Under pressure in a crisis, would your ethics stand up to scrutiny?

What happens when there's a conflict between personal ethics and professional duties? CS&A International's Andrew Morrison examines the risks that arise when individual values don't align with business ethics and puts the spotlight on some real-life, high-profile, messy ethical dilemmas.

As crisis consultants, we guide and advise C-suite executives, cross-functional heads, division leaders and managers across all sectors and relevant disciplines. We devise strategies and execute plans using data, insights, experience, knowledge, tools and our judgement to prepare for, mitigate and recover from all types of crises. 

In our professional lives, all of us are guided by our personal and organisational values, ‘accepted’ behaviours, codes of practice, corporate policies and procedures, as well as our own ‘political antennae’ and, of course, the facts as we perceive them. 

Stirred together, these disparate but interconnected influences make up the ethics of an organisation and the personal ethics of all team members and individuals. 

How do you, or your colleagues, typically define ethics in your workplace? Thinking aloud, perhaps you said: ‘how we do things while respecting people and our values,’ or ‘a fair way of doing business,’ or simply ‘doing the right thing.’ There is no exact answer, of course, but it is likely that you reflexively thought of a definition similar to the above.

Ethics, to the best of my knowledge, was first widely spoken about by Aristotle, the Greek philosopher. Aristotle's treatise entitled ‘Ethics’ or the study of character, is built around the premise that people should achieve a virtuous character by practising virtue to ultimately attain happiness or well-being.

Today, Harvard Business School and other universities’ MBA-level courses weave ethics into their curricula, and many companies establish whistle-blowing and ethics hotlines. Organisations like the IABC have developed their own Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct as free resources for communication professionals and others.

But what if there is a conflict between these organisational and personal ethics – or between yourself, your organisation and perhaps society’s expectations of how you should behave? Such scenarios can lead to ethical dilemmas, reputational risk and, potentially, a full-blown crisis. We have likely all faced these situations in our careers and lives. Shortly, I will share with you some high-profile ethical dilemmas faced by senior organisation directors and function leaders. All of these stories are real and in the public domain – if you know where to look.

So, please read on, reflect, think and then ask yourself, “What would I do in this situation?”

I will then reveal what the actual Crisis Consultant/Communications/Corporate Affairs Director chose to do in the crisis, and this may help you to develop your judgement based on these insights. Now that we’ve established a basis for our discussion, let’s get started with three scenarios. These are all true stories – although none are CS&A clients whose business is protected by our strict confidentiality agreements. 

Three case studies in ethics

1. A multinational agribusiness company is seeking to introduce its products into the Brazilian market. Brazil is one of only three countries in the world which mandates prior animal testing for all products before they are authorised to be consumed by humans. You do not support animal testing in principle. Unfortunately, an NGO has discovered that your company is secretly testing on animals in one of its labs in order to comply with Brazilian Government legislation. Brazil represents a huge market opportunity for your company, and your CEO wants to grow the company’s business there. You are the Chief Communications Officer. What advice or recommendations do you have for the senior management team, which is determined to launch their products into one of the world’s largest markets? 

   
   

2. The CEO and leadership team of an international airline were known to behave disrespectfully towards their cabin crew, using derogatory language to describe them. Furthermore, a travelling author’s public comment claimed that the airline’s leadership team described their flight attendants in a demeaning manner. This conduct is unacceptable both to you and the majority of international travellers. However, this behaviour was considered a joke internally due to patriarchal and outdated management practices. This conduct led to complaints from the cabin crew about working conditions, and ultimately, a union-supported strike lasting several weeks, which resulted in a loss of revenue, complaints from customers and negative stories in the media. What do you advise the CEO, who refuses to change his behaviour, to do?

   
   

3. In 2020-1, people were dying of COVID. Despite this, many people did not want to follow the official medical advice to stay at home and avoid mixing in public to prevent cross-infection. In the UK, the Government Information Service (GIS) decided to run a campaign, with the backing of Cabinet ministers, called ‘Look into their eyes’ – showing (with the permission of their families) footage of hospital patients struggling to survive against the disease. Is it ethical for a State to frighten the wider population into doing something when they refuse, or want to refuse, to comply with restrictions on their personal freedoms implemented through a nationwide lockdown?’

How to handle an ethical dilemma

Tough questions to answer, aren’t they?

These are ethical dilemmas, which, if not handled effectively and sensitively, can lead to challenges and, indeed, conflicts between stakeholders, damaging businesses and reputations and causing a loss of revenues, livelihoods, and perhaps even lives.

Have you considered what you would advise and ultimately do if you had the requisite authority? Let’s navigate through each scenario in turn.

In scenario 1, the company initially decided to partner with the NGO to help lobby the Brazilian government to end animal testing on agricultural products. After a year of partnership, the two parties fell out once the NGO decided that it would get more publicity – and more public donations – by turning against the company by criticising its lack of progress. This outcome was a significant reputational threat and caused a media storm. The company decided to take a short-term hit to its reputation and potential revenues and continued to lobby the Brazilian government independently. It eventually persuaded them to change their regulatory requirements and helped them to adopt alternatives to animal testing methods. The media storm calmed down, and their detractors acknowledged that the company was now doing the right thing. As a result, the company was able to introduce its products into the Brazilian market.

In scenario 2, the senior management team set up alternative bases for non-striking cabin crew, thereby bypassing the union leadership and maintaining airline operations to some extent. The home country’s legislative council intervened to urge the airline management not to victimise the cabin crew and to rehire any who they had fired in protest at their working conditions. However, the toxic culture was not fully addressed, and it has taken several years for management practices to improve. The crisis communications advisor, who had been hired to help at the time, resigned after refusing to compromise their ethical values in the face of the CEO, who chose to prioritise short-term commercial imperatives over sustainable employee welfare and reputational capital.

In scenario 3, the UK Government believed it had an ethical justification for using an emotive campaign to nudge people into compliance with lockdown restrictions by applying behavioural science techniques. However, over time, it became apparent that the medical science related to COVID-19 transmission was shown to be inexact (e.g. the ‘rule of six’ referring to the maximum number of people who could be in one’s family/social group to avoid exponential spreading of coronavirus was based on theoretical mathematical modelling rather than peer-reviewed science). There were reports that in some cases, the police were shown to have used heavy-handed tactics to enforce the law (e.g. by arresting two friends walking their dog through an isolated countryside). Even the UK Cabinet Office broke its own social distancing rules by hosting after-work parties in government offices. This behaviour undermined the GIS campaign and contributed to the resignation of the UK Prime Minister. A large proportion of the British public, fuelled by the media storm, felt that this behaviour was hypocritical in the light of their own limitations on personal freedom. The lesson learned is the importance of authenticity: modelling the behaviours the public wanted – and expected to see from their politicians.

So, what do we conclude?

In a crisis, there are many pitfalls and traps for the unprepared, the unwary, as well as the unethical. Managing an ethical dilemma in a crisis requires careful and balanced consideration to avoid potential fallout that can impact relationships between stakeholders, reputation, revenue, and even lives. It requires transparency, clarity, integrity, and a commitment to values. In some cases, it might be necessary to negotiate between personal and organisational values because they do not always align. A solid ethical foundation builds trust, protects reputations, and safeguards the well-being of those affected when it matters most.

Andrew Morrison SCMP® is an Associate with CS&A International. He is a corporate communications and crisis expert with over 30 years of experience in handling operational and reputational crises for a diverse range of companies and industries. He has an interest in ethics and is currently Chair of the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators) Global Ethics Committee, where he leads and conducts reputational risk audits and reports and investigates potential breaches of The Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct.