2007 World’s Most Ethical Companies
Ethisphere Magazine recognizes and rewards ethical leadership and business practices worldwide
Ethics are absolute. Business ethics are relational. And ethical leadership requires a position of influence.
What does that mean? Certainly there are absolutes to business ethics, such as respecting employees and stakeholders, competing fairly and within the law, and being a responsible corporate citizen.
Companies routinely compete for recognition for their “corporate citizenship” or “best place to work” award. And predictably, a select few pharmaceutical companies, a handful of consulting and high-tech firms, and a couple of retailers appear near the top of the list.
These lists are based only upon absolutes.
Not surprisingly, the companies that appear on those lists usually are from high net margin industries that can afford to invest in self-promotion, and may have a more vested interest in the awards than other companies. For example, the consulting firm that knows it will help them in the ‘war for talent’; the pharmaceutical company that wants to blunt criticism over patent practices or high prices; or the retailer that wants to attract the higher spending ‘ethical’ demographic shopper.
Yes, many of those companies truly are ‘ethical’- but those industries represent only a minority (less than 20%) of the overall industry of global business, commerce and workforce.
What about the rest of the economy? How can we accurately examine and compare business ethics practices and leadership when we only look at a small portion of the economic landscape?
Frankly, we can’t. We need to look at the relational context.
The absolutes are the necessary grounding for a company to have strong core values to build upon. The context is the environment in which a company operates, both geographically as well as industrially.
The best lens through which to view a company’s ethical leadership behavior is to examine a company compared to other companies in the same industry. Are they leading, are they following, or are they ignoring? And to be a leader, the company needs to have or build a competitive edge, such as size or technology, which allows it to be influential.
In assembling the 2007 rankings of the World’s Most Ethical Companies, the researchers and editors of Ethisphere examined more than 5,000 companies across 30 separate industries looking for true ethical leadership.
We looked for absolutes. We examined companies in relational context of their industries. And we looked for influential leadership that moved others to change or follow.
Companies were measured in a rigorous eight-step process and then scored against nine distinct ethical leadership criteria.
Some may ask, “How can McDonald’s be on the list?” The answer is that the food service industry is the largest industry in the world- and McDonald’s has clearly stood apart in introducing
healthier food fare, sustainable packaging, food safety, and ethical purchasing practices.
The winners of the World’s Most Ethical Companies are the standouts. Each of these companies has materially higher scores versus competitors in their industries. Each forces other companies to follow its leadership or fall behind. Each uses ethical leadership as a profit driver. And each of these companies embodies the true spirit of Ethisphere’s credo: Good. Smart. Business. Profit.
METHODOLOGY
The World’s Most Ethical Companies™ (WME) methodology analyzes companies that go beyond making statements about doing doing business ‘ethically,’ to translate those words into action. WME winners demonstrate real and sustained ethical leadership within their industries, putting the Council’s credo of “Good. Smart. Business. Profit.” into real business practice.
The Eight-Step Process of Collecting and Screening Information
To gather the necessary information to measure industry leaderships against the nine criteria, Ethisphere researchers and editors screened thousands of companies across the globe through a rigorous, multi-step process. The eight separate and sequential analysis conducted were:
- Litigation and controversy/conflict analysis
- Ethical tone analysis
- Innovation and industry leadership analysis
- Corporate citizenship analysis
- Pan-industry effort participation anlysis
- Governance and transparency analysis
- Public and trade partner perception analysis
- Ethics/compliance programs and systems analysis
Steps 1-6 narrowed the candidates to a select few per industry (Award Finalists), which were then notified of their candidacy.
Step 7 consisted of examining outside ethics stakeholder’s reputation and perception of each of the finalists companies. This includes sending ethics audit letters to customers and suppliers, and getting input and opinions from nearly two dozen NGOs and Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) firms.
The final Step 8 involved analyzing the company’s internal ethics and compliance systems. This involved tapping into Ethisphere’s database of information on thousands of corporations’ compliance and ethics programs, as well as having direct dialogue and surveys with the leadership of Award Finalist organizations. Step 8 is a critically important examination of how effectively each finalist company drives an internal cultural commitment to ethics and compliance, and how that commitment may benefit their business.
The Final Ranking and Scoring of the World’s Most Ethical Companies
Once all the necessary information was collected, the companies were scored relative to industry peers on nine separate criteria. The analysis was segmented into 30 separate industries based on SIC Codes and given weighted scores for the nine criteria shown in the chart.
