Is corporate shaming an effective way of changing the ethics of an organisation? Is fear of shaming, or fear of the results of non-compliance, the best way of getting people to act ethically?

Not necessarily. I’ve concluded that putting the right people and structures in place, and leading people to be motivated to act ethically, works better.

I recently read Jon Ronson’s book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. It’s about the development of the online shaming movement (think Twitter and other social media), and its effect in bringing individuals to book (fairly or unfairly) for their perceived inappropriate misdemeanours.

What struck me about those shamed is that they largely disappeared from the public eye after the events. We don’t know that shaming changed their behaviour.

I was wondering about the effect of public shaming on the changed behaviour of an organisation when Gay Seidman’s article in The Conversation on 5 June 2017 came into my feed. Prof Seidman offers useful opinion about shaming in the organisational world: link

She shows the gap between the public shaming of transnational corporates – particularly those who neglect ethical behaviour among their suppliers – and long-term change in their operations:

The threat of ‘shaming’ has prompted many brands to voluntarily adopt corporate codes of conduct, promising to respect national labour laws and basic safety codes. [Or] [w]hen a scandal occurs, the threat of a consumer boycott may prompt global brands to act. But once the world’s eyes turn away, the commitment to ethical production tends to fade (emphasis mine).

Seidman suggests that disinvestment campaigns led by the communities affected by poor organisational ethics are most effective in obtaining long-term commitment to changed behaviour by those organisations:

To be truly successful, “shaming movements” must move beyond mobilising public opinion to reach a point where national governments or international agencies are forced to adopt and enforce new norms . . .

Transferring the issue to SA, key questions for me are: Who regulates changed behaviour in the long term? To underpin true ethical reform, and as a long-lasting response to corporate shaming?

I propose there should be three parties involved:

1. Groups of individuals or activists – or their equivalent within organisations
2. Lawmakers, regulators, advisors and practitioners
3. Public watchdogs keeping the spotlight on involved parties

ACTIVISTS. When I think of activists, the likes of Zackie Achmat, formerly of the Treatment Action Campaign, and the shareholder activist Theo Botha, come to mind. What an effect these tenacious men have had on social and corporate governance issues!

Imagine the impact if, within an organisation, there exist some “corporate activists” or ethical change managers who serve on the Social and Ethics Committees, both to suggest how adherence to ethical rules can be “done”, and hold the organisation to its agreed ethical path.

How powerful it would be to harness this energy inside a business or educational institution instead of having it imposed from the outside.

I suggest first steps towards achieving this include the proper constitution of the Social and Ethics Committee, with attention given to the selection of independently-minded individuals. Within small businesses or educational institutions, the ethics function can be served by an appropriate individual or grouping fulfilling the Ethics Committee function.

LAWMAKERS AND REGULATORS. As far as the ethics regulatory environment is concerned, in SA we’re fortunate to be guided by Mervyn King’s recommendations on corporate governance.

As the King reports have evolved, they’ve become clearer about what corporate governance looks like in daily organisational practice.

Within the framework of corporate law (the Companies Act), environmental law, human resources best practice, and corporate governance best practice as represented by King IV, practitioners can apply practical solutions within an organisation to grow ethical leadership and enhance capacity for ethical behaviour.

WATCHDOGS. Thirdly, we need effective non-governmental watchdogs – which can be professional associations holding their members accountable.

Any existing professional body, with reference to its own founding statement or Code of Conduct, can apply pressure on members for ethical conformance. Or associations such as Unashamedly Ethical or The Ethics Institute can serve this role.

Lastly, individual academics, ethicists and commentators have a role to play in pointing out and assessing ethical and unethical performance.