iTWire
Chrysler is set to unveil the UConnect Web System on Thursday, and rolled into production vehicles next year. Turning a car into a moving broadband WiFi hotspot it will enable Internet access direct from the dash. With support from Microsoft, the system could see speedy success.

OK, so in car technology is a hot potato at the moment and it's easy to get over excited about relatively straightforward developments. The Microsoft powered Sync system which brings voice activated iPod and mobile phone integration into new Fords being one such over hyped example.

However, with the forthcoming announcement from Chrysler we may have a 21st Century automotive technological advance worth shouting about. The UConnect Web System promises to deliver instant Internet access on the move courtesy of combined 3G mobile and standard WiFi connectivity.

Expected to be available on 2009 Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge models, the in-vehicle wireless Internet connectivity is as advanced as they come. In effect it will provide all the convenience of a fully functional WiFi hotspot wherever you want it, wherever your car happens to be.

With broadband in the dash, it will be possible to make high speed data transfers while driving at high speed. In theory at least. How the system copes with connectivity stability remains to be seen, but considering that trains here in the UK can provide a stable Internet connection at speeds of up to 125mph it should be perfectly possible.

Chrysler reckons that its rolling WiFi hotspot technology will bring the ability for your passengers to check email, download music and even play games on the move. The driver can join in, of course, when the vehicle has parked up safely.

(1) comments

Wall Street Journal

Companies spend huge amounts of money to be 'socially responsible.' Do consumers reward them for it? And how much?

By REMI TRUDEL AND JUNE COTTE May 12, 2008

For corporations, social responsibility has become a big business. Companies spend billions of dollars doing good works -- everything from boosting diversity in their ranks to developing eco-friendly technology -- and then trumpeting those efforts to the public.
But does it pay off?

Do companies need to tread carefully to avoid a backlash from overhyping their ethical credentials? June Cotte speaks with the Journal's Erin White.

Many companies hope consumers will pay a premium for products made with higher ethical standards. But most companies plunge in without testing that assumption or some other crucial questions. Will buyers actually reward good corporate behavior by paying more for products -- and will they punish irresponsible behavior by paying less? If so, how much? And just how far does a company really need to go to win people over?

To find out, we conducted a series of experiments. We showed consumers the same products -- coffee and T-shirts -- but told one group the items had been made using high ethical standards and another group that low standards had been used. A control group got no information.

In all of our tests, consumers were willing to pay a slight premium for the ethically made goods. But they went much further in the other direction: They would buy unethically made products only at a steep discount.

What's more, consumer attitudes played a big part in shaping those results. People with high standards for corporate behavior rewarded the ethical companies with bigger premiums and punished the unethical ones with bigger discounts.

Finally, we discovered that companies don't necessarily need to go all-out with social responsibility to win over consumers. If a company invests in even a small degree of ethical production, buyers will reward it just as much as a company that goes much further in its efforts.

Below, we'll look at these tests in more detail. But first, a definition -- and a caveat.
For our purposes, "ethically produced" goods are those manufactured under three conditions. First, the company is considered to have progressive stakeholder relations, such as a commitment to diversity in hiring and consumer safety. Second, it must follow progressive environmental practices, such as using eco-friendly technology. Finally, it must be seen to demonstrate respect for human rights -- no child labor or forced labor in overseas factories, for instance.

GOOD BUSINESS?

• The Question: Companies spend billions of dollars doing good works -- such as developing eco-friendly technology -- and then trumpeting them to the public. But does it pay off?
• The Test: In a series of experiments, consumers were shown the same products -- coffee and T-shirts -- but one group was told the items had been made using high ethical standards and another group that low standards had been used.
• The Result: Consumers are willing to pay a small premium for ethically produced goods. But they'll punish an unethically made product even more harshly, by buying it only at a steep discount.

Now the warning, which may not come as much of a surprise. Even though we think ethical production can lead to higher sales, not all consumers will be won over by the efforts. Some may prefer a lower price even if they know a product is made unethically.

With that in mind, here's a closer look at our results.

HOW MUCH ARE ETHICS WORTH?
Our first experiment asked two questions. How much more will people pay for an ethically produced product? And how much less are they willing to spend for one they think is unethical?

To test these questions, we gathered a random group of 97 adult coffee drinkers and asked them how much they would pay for a pound of beans from a certain company. We used a brand that's not available in North America, so none of the participants would be familiar with it.

But before the people answered, we asked them to read some information about the company's production standards. One group got positive ethical information, and one group negative; the control group got neutral information, similar to what shoppers would typically know in a store.
After reading about the company and its coffee, the people told us the price they were willing to pay on an 11-point scale, from $5 to $15. The results? The mean price for the ethical group ($9.71 per pound) was significantly higher than that of the control group ($8.31) or the unethical group ($5.89).

