Fit & Proper Persons?

This is a provisional and very rough summary in English of the extensive German material on the topic. It reproduces the gist and the flavour, not the detail, nor the evidence. It also adds a little.

Preliminaries (Is it justified to pass moral judgement publicly?)
It is argued that ethics necessarily involves a willingness, given the right context, to form and express judgements on other persons and their actions, indeed, that this is part of being human. Of course, judgements are often expressed rashly and without due regard to the extensive facts of a matter. But refraining from speaking out may itself be reprehensible. Bad things happen when people who are otherwise tolerably good choose to look the other way.

The board members plus one appointee, who are named at various points in the German text, are condemned as having fallen despicably short of the conduct that was incumbent on them as officers of an association dedicated, allegedly, to the cause of business ethics. They have engaged in censorship; they have invited from members contributions which they have then entirely ignored; they have failed consistently to reply to detailed criticism, and have generally sidelined members who, in the "network", have failed to toe their line. They have, by default, prevented networking. They have failed to implement resolutions of the AGM. They have engaged in machinations and intrigues to manipulate the outcomes of discussions. They have appointed their favourites and passed over those performing the work on the ground, even while having no authority to do so.

Their motivation?
is a matter for speculation. Speculation is easy, cheap even, but the point is made that it is only when scroundrels such as these are challenged (and shamed & named) that we can hope to make progress or at least mount a rearguard action against the wanton destruction of western values.
Conceivable defences of their being misfits, overworked, or else control freaks are dealt with cursorily.

More extensive reflections
The German contains a sarcastic attack on the emphasis by dnwe in its publications on graphics at the expense of legibility for anyone with less than 100% vision. It is proposed that the association rename itself by replacing "business ethics" with "business graphics". The leading lights have been criticised for this contempt for members with a minor (let alone a serious) disability for more than a decade, but to no avail. Obviously it is not intended that the publications should actually be read. The turgid or else platitudinous nature of the texts ensures that even those whose eyesight can cope abandon the reading soon enough.

It is not entirely by chance that such inappropriate persons should have taken charge of the German chapter of EBEN. DNWE has proven to be a magnet for all the wrong types of people: consultants in need for a new word for public relations, academics keen to look learned & scholarly, and others whose entrepreneurial imaginativeness far exceeds their appreciation of ethics. It is argued that one primary task of an alternative – and then authentic – business ethics movement would be to ensure that those who "play to the game" and present themselves as committed (but have never – it would seem – actually taken a stand and risked reputation or livelihood), ... that such individuals should be challenged and, if need be, exposed.