary. Best Buy bought Future Shop in 2001. I would have expected them to have sorted out the competing stores well before now.

I get it, big fish eat little fish, and there will always be a bigger fish. As I understand it, the employees are being well treated and presented with choices. But this still annoys me. Another Canadian brand dies at the hands of an American company.

The Government of Canada should force any companies that buy Canadian businesses to leave the country if they find that they cannot make it here, and restore the brands they destroyed. In this case, it should be the Best Buy stores that are closing, and the Future Shop stores that remain. It may sound like semantics, but every day, Canada is losing a little of its identity.

Admittedly, the real trouble is that Future Shop shareholders valued the $580M more than the pride of owning a piece of a successful Canadian brand. I suppose in hindsight, they are probably happy to have been rid of it instead of having to do battle with the American giant.

In the end, this is another example of a retailer shooting itself in the foot. They say it's because they are losing to online shopping, but they are hosting online shopping websites. Retailers have to provide value to the consumer that cannot be matched in the online world, and focus their efforts on that. Here's a common scenario. You go into a retailer and stand in the aisle comparing two products. Magically, a sales associate appears and asks if you need help. You say "Yes, I'd like to know what's different between these two brands other than the $50 price difference." And the well meaning sales associate proceeds to read the two boxes. You walk away thinking to yourself: "I should have just read the reviews online and ordered it there."

Do You Feel The Heat Yet?

credit: James Lee

I read this article from CBC Marketplace today. I won't spell out what my initial thought was verbatim, but suffice it to say that it was along the lines of "how dishonest is that?" Basically, what Marketplace is reporting is that food packages have been shrinking in order to keep "prices" constant. They provide several examples such as:

«Last year, Maple Leaf Foods shrunk packages of 500 g of bacon to 375 g, a 25 per cent reduction.»

I'm sure that such tactics do not fool anyone who has taken a Home Economics course in school. But what about the people who haven't? This kind of tactic is preying on the segment of the population that need value the most. The other day as a treat for my son, I took him to McDonald's for lunch. I don't remember the last time I ate anything from that particular fast food chain, so imagine my surprise at how small the "Big" Mac is now. When I mentioned it to my wife she said, "Yeah, they've been getting smaller for a while."

It reminds me of a story I heard many years ago. If you want to cook a frog, you have to do so slowly or it will become rubbery. (I don't know why anyone would want to eat a frog, it's just an illustration.) To maintain the perfect texture, apparently you put the frog into a pot of cold water and then, ever so gradually, turn up the heat. The frog will get cooked without even noticing that it is taking place.

Now I have long since maintained that one has to be vigilant when shopping. But this, in my opinion, is another question of corporate ethics, and #EthicalDebt. I used to hold Maple Leaf Foods in pretty high regard. Now that they are pulling this stunt, I will scrutinize all of their products much more closely. It won't take too many more incidents like this before that brand is forever tarnished in my eyes.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Is this practice dishonest, or is it justified? Which would be more likely to cause you stop buying your favourite brands: 1) a gradual increase in price, 2) a gradual reduction in package size?

What is Ethical Debt?

As ethics are the moral compass of a society, and society is constantly evolving,
are questions of ethics still valid?

« Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. »
("The more things change, the more they stay the same.")
-- Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, Les Guêpes, January 1849.

Each generation thinks that the next generation is wild and reckless. My grandparents were likely taken aback by the introduction of Rock and Roll to modern society. They would certainly have preferred the works of J.S. Bach. However, if I'm not mistaken (and I might be) J.S. Bach was branded a heretic in his day! Now there is obviously a huge difference between socially acceptable music and ethics. I suspect however, that societal ethics don't actually change as much as we might think.

If one considers the Occupy Wall Street movement that started a few years ago, the protesters were against corporate greed at the expense of the less fortunate. Basically, as the theory goes, 1% of the population is living off the backs of the other 99%. Now I don't entirely buy that, however the point of Ethical Debt is that, as far as most people are concerned, this could be true. Ethical Debt must be managed in the same way as financial debt. The impact of financial debt is obvious. We can only continue incurring more financial debt for so long before our creditors pull their purse strings tight, and refuse to offer any more. There may be situations where debt must be incurred, however the longer that debt stays on the books, the more expensive it is to remove it from the books.

Ethical Debt is not Karma

Many readers may at this point think I am referring to the mystical concept of Karma. This would be a misunderstanding. Karma implies that when you do good, at some time in the future, in some unrelated fashion, good will be done to you. The opposite side of Karma holds that when you do evil, evil will be done to you. Ethical debt on the other hand, says that when you stretch the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour, society is less and less likely to trust you. To illustrate this, let's take a look at Bill Gates. With respect, Bill Gates is renown as an aggressive businessman. He has caught the ire of many around the world for what outwardly appeared to be a profit at all costs approach to his leadership at Microsoft. Since stepping down from an active role at Microsoft, Mr. Gates and his wife have started the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

We work with partner organizations worldwide to tackle critical problems in four program areas. Our Global Development Division works to help the world’s poorest people lift themselves out of hunger and poverty. Our Global Health Division aims to harness advances in science and technology to save lives in developing countries. Our United States Division works to improve U.S. high school and postsecondary education and support vulnerable children and families in Washington State. And our Global Policy & Advocacy Division seeks to build strategic relationships and promote policies that will help advance our work. Our approach to grantmaking in all four areas emphasizes collaboration, innovation, risk-taking, and, most importantly, results. [source]

Since its inception, the Gates Foundation has given away nearly $33 Billion, yet Mr. Gates continues to be portrayed in social media as some sort of evil mastermind. How many more billions of dollars will the Gates family have to give away before the Ethical Debt is off the books?

Another illustration is the assassination of Boris Nemtsov on February 27, 2015. Is there anything that Russian President Vladimir Putin could say or do to make the world believe that he was not involved? The fact is that what Mr. Putin does speaks so loudly that nobody can hear what he says.

The opposite side of Ethical Debt (ie: Ethical Credit) is also true. George Washington is attributed with the quote: "It's better to be alone than to be in bad company." Of course, there is no way to validate that this was ever uttered by Washington, or that he is its original source, but his reputation is such that we believe it to be true.

What Does This Mean For You?

Canadian citizens are, for the most part, highly respected around the world. In fact, it is a matter of national pride that a Canadian can travel just about anywhere in the world, and as long as he or she displays a Canadian flag, open doors and smiles will be plentiful. However, an article in The Huffinton Post from the 9th of February 2015 entitled Canadian Businesses 2nd-Most Trusted In The World: Survey drew attention to the Ethical Debt balance sheet among Canadian companies. (Though they didn't call it that.)

The story points out that "Canada saw the largest drop in trust in business of any of the 27 countries surveyed." What this tells me is that Canadian companies are trading internationally on the reputation of our citizens. The rest of the world trusts Canadian businesses almost implicitly, but the people who know us best (those within our borders) don't trust us like they used to.

This is a wake-up call to all businesses. Correct your Ethical Debt before you have no reputation left upon which to trade.

WR