Within each industry, the companies that had a materially higher aggregate score compared to their competitors were designated as the year’s World’s Most Ethical Companies.
2007 RANKINGS
//Click image to enlarge
SPOTLIGHT ON SELECTED WINNERS
Perry Minnis is the Director of Global Ethics & Compliance for Alcoa, a metals and mining company with over 120,000 employees in 44 countries. Minnis, who started with Alcoa in finance 39 years ago, runs the Global Ethics & Compliance department to track metrics and determine if the company has a positive impact on the community. According to Minnis, “Our management has a very strong focus on safety. Alcoa is considered to be one of the safest corporations in the world.” The company’s Ethics and Compliance Council, which includes the CEO, vice presidents, and department directors, was formed in order to notify all executives of the latest in operations. The Council presents findings to the Board on a quarterly basis.
Minnis told us that Alcoa’s Code of Conduct has been condensed to apply to specific roles and translated into different languages in order to make it an effective tool for all employees. The Code is also provided to suppliers, so they understand Alcoa’s expectations and policies. “If a vendor’s values or policies differ drastically from Alcoa, chances are they won’t be doing business with us,” emphasizes Minnis. He continues, “The most important thing is our values. We have a set of values and policies that is consistent across the company, and we train all employees to adhere to and uphold those values.”
Sandy Cutler, CEO of Eaton Corporation, spoke in great detail about the basic beliefs that make Eaton a value-based company. These core values have allowed Eaton to maintain a strong foundation and sense of stability during recent internal changes and mergers. Rather than approaching ethics as a compliance issue, Cutler believes, “It’s about doing business right through internal philosophies and customer commitments. We’ll lose business before we will compromise our values.”
Eaton employs 61,000 people in 125 countries, and almost all of their products target helping people and companies effectively use energy. For example, Eaton developed a technology with the EPA for UPS, that allowed the shipping company to save 70% in fuel economy. Additionally, Eaton developed a hybrid electric bus technology for possible use during the Beijing Olympics.
Eaton places high value on contributions in the workplace and community, believing they are key components for doing business right. “People will work where the company and the community involvement values reflect their own,” insists Cutler. Every employee at Eaton has the opportunity to raise questions if they believe their personal morals are at risk. If a company is committed to doing business ethically, “you can cut the top off and the bottom would keep working,” maintains Cutler.
When we spoke to Knight Kiplinger about the company his grandfather started, his pride, dedication and passion was obvious. When Kiplinger speaks about the ethical culture of the company, he emphasizes that they “go the extra mile for their clients and their employees.” Founder W.M. Kiplinger, a social liberal and economic conservative of the 1920s, believed in communal capitalism within his company and shared his success with his employees by giving company stock to employees, among other great benefits.
Like many publishers today, Kiplinger is facing tougher times, but believes that “in the more difficult of times, the belt tightening should start at the top rather than at the bottom.” Setting the ethical tone at the top, Kiplinger maintains the idea that “we are all in this together” by freezing executive bonuses instead of cutting jobs. “It’s easy for a company to act generously and ethically during boon times. It’s when difficult times come that you see how a company truly is.”
Maintaining trust with non-employee family shareholders is also of great importance to Kiplinger. “Our company is a model of how to deal ethically with family members that don’t work in the business but have a stake within the business,” says Kiplinger. In the midst of maintaining company stability and sustainability, Kiplinger upholds its responsibility to its readers and will oftentimes reject ads that are of little or no value to its readers.
We spoke with Brackett Denniston, General Counsel for General Electric about creating an ethical culture and maintaining strong compliance programs. Denniston believes “a good company thinks about its human side,” and how people are impacted by business practices. To answer the needs of employees and communities, GE is active in organizations like NAFTA and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and is a founder of Transparency International, a global society that fights the impact of corruption on people worldwide. “You have to act like a leader, be a leader, and be aware of the impact of your actions and how they affect hundreds of thousands of people,” says Denniston.
GE dates back to 1892 and carefully considers the social impact of its products and operations on the communities in which it operates. From jet engines to household appliances and financial services to plastics, General Electric is dedicated to converting ideas into leading products to help solve the world’s challenges. Compliance and governance challenges are equally important to GE and remain non-negotiable aspects of operations. “A strong compliance practice begins with the basics of incorporating good citizenship into the company culture,” says Denniston.
