Business Ethics: An All or Nothing Game?

The classical definition of BE is that of an "All or Nothing" game, if one can be pardoned for using this term for a topic that is least playful. This means that a company does not have the liberty of being ethical in some of its activities and not in others. The rationale for this classical approach is that there can be no such thing as 'somewhat ethical' or 'partially ethical'. I have the fullest respect for this view, but at the same time feel that it merits serious examination.

Businesses in developing countries face a number of ethical challenges. In a scenario where watchdog bodies are few (and those that exist focus mostly on European and US multinationals), local companies have a free run as far as ethical behaviour is concerned. In this environment, companies that adhere to higher standards of behaviour are actually at a distinct disadvantage vis-a-vis their peers that do not. This then begs the question whether companies that demonstrate good business principles at least towards some of their important stakeholders, if not all, are better than those that do not do much at all. These companies at least have the opportunity to test the unchartered territory of ethics and get their feet wet. The chances of a positive rub-off effect on their other operations then become bright.

We could then start prioritising what is inviolable and what is tolerable. Aspects to do with safety of employees and consumers, human rights, obeying the law and reporting transparency should obviously be totally inviolable. There would then be aspects like fair competition and facilitating payments that come lower down the criticality scale and could be expected to kick-in in due course. Issues like child labour, counterfeits and unsafe working conditions are far more critical and acute in these economies than those like price fixing that in any case happen widely in these under-regulated markets. So we could actually have businesses that may be called "mostly ethical" if they conform to what is inviolable.

Achieving 100% ethical compliance is as difficult a goal as total nuclear disarmament, even in the most developed of economies. What I am talking about is non-proliferation of unethical behaviour and a gradual containment, in far less-privileged markets. It is a unconventional point of view. But then this is the newfound age of unconventional thinking, thanks to the new President in the White House.