Meanwhile, as the numbers show, the unethical group was demanding to pay significantly less for the product than the control group. In fact, the unethical group punished the coffee company's bad behavior more than the ethical group rewarded its good behavior. The unethical group's mean price was $2.42 below the control group's, while the ethical group's mean price was $1.40 above. So, negative information had almost twice the impact of positive information on the participants' willingness to pay.

For companies, the implications of this study -- albeit limited -- are apparent. Efforts to move toward ethical production, and promote that behavior, appear to be a wise investment. In other words, if you act in a socially responsible manner, and advertise that fact, you may be able to charge slightly more for your products.

On the other hand, it appears to be even more important to stay away from goods that are unethically produced. Consumers may still purchase your products, but only at a substantial discount.

REWARD AND PUNISHMENT
What consumers were willing to pay for a pound of coffee based on what they were told about the company's production standards

• Ethical standards . . . . . . . . . . . $9.71
• Unethical standards . . . . . . . . . $5.89
• Control (no information) . . . . . $8.31

Source: Remi Trudel and June Cotte

A MATTER OF DEGREE

How much consumers were willing to pay for all-cotton T-shirts based on what they were told about the proportion of ethical production

• 100% organic cotton . . . . . . . $21.21
• 50% organic cotton . . . . . . . . .$20.44
• 25% organic cotton . . . . . . . . .$20.72
• Unethical behavior* . . . . . . . . $17.33
• Control (no information) . . . . $20.04

*Production harms environment

ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT

Consumers with high ethical expectations of companies doled out bigger rewards and punishments than consumers with low expectations. What each group was willing to pay for a pound of coffee based on production standards:

Consumers with high expectations:

• Ethical standards . . . . . . . . . . $11.59
• Unethical standards . . . . . . . $6.92

Consumers with low expectations:

• Ethical standards . . . . . . . . . . $9.90
• Unethical standards . . . . . . . .$8.44

HOW ETHICAL DO YOU NEED TO BE?

Our next test looked at degrees of ethical behavior. For instance, are consumers willing to pay more for a product that is 100% ethically produced versus one that is 50% or 25% ethically produced?

To find out, we tested consumers' responses to T-shirts from a fictitious manufacturer. We divided 218 people into five groups and presented them with information about the company and its product. One group was told the shirts were 100% organic cotton, one group 50% and one group 25%. Another group -- the "unethical" one -- was told there was no organic component. The control group got no information.

In addition, all the groups but the control were shown a short paragraph detailing the detrimental effects of nonorganic cotton production on the environment.

Then the participants were asked how much they were willing to pay for the shirts on a 16-point scale, ranging from $15 to $30. As in the first test, we found that people were willing to pay a premium for all levels of ethical production, and they would discount an unethical product more deeply than they would reward an ethical one.

But consumers didn't reward increasing levels of ethical production with increasing price premiums. The 25% organic shirts got a mean price of $20.72 -- not much different from the 50% ($20.44) and 100% ($21.21).

It seems that once companies hit a certain ethical threshold, consumers will reward them by paying higher prices for their products. Any ethical acts past that point might reinforce the company's image, but don't make people willing to pay more. (Of course, if 100% ethical becomes expected among consumers, anything less may be punished.)

WHAT EFFECT DO CONSUMER ATTITUDES HAVE?
In our final experiment, we looked at the attitudes people bring to the table. If consumers expect that companies will behave ethically, will that change how much they reward and punish behavior? What if they expect that companies are just in it for the money, maximizing profits and not taking ethics into account?

Once again, we tested coffee drinkers -- 84 this time -- and split them into groups that received positive, negative and no ethical information about the manufacturer and its methods. But first we measured the people's attitudes toward corporations and labeled them high-expectation or low-expectation.

Once again we found that -- regardless of their expectations -- consumers were willing to pay more for ethical goods than unethical ones, or ones about which they had no information. Likewise, negative information had a much bigger bearing on consumer response than positive information. People punished unethical goods with a bigger discount (about $2 below the control group) than they rewarded ethical ones with premiums (about $1 above the control group).

So, what effect did consumer attitudes have? People with high expectations doled out bigger rewards and punishments than those with low expectations. Those with high expectations were willing to pay a mean of $11.59 per pound for the ethical coffee, versus $9.90 for those with low expectations. And the high-expectations group punished the unethical coffee with a price of $6.92, versus $8.44 for low-expectations consumers.

The lessons are clear. Companies should segment their market and make a particular effort to reach out to buyers with high ethical standards, because those are the customers who can deliver the biggest potential profits on ethically produced goods.

