Published in the Financial Post, October 20, 2005, p. FP-23.

 

The Banality of Business Ethics Codes
by
Pierre Lemieux

 

Every morning, Manulife Financial’s insurance agents in China sing a song to the glory of their employer: “Manulife China walks in step with China Nothing escapes its vigilance and compassion Manulife China stands with you On the long, long march of life.” It makes for a striking picture. Many rows of women stand behind classroom desks, signing with soft faces, their hands humbly crossed in front of them. They look small and obedient, as they must look when they face a Chinese bureaucrat ordering an abortion. There is no doubt that these women are happy with the opportunity to work for Manulife, and don’t feel exploited at all. Or, to look at it from the perspective of Marxist economist Joan Robinson, “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.” Yet, isn’t this regimentation disquieting? Wouldn’t one expect a company with a 28-page business ethics catechism to uphold its employees’ sense of individual sovereignty, even if it wants to answer their demand for belonging? Manulife Financial’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is the usual smorgasbord of obvious principles and total banalities (basic honesty, treating customers with courtesy, not taking bribes…), plus the usual bows before politically-correct shibboleths like diversity and flattery for “stakeholders.” Many other corporations’ codes are worse. As is usually done these days, Manulife’s code also affirms the need “to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations” and the company’s commitment to “operating within the laws and regulations of every jurisdiction in which it operates.” There is a danger in giving in to whatever is the local liberticidal culture. In Nazi Germany, many companies did comply with all applicable laws. Others defied them, like Roche, the pharmaceutical company, which refused to discriminate against its Jewish employees. Chinese tyranny might not be as bad as the Nazi one was, although the average Chinese might be much more oppressed today than the average Aryan German was under the Nazis. At any rate, we might expect Manulife to be at least as ethical as Roche. I will grant that what Manulife does to motivate its Chinese employees in old-style Eastern collectivism is relatively innocuous. Loyalty to Manulife is certainly less dangerous than allegiance to the Chinese tyrant. What Manulife does in China appears less reprehensible than what Yahoo, Google, Microsoft or Cisco Systems do to help the state’s surveillance of the Internet. Moreover, Manulife can argue that it only has a 51% participation in Manulife-Sinochem – although its code of ethics specifically includes subsidiaries. Yet, if business ethics codes do not help promote the Western concept of individual liberty and dignity, what are they for?