When we spoke to Neil Nyberg, VP of Ethics & Compliance and Gary Pilnick, General Counsel for Kellogg’s, they declared,
“W.K. Kellogg believed in doing things the right way and built this company on integrity.” In business for 100 years, Kellogg’s has taken pride in its ethics and compliance program known as “K Values.” According to Pilnick, “It starts with the values, which guide behavior and ethical choices.”
Founder W.K. Kellogg wanted to do good things for people, starting with nutrition and the environment, and began promoting environmentally-friendly processes by producing the first boxes of cereal in recycled packaging in 1906. Today, Kellogg’s uses 100% recycled packaging. In addition, Kellogg’s created a Social Responsibility Committee in 1979 that now deals with environmental concerns, health & safety, addiction and abuse, and other issues that impact employees and communities.
According to Nyberg, culture and diversity truly matter. “We see ourselves as role models. Our commitment to ethics is absolutely non-negotiable.” Kellogg’s recently received an award from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for diversity in compliance and ethics. Kellogg’s is also the 2007 national sponsor for Race for the Cure, and has a comprehensive program for United Way’s Days of Caring, in which the entire company donates time. “You can tell in the eyes of the employees that it is a great reminder of what we have and how lucky we are,” says Nyberg.
In business for 170 years, John Deere prides itself on enabling “human flourishing.” With core values of integrity, quality, innovation and commitment, the company provides advanced products and services for agriculture, forestry, construction and landscaping, as well as manufacturing engines for use in heavy equipment. James R. Jenkins, Senior VP and General Counsel for Deere & Company, told us “John Deere fully recognizes the need to conduct business with integrity. Our broad approach to citizenship, coupled with market leadership, helps us improve the world while growing a business.”
Deere believes in creating and distributing service in ways that respect the earth’s limited resources while providing safe and healthy workplaces to help employees develop to their full potential. Deere continually reinforces its commitment to helping find policy solutions that benefit the environment. “We believe that effective policy to address global climate change must include development and support of renewable energy sources including agricultural, forestry, wind and bio-technologies, as well as processing and distribution improvements,” says Jenkins.
With a passionate commitment to doing what is right and operating ethically, John Deere makes their conduct guidelines transparent to employees, customers, and suppliers. Acting out of principled, long-term self-interest, Deere contributes to the greater good by supporting the quality of life in their communities, protecting the environment and preserving precious resources. According to Jenkins, “We believe that exceptional performance will not be sustainable if it is at the expense of our values.”
Print This Post
I was so excited to find what seemed like a reputable list of “ethical” companies - till I read who was on the list! Royal Dutch/Shell? I think the relatives of murdered Nigerians might dispute that. Kellog? They topped the ethical OFFENDERS list published by the Consumers International World Congress in 2007. Nike? Sweatshops - need I say more? GE? Where do we start - nuclear weapons (http://www.newday.com/films/DeadlyDeception.html), or preying on the vulnerable with GE Money’s low doc loans? Alcoa? Deplorable polluters.
Your “ethical” assessment is so bad, it’s actually deceptive. You’re either utterly disconnected from what real “ethics” means, or you’re a cleverly-disguised front for transnational greenwash.
It is unfortunate that many of the critics of Wegman’s, Alcoa, GE, Nike and the like simply do not seem capable of balancing the needs of the world’s economies with business realities. No one company will weather a perfect storm of economic performance pressures from stakeholders, and societal needs and interests. It is impossible to cite all the factors that weigh in to the decisions being made, but one thing is clear: one man’s trash is another’s treasure, and it’s how you can turn adverse business conditions into good social impact that really counts. I think that Ethisphere has done a remarkable job in sorting through the trash to find the treasures in a huge heap of self promotion, recognizing them for what they are. While I don’t condone sweatshops, or environmental irresponsibility, those organizations that go beyond the local legal minimums to ensure localized positive social impact should be recognized. Flawed methodology? Maybe. But to err is human.
I have to say, while I’m not a big fan of the research itself, the fact that you allow for this running commentary by online readers really says a lot about your integrity, or at the very least, you’re willingness to receive open comments, critiques, and feedback. I really appreciate this aspect of your work and hope you continue to provide this kind of discussion venue with your upcoming rankings. It makes for some thought-provoking material.
You guys are a bunch of mean people that dont know how to be peace bulider
I’ve been working on the Garments Without Guilt campaign, and from all of my research, I absolutely agree with your inclusion of Nike and Gap in your apparel section. Thought Gap continues to find instances where their suppliers have tried to cut corners, I truly believe that they do their best to avoid incidents and make changes when they’re brought to their attention. This is why it’s so important for consumers and the media to continue these discussions–it makes a difference! Go to http://www.garmentswithoutguilt.com to find out more and help support those companies that care enough to change the way they do business. Thanks!
