If any further proof were needed of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of DNWE Deutsches Netzwerk Wirtschaftsethik – EBEN Deutschland e.V. (EBEN = European Business Ethics Network), it was supplied this summer.

> READ ON in the easy-on-the-mobile-eyes PDF
2800 words

Here are some highlights from the report (see PDF for context and reasoning).

Again and again the officers of dnwe have exceeded their powers, silenced or discouraged alternative perspectives, and have sought to impose their will in disregard of due process .......

Cusanus submitted a motion that all members should be enabled (or indeed required) to post on the dnwe intranet at the least, if not on the public part, a meaningful statement of their personal understanding of business ethics. This would seem to be essential to an organisation that claims to be a network for business ethics, and indeed, in view of the surprisingly naive conceptions of ethics evidenced by some members, imperative. However, before this motion was discussed, if it was discussed rather than dismissed, Cusanus was excluded from the association and had to leave ........

The general drift of the motions submitted by Cusanus was to demand that the board members stop regarding dnwe as their personal fiefdom, put an end to cronyism, and start allowing critical engagement with business ethics instead of using it as a form of public relations or as a forum for their personal commercial interests. .......

When people betray confidence and go behind your back; when people insult you in — unsolicited, but allegedly “private” — e-mails; when others suppress debate and trash the contributions of those keen to engage; when networking is discouraged; when democratically taken resolutions are ignored; when courtesy has been proven to be ineffective; — then it is not only right that the culprits be exposed in no uncertain terms: it is imperative. Moral condemnation is meant to hurt. .........

There has never been any mention let alone discussion in the dnwe literature of moral growth or maturity; of moral courage, e.g. steadfastness in the face of bullying and disparagement; of resistance to group-think; scant mention of the moral autonomy of the individual within corporations; of the importance of the exercise of judgement; of discussion of when rules must be thrown to the hounds; or of when lies are imperative and truth betrayal.
Nowhere has there been talk of individual managers being blacklisted or expropriated for egregious moral failings. But then, of course, there is nowhere the thought that fake or superficial business ethicists should be called to account, and named, and shamed. .........

Before the vote, Cusanus requested that this be done by name. There was a short discussion about how proxy votes would be treated. Prof. Dr. Josef Wieland pointed out that there would then, in years to come, be a record of how the individual members present had voted. The matter was held to a show of hands. About two thirds were against standing up and being counted and named. Need more be said about the moral character – or rather, cowardice – of most of the fifty or so members of dnwe who attended the AGM? .........

Deutsches Netzwerk Wirtschaftsethik is not a network, despite its name: Networking has been discouraged. The narrow concept of business ethics that dnwe propagates is tailored to the commercial interests of its leading members. These have got themselves elected by underhand means, having resisted the obvious electoral reforms that the internet has made possible. Alternative conceptions of business ethics and critical treatment, for example, of the dnwe preference for business ethics as public relations have been suppressed. Upstanding and committed members have left, while others have declined to join, leaving a majority who evidently are lacking in moral courage and have no serious interest in ethics — except of course for what lip-service to ethics can do for their careers and doubtless their self-image. ..........

As for the present and some previous board members, there is a mindset that unites them all: They have proven arrogant and authoritarian; hypocritical and superficial. They choose to avoid dialogue. They have not only suppressed criticism but also constructive contributions. They are manipulative. Should they not be awarded a prize? The Machiavelli Prize.