• Desktop Support Engineer- FIFO
• Vendor Manager (Program Delivery)
• Communications Infrastructure...
• Chief Information Officer
• Project Manager - WMS

Codes of ethics: protecting whose interest?

Karen Mather, Information Age

18/10/2006 20:59:37

In the last issue of Information Age Richard Lucas described some of the different approaches that may be taken by individuals facing ethical dilemmas. Perhaps it is also reassuring to be reminded that ICT professional associations, such as the ACS, and many business organisations, also provide over-arching guidelines for ethical decision-making at work, in the shape of codes of ethics/conduct/behaviour.

Ethics is a philosophical subject and philosophers are, by training, argumentative to the core; so from time to time the justification for codes comes under scrutiny as much as the actual content of the codes. The two main objections to the use of codes of ethics are that they are not effective and that they are self-serving and thus, in themselves, unethical.

Since the 1970s, professional ICT organisations have been setting the expectation that their members will adhere to professional codes of ethics. For example, the first version of the our own ACS code of ethics was published in 1975; the American ACM published its first code of ethics in 1972; and the Canadian CIPS had its code of ethics adopted by members in 1984. Yet, in a study of 500 ICT professionals, by Pearson, Crosby and Shim in 1997, it was found that professionals did not necessarily refer to professional codes of ethics for purposes of ethical decision-making.

The general effectiveness of codes of ethics in the workplace is questioned by, for example, Cowton and Thompson, whose survey in 2000 of 141 banks in the UK indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the practices of banks that had an official commitment to ethics and those that did not. They also noted that companies which did not have an official code of ethics often behaved in the same ethically correct manner as those that did have a code.

In some organisations, codes of ethics were found to be simply instruments of propaganda, and other surveys have confirmed this tendency to design codes of ethics as instruments of organisational self-preservation, rather than for the truly ethical purpose of reducing harm to all stakeholders and society at large. These "facade" codes of ethics then have a further negative effect by giving stakeholders a false sense of security.

Opponents of encoded ethics suggest that codes of ethics will remain ineffectual until they are reinforced by structural aspects of the organisation, such as its traditions and role models, the system of rewards and punishments, job design, individual performance evaluation processes, empowerment of staff for decision-making, and management restraint in emphasising short-term and purely financial results.

The catchy phrase "tone at the top" is often used to sum up what is being sought. Here, thoughts turn to the Challenger disaster in 1986, when the engineer who was a key decision-maker was unfortunately ordered to "take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat" after which he made the fatal decision to override his engineering-based concern for safety, causing the death of seven people among a large number of other undesirable results.

Additional fears about the ill-effects of codes of ethics include concerns that the organisation's code of ethics could displace individual ethical reasoning by causing individuals to follow the code instead of following their consciences, thereby supplanting individual freedom and responsibility without which no action can be said to be ethical.

Healthy debate necessitates consideration of all the above-mentioned problems. Throughout 2006, the ACS Committee for Computer Ethics is facilitating focus groups at branches of the ACS in each state, in order to collect members' views on the ACS Code of Ethics, before giving the code its 10-yearly overhaul. So, to balance the opposition raised earlier in this article, let it also be said that codes of ethics are valuable instruments which ICT professionals should include in their kit of professional tools.

By no means all surveys have produced negative results; many have collected evidence to substantiate claims that codes of ethics are effective. One of the reasons for which they are effective is that they help to establish an ethical climate - they demonstrate that the organisation is conscious of the fact that people may need to choose between right and wrong while they are at work (as well as indicating the organisation's view of which is the "right" direction).

Furthermore, official rules that clearly spell out responsibility make it less likely that individuals will "depersonalise" their actions. The results of one study showed that instances of fraud, virus invasion and other forms of sabotage are less likely when codes of conduct prohibiting these forms of abuse are made known to employees. Importantly, researchers agree that a code of ethics cannot work alone and must be accompanied by ethical training and a continuing support mechanism, provided, for example, by mentors who are available for consultation on ethical matters.

In a professional association such as the ACS, the code of ethics takes an even larger role than in other organisations: the code of ethics is central, and functions as an expression of the agreement between the members regarding the standard of professional behaviour that is expected from all, ethically speaking. The code makes it clear that professionals cannot consult private conscience alone, when deciding how to practice their profession - they must take into account what the whole community of their fellow-professionals has to say on ethical matters and ethical behaviour.

As in the case of the Challenger disaster, an individual may not be able to decide wisely alone on how to resolve a conflict of interest or other type of ethical dilemma. Reference to a professional code may clarify priorities and strengthen resolve in times of critically important ethical decision-making.

Karen Mather lectures in computer ethics at the Charles Sturt University, is associated with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, and is a member of the ACS Committee for Computer Ethics.