Wegmans? Ethical? I had to check to make sure you didn’t have “Un-” in the title.
Wegmans raised chickens in battery cages. See http://www.wegmanscruelty.com. When they got too much criticism for the cruelty after an activist filmed the atrocities, they sold it to someone else who still sells them the eggs, and Wegmans still support battery cages. So it’s only a “convenience” that they no longer “own” the facility and can be declared “ethical”. By the way, Wayne County Probation had recommended only community service for the filmmaker, but he was handed the maximum sentence for his misdemeanor charges because the Wegmans insisted. As for Wegmans’ cattle - animal agriculture is bad for the environment, it aggravates global hunger, it brutalizes animals and compromises our health. The number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture. Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together.
What next? Maybe McDonald’s, or Exxon Mobil? Perhaps De Beers …
Your naming Baxter makes me question your research.
Interesting to see Google on here. Seems in conflict with the results of a report from Privacy International that named Google at the bottom of the barrel and described them as being “hostile to privacy”. Doesn’t sound too ethical to me… (details for those interested: privacyinternational.org)
If you work on the premise that only multinationals, which is what this list seems to be comprised of, were considered for the “Worlds Most Ethical Companies” then maybe their picks make sense. Hate to generalize, but having worked in an international acccounting firm and currently working at one of the largest insurance companies in the world, I can say with confidence that ethics initiatives in large corporations are implemented only to the extent necessary for Executive Management to tell everyone they are “serious about ethics”. So, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest rating), maybe the winners listed above WERE the outstanding companies with solid ratings of 2. My friends, we live in bad times.
Living out environment out of the ehtical cryterior means this is not trully ethical list! It some kind of promotion for big guys buy big guys companies. Am not taking any of this seriously!
Peace
Arek
please send me a list of the companies included in your research, and details on the winners of the “apparel” section.
or a link to where i can find all the information on the web
thank you
To me ethical is ethical if you are not ethical for all things then clearly you are not ethical. Looking at these comments it seem that this is a PR stunt that has no postion in ethics. Cant you here the expression of upset these comments pose. clearly your research is flawed.
Official Ethisphere Response to Mitch Gold:
The substance of your thinking about ethics is clearly faulty. Those identifying global standards to achieve Sustainability, and Corporate Social Responsibility encourage the use of Triple Bottom Line Accounting (as a minimum) and generally includes the aspects of the Four E’s = Economics, Energy (efficiency), Ethics (Equity), and Education. Your models do not consider the MDG’s, the UN Global Compact, or the Earth Charter as principled documents. Where is the ethics in that?
Mitch Gold, homeplanet.org
Ethisphere Response: In actuality, the WME CSR and Citizenship analysis does take into account Triple Bottom Line adoption, GRI Reporting Guidelines use, adherence to ISO14001, SA8000, involvement with the UN Global Compact, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Economic Forum. In fact, we go beyond memberships, certifications and the Davos speeches and look into a host of other criteria including environmental protection record, local community involvement, product innovation that contributes to public well-being, supplier diversity and supplier conduct, etc.
Official Ethisphere Response to Andrew Kay:
There’s clearly some limit on company size here (either a priori or as a result of the method used) — I find it hard to believe that there aren’t millions of tiny companies more ethical than all of these. Therefore it is important to know which companies were in the original 5000 and therefore deemed “less ethical,†rather than just “not considered.â€
Andrew Kay
Ethisphere Response: The issue with small companies is that many of them are private and therefore less visible or transparent. Many small companies were not considered for this reason, as we could not obtain adequate information about them to validate our methodology.
As an independent for Arbonne Int’l., I am disappointed our company did not make your list. Arbonne is an American-based skincare/health & wellness company owned by Harvest Partners, the same private-equity firm that owns Whole Foods, which, wonderfully, DID make your list. Arbonne is a 27-year-old company featuring Swiss-formulated products that have always been manufactured in Irvine, CA.
Our CEO, Bob Henry, who joined the company in 2004, won the Ernst & Young award “Entrepreneur of the Year” in 2005. Our president, Rita Davenport, who has been with Arbonne since 1990, is in the American Television Broadcasters Hall of Fame for her previous career as a television interviewer/personality in Phoenix.
