The Shredder Ate My Culture Report: Five Questions the Barclays Board Should Have Asked

By Donna Boehme
Corporate Compliance Insights
Originally published on February 13, 2013


It’s been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad few weeks for Barclays.   Despite tough talk last month by new CEO Antony Jenkins about “Five New Values” (inviting any of its 140,000 employees who don’t want to sign up to head for the exits), the bad news just keeps on coming for the embattled firm.  And the latest round involves a shredder.

Last week’s headlines of “Shreddergate” and “Qatargate” spelled out the bank’s latest troubles.  In the former, Andrew Tinney, the chief operating officer of the bank’s high-end investment division, commissioned a “workplace culture report” from an outside consultancy, but was so horrified by its contents that he shredded the report on the spot at his Surrey estate and then, according to media reports,  “denied all knowledge of it ever having existed.” Neat trick, until an anonymous internal whistleblower emailed Jenkins a hint about the mysterious culture report.   Add to this the latest revelations about a Qatari cash injection at the height of the financial crisis that may have been funded by the bank itself, which means the bank may have lied to UK regulators.

Mind you, this is after an annus horribilis in which Barclays was hit by a half a billion dollar fine for its part in manipulating LIBOR, lost its Chairman, CEO and COO in quick succession, and saw its credit rating lowered by Moody’s from “stable” to “negative.”  The scandal ripples from that debacle continues, as the firm has just announced the exit of two more top execs: its finance chief and general counsel.

The entire article is here.

The Role of Health Professionals in Detainee Interrogation

A teenager tortured at Guantanamo, and the stalled legislation to ensure clinicians "first, do no harm"

By Santiago Wills
The Atlantic
Originally published November 11, 2012

Here is one excerpt:

In the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ever since leaked reports and testimonies -- including that of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, currently on trial in Guantanamo -- were published in 2004, the issue has attracted the attention of the media, health organizations, and political activists. Psychologists and doctors have clashed with their peers and with the Department of Defense over the role that health professionals should play in interrogations, given their oath to "do no harm." The Senate Judiciary Committee and numerous military investigations have confirmed that physicians and clinicians played a significant role during so-called enhanced interrogations, either through reverse engineering of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program, or through monitoring and assisting in CIA black sites and prisons like Bagram and Guantanamo.

Recently, that conflict reached politicians in Albany, New York. This year, State Senator Thomas Duane and Assembly Member Richard Gottfried sponsored a unique piece of legislation that establishes sanctions (including license removal) for state-licensed health professionals who participate in torture or improper treatment of prisoners.

"The bill presents an opportunity to fill a gap in state law on the regulation of health professionals that desperately needs to be filled," Leonard Rubenstein, the former president of Physicians for Human Rights -- an independent organization that fights human rights violations all around the world -- said in a public forum. "Almost everyone agrees that the idea that health professionals can participate in abuse of detainees and prisoners is indefensible. If that is the case, it is also indefensible to exclude such acts from state law on licensing and regulation of health professionals."

The entire story is here.

Is Lab Safety An Ethical Issue?

By Jane Robbins
Inside Higher Ed
Originally published October 24, 2012


This week’s post is in response to an issue raised via the confidential post box.  The questioner wondered, as one of two principle questions, whether laboratory safety fell into the category of an ethical issue.

The short answer is yes. Safety is, in fact, often referred to, in organizational terms, as a “terminal value”; most airlines, for example, would say that safety is their primary terminal value: something closely tied to their mission-critical goal of getting people and cargo entrusted to them from point A to point B. Such terminal values translate into rules of conduct that become a matter of duty in practical, everyday terms:  for airlines, all the safety checks to the plane, pilots’ autonomy in the cockpit to abort, the security procedures, the flight attendant demonstrations and cross-checks, and so on. Without safety and a record of safety, there would be no business, no ability to fulfill the mission. So operationally it is sometimes said that such procedures are instrumental to supporting the terminal value -- indeed, to the very raison d’être of an organization.

In supporting mission in a particular way, safety, in theory and practice, is normative at its core. Lab safety, like airline safety, can be thought of in the stakeholder terms that airline safety procedures reflect. Beyond excellence at, say, flying or a conducting a particular type of research, there is recognition that the very act or process of flying or running a lab affects others.  So here we see how much relational context (internal to external); rights and obligations; and consequences enter into thinking about what is an ethical issue or not. Each lab might analyze their stakeholders differently, but at a minimum they likely include funders; scientists, technicians, students, administrators, custodians, and other lab workers; and the potential users of the lab’s outputs, such as patients, industrial firms, or consumers.

The entire blog post is here.

The Contribution of Philosophy and Psychology in the Ethical Decision Making Process

Ethical D Making

This article can be found in the public domain here.