Now and again an event comes along that sharply rattles the moral kaleidoscope. Last week that happened in Europe. The European Commission’s decision to resign, en bloc, sends all sorts of signals. One of the strongest is that there’s been a profound shift in attitudes about the importance of ethics in European public life.
That’s no small point. For years, Europeans have stereotyped Americans as prissy puritans whose calls for moral probity were wildly unrealistic. Americans, for their part, have viewed Europeans as hopelessly cynical, cheerfully willing to abandon ethical standards whenever it served their purposes.
Never mind that plenty of individual Europeans have the highest sense of integrity — and that more than a few Americans are rank hypocrites. Despite that, the stereotypes keep getting reinforced. As a journalist writing from London in the late 1970s, I regularly encountered Continentals who chuckled in disbelief that Americans had actually removed President Nixon from office for something as trivial as Watergate. Were we naïve to the ways of the world? Didn’t we know that politicians always did such things?
Similar views reigned among European business executives. In those years, they were rubbing their hands in glee over the passage of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That law, making it illegal for Americans to bribe foreign officials, took one of Europe’s fiercest competitors out of the running for thousands of overseas contracts, which typically went to the highest briber. Didn’t we get it about how business really got transacted? Why were we so stuffy about greasing a few palms?
Twenty years later, it’s a whole new pattern.
Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development finally put in force regulations that will ultimately prohibit international bribery in all 29 member nations, among which are the leading European countries. The model: the same U.S. law that once made them laugh.
And last week, when all 20 members of the European Commission resigned after a 144-page report detailed fraud, nepotism, and gross dereliction of responsibility in running the $100-billion operations of the European Union, it became even clearer that ethics was moving to the fore in Europe.
The report of the investigating committee, released March 15, blasted the Commission for failing to squelch corruption in some parts of the vast bureaucracy it oversees. True, the report did not accuse individual commissioners of enriching themselves, a la the International Olympic Committee. Nor did it accuse them of doing specifically illegal things. This indictment was not criminal but ethical. It zeroed in on a single core value: responsibility.
“The responsibility of individual Commissioners,” wrote the investigators in their summary, “or of the Commission as a body, cannot be a vague idea, a concept which in practice proves unrealistic. . . . The studies carried out by the [investigating] Committee have too often revealed a growing reluctance among the members of the hierarchy to acknowledge their responsibility. It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility. However, that sense of responsibility is essential. It must be demonstrated, first and foremost, by the Commissioners individually and the Commission as a body. The temptation to deprive the concept of responsibility of all substance is a dangerous one. That concept is the ultimate manifestation of democracy.”
Useful, ringing words — not only for political entities, but for business as well. How? Well, for “Commissioner,” try reading “member of my corporation’s board of directors.” For “responsibility,” read “ethical obligation.”
Twenty years ago, you can imagine a board of directors, particularly in Europe, laughing up its sleeve, stiffening its resolve, and plowing ahead in wholesale disregard of such allegations. Don’t people know that business, and bureaucracy, has nothing to do with ethics? Don’t they appreciate that we’re working hard to do their business, and that sometimes it’s more efficient to slide around the rules?
Not anymore. The baldly critical centerpiece of this argument — “It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility” — reverberated too strongly to be resisted. Against that kind of condemnation, even hardened Eurocrats faltered. They must have sensed that someone had shaken the kaleidoscope, and that the familiar old design had disappeared.
Funny things, kaleidoscopes. Once a pattern is lost, you can’t ever reconstruct it. There’s no going back. Which is why this may have been such a big week for European ethics.
(c)1999 by Rushworth M. Kidder