The above attributes are all well and good, but the true beauty behind Arbonne is the great heart of this company. Yes, Arbonne is a Network Marketing company, much in the same vein as Avon or Amway, but I have come to find the company’s ongoing training programs, compensation plan, and bonus/rewards program are unparalled in this industry, possibly in ANY industry.
Just last February, Arbonne and its consultants raised $250K for Rita’s favorite charity, Sojourner House in Phoenix, a battered women’s shelter which offers both refuge and job training.
In today’s uncertain marketplace of dwindling 401Ks, non-existent pensions, and major downsizing, Arbonne offers people hope for their futures. Thousands of women and men have changed their lives for the better because of their affiliation with Arbonne. Those previously living paycheck to paycheck and/or drowning in debt, have realized financial freedom and greater financial security through Arbonne.
The compensation plan also includes a white Mercedes for those who reach the Regional Vice-President level. There are over 200 Arbonne white Mercedes in Oklahoma alone! Quite a nice trophy for hard work and determination.
To quote Rita Davenport: “Arbonne is a personal development company wrapped around a personal skincare, health & wellness company.”
All these perks would mean nothing, however, without Arbonne’s extreme integrity and ethical stance towards its product formulations. Our company motto “Pure. Safe. Beneficial.” could not be more accurate. You will find no animal by-products or mineral oil (a near-toxic preservative) in Arbonne’s products. All our products are based on botanical formulations. Arbonne has never tested on animals, even before it became cachet not to do so.
So, for next year’s “Most Ethical Companies” list, I feel strongly you should look into Arbonne. Not only do our products work (the anti-aging line is unparalled), but we are growing at the unheard of average rate of about 112% per year! And we’re doing it by leading the pack in sheer excellence in all your areas of criteria.
Note: I am not with the corporate office or some hired hand to promote Arbonne. I am simply an independent consultant who, like so many others, have hope again in my life because a complete stranger offered to share this wonderful company with me. That stranger is now my sponsor and together we will build a networking team that benefits everyone who grabs the “Gift of Arbonne” and runs with it.
Thank you for allowing my comments. For more info. on Arbonne, I suggest going to the website at http://www.arbonne.com. Click on the ‘Arbonne = REsults’ button to get a quick overview of the company: its products and its people.
Sincerely,
Shannon Mantrom
Independent Consultant
Plano, TX
(972) 693-0954
I guess you feel “business as usual” , translate unethical practices now constitute fair corporate policy? I’ve personally worked for 2 of the above companies and believe me, their dirtier than the scum they suck on. Your list is as good as garbage and you obviously have been easily swayed to write this puff piece for the usual greasing the PR wheel. You make me sick. Especially for putting this an ‘ethical news’ website, to give it a semblance of dignity. Pathetic.
Please check your facts before you write a comment. Wegmans has commented on its handling of the birds: http://www.wegmans.com/meb/columns/032605.asp. It sounds like they are willing to go the extra step to ensure reasonable handling of the birds.
Perhaps people should be also lobbying the federal government to have standards for how egg-laying hens are treated. According to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/05/05/18211371.php, there aren’t any, and Wegmans brought in an un-paid veterinarian as well as a paid expert professor from the University of California at Davis to receive advice.
Also, for instance, take a look at Wegmans Angus beef which has no hormones from birth, no antibiotics from birth, and environmentally friendly grazing. (http://www.wegmans.com/kitchen/ingredients/meat/byfga.asp).
GE?? come on!! the most unethical company there is. Maybe not to the customers but surely to its channel partners.
The substance of your thinking about ethics is clearly faulty. Those identifying global standards to achieve Sustainability, and Corporate Social Responsibility encourage the use of Triple Bottom Line Accounting (as a minimum) and generally includes the aspects of the FOur E’s = Economics, Energy (efficiency) Ethics (Equity), and (H)ealth. Your models do not consider the MDG’s, the UN GLobal COmpact, or the Earth Charter as principled documents. Where is the Ethics in that?
You’ve got Royal Dutch/Shell on your list??!! A company that got the Nigerian government to hang Ken Sarawiwa and seven other people for protesting what Royal Dutch/Shell was doing in Nigeria — especially to the indigenous Ogoni people (taking out oil and giving the people no compensation for it; polluting the entire Niger Delta, so the Ogoni couldn’t grow crops anymore; etc.) That, to you, is an ETHICAL COMPANY?! Are you completely out of your minds??!!
Who put this list together? Are you sure you are not missing an “un” in the title?
I mean, Nike?? Please.
Seems to me you’ve got a problem with Whole Foods, inasmuch as its CEP has admittied to anonymous web postings on the net for years, wherein he touted his company and took jabs at a rival.
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN1725360820070717?feedType=RSS&rpc=23&sp=true
please be ethical yourselves: REMOVE WEGMANS FROM YOUR LIST.
WEGMANS IS NOT ETHICAL TO ANIMALS… THEY HAVE NOT RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF THEIR EGG PRODUCTION FACILITY BEING CRUEL TO CHICKENS….IT IS DISTURBING AND DISGUSTING AND I CAN NO LONGER EAT ANY DAIRY PRODUCTS BECAUSE OF WHAT I READ AND SAW. PPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEE INVESTIGATE AND REPORT THIS ON YOUR SITE. ITS OK TO TAKE IT BACK!!!!!!
It is ironic that one of your most “ethical” companies considers bigotry one of their pillars of operation. UPS has decided to violate NJ State Law and withhold domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian employees. NJ state law says, “Civil union couples shall have all of the same benefits ….as are granted to spouses in a marriage.” That’s simple and plain English.
But UPS says, “New Jersey law does not treat civil unitons the same as marriages.” This has shocked the writers of the law.
So much for Ethical Conduct. Bigotry and refusal to follow the law is NOT a sign of ethical behaviour.
What a joke that Wegmans made this list! See the film Wegmans Cruelty at http://wegmanscruelty.com for why they should be removed!
Thank you for providing this report with your extensive research. The article mentions 30 industries. I counted 29 in the list. Am I missing something? Thank you.
You should be able to zoom in each of the Worlds Most Ethical images. If you are still having an issue, please email us(support at ethisphere.com) and let us know what browser you are using, so that we can resolve the issue. Thanks! - The Ethisphere Team
The image that shows the complete list of ethical companies is hardly readable. Please include the names of the companies in text form in your article.
Please could you send me a list of the most ethical companies and explain why environment has been left of the assessment criteria.
Alcoa is part of your “most ethical” companies??? Does anyone take this seriously! At the very least, an “environmental ethic” should be part of your criteria, and that alone would rule out Alcoa, and probably many other companies on this list.
I think a report like this is important. Hopefully, it will help all companies to improve their ethics. I think the analysis process is very well done. I also would like a list of all the companies.
Please send me a list of all the companies on your most ethical companies list.
May I have a list of all the companies on your most ethical companies list. I understand Newmont Mining was one recepient. What was your analysis of the company? Thanks
Not impressed with the research this list appears to represent.
IKEA is well known as a scummy tax dodge by a wealthy family.
This, from wikipedia, is typical reportage:
“The central purpose of IKEA’s intricate corporate structure appears to be tax avoidance. By funneling its profits through a nonprofit foundation and through a string of shell corporations in various tax havens, IKEA drastically reduces the tax burden it would face with a more straightforward corporate organization.”
I note that some of the IT companies are involved in work around Digital Restrictions Management, which is a highly controversial topic. Allthough it has some uses that may be defendable, I would say that the majority of innovators regard DRM as a very serious threat to freedom of expression. Has this controversy been considered?
I tend to agree with Andrew. Not only the size of the company but to me it seems that the geographical location of the companies also matter in deciding the so called “ETHICAL” companies of the world. Does all the companies irrespective of geography, size, industry etc are included in the initial list, if yes, can it be published? If no, why not?
HOW DOES “BAD”ness (BAD COMPANIES) come into the sphere of “deserving”, in the
competition for ETHICAL’NESS awards? That ’sounds’ like a dichotomy. This has no doubt been hashed out and there is a ‘good’ explanatin.
Who funds you?
Take a look at these links to find out about the sweatshops ALCOA run in Mexico and Honduras.
http://www.cfomaquiladoras.org/english%20site/alcoaprincipal.en.html
http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=237
http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=278
http://www.nlcnet.org/reports.php?id=277
Alcoa are responsible for the destruction of a huge swathe of Europe’s last remaining wilderness, are building an aluminium smelter in Trinidad and Tobago despite the strong objections of the local population, and has a horrific record of environmental pollution. I was understandably puzzled about what they were doing at the top of a “Most ethical companies” list until I read the blurb which explained that in today’s equal opportunities world, bad companies deserve ethical awards as well as good ones.
There’s clearly some limit on company size here (either a priori or as a result of the method used) — I find it hard to believe that there aren’t millions of tiny companies more ethical than all of these. Therefore it is important to know which companies were in the original 5000 and therefore deemed ‘less ethical’, rather than just ‘not considered’.