--Mr. Trudel is a doctoral candidate in marketing at the University of Western Ontario's Ivey School of Business. Dr. Cotte is the George and Mary Turnbull faculty fellow and associate professor of marketing at the Ivey School. They can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Labels: csr, ethics, leadership, risk mitigation, social strategy, WSJ

__posted by Carolyn L Burke @ 7:48 a.m.
subscribe to Integrity

(0) comments

by Bradley Preber

Published: April 09, 2008 in Knowledge@W.P. Carey


Bradley Preber’s recent talk on business ethics and culture could not have been more relevant or timely. The partner-in-charge of Grant Thornton's Forensic Accounting and Investigative Services practice spoke before a group of W. P. Carey MBA Executive students the same day that an independent report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice found that the auditing firm KPMG is allegedly linked to fraud at New Century Financial Corp, a subprime mortgage lender. KPMG denies any wrongdoing, but the incident raised some interesting ethical questions during the discussion, part of the school’s Thought Leadership Series.

The New York Times reported that "New Century Financial … engaged in 'significant improper and imprudent practices' that were condoned and enabled by auditors at the accounting firm KPMG, according to an independent report commissioned by the Justice Department." The report also pointed out that some auditors raised concerns about New Century, but were ignored because of fear that the firm would lose an important client.

Preber would not speak specifically about the auditing company, adding that he thought this would be unethical because they are a competitor of his firm. But when the news was raised by students and other speakers he noted that any company that continues having pervasive and systematic behavior problems with its employees must look at its culture to see if it could be partly what drives that unethical behavior. And if the recurring problem stems from upper management then this will have repercussions for the rest of the company.

Preber added that culture is a factor that can be used to predict fraud and evaluate a company's ethics. He asked his audience to consider some companies that have been in the news for ethical situations and to free associate:

Prompted with Enron they offered "greed," "putting profits before people," "arrogance."

When asked about Microsoft, they said "competence," "market dominance," even "innovation."

PetSmart, the pet specialty retailer, fared well with the group. PetSmart had recalled contaminated pet food and replaced their customer's purchases, Preber said. "This tells customers that the company is there to look after their pets and will rectify any errors made."

Culture played an important role in forming the students' impressions.

Form of culture and substance of culture must align

When companies take quick action, as PetSmart did, they foster an ethical business culture. But fast and appropriate reflexes are not enough.

Preber argued that the form of a company's culture must align with the substance of the culture. Form, Preber said, includes standards and values that can be verbalized or written down. He stated examples such as policies and procedures, compliance officers, industry norms and laws and regulations. Substance, however, is the action that grows out of acceptance of the form, by the company, its managers and its employees. Actions could include the way employees talk about their bosses, establishment of an anonymous complaint line for employees and rewards for good behavior.

If substance and form align, Preber explained, then desirable and acceptable workplace behaviors are more probable. When unethical behavior surfaces and is tolerated, it is because form and substance of culture are unaligned.

"This is when attitudes deteriorate and the incentives for unethical behavior rise," Preber said.

Ethics wane, the accountant thinks, when form is placed over substance. Form over substance results in rationalization, living with bad decisions, cheating and fudging the system. When asked how to avoid unethical clients, Preber suggested operating only with those that share your ethics.

"It's not my job to correct clients' ethics. If their ethics don't mesh with yours, always walk away."

Avoiding the gray area

Marianne Jennings, a professor of legal and ethical studies in business at W. P. Carey School of Business, frets about stories like KPMG. Author of "The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse: How to Spot Moral Meltdowns in Companies … Before It's Too Late," Jennings noted that previously, scandals only surfaced every decade.

"Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 -- which tried to reform American business practices -- were only five years ago, so we are seeing scandals more frequently and the same pattern over and over," she said.

Jennings pointed out that KPMG settled tax shelter fraud allegations with a fine, and just a few weeks ago paid to settle for its role in the Xerox accounting fraud. The New Century Financial issues came after these two problems.

"The pattern seems to suggest that KPMG needs that exercise of seeing whether the client's values are the same as their values, or they have not yet come to grips with the importance of ethics and values over the retention of clients and keeping the revenues," Jennings commented.

In her book, Jennings writes that "all unethical organizations are alike; their cultures are identical and their collapses become predictable." She identifies seven warning signs that a company culture is unethical: pressure to maintain numbers; fear and silence in the ranks and leadership; young and inexperienced executives and a bigger-than-life CEO; a weak board; conflict; pressure to produce constant innovation; and a penchant for philanthropy that assuages guilt for questionable decisions.

When a sufficient number of the seven signs have infected the culture, Jennings writes, intelligent and otherwise upstanding people may do things that are at least unethical, and often illegal.

Things start to become slippery, Jennings said, because that gray area can include unethical actions that are not technically illegal. "If we want change, then it is the ethics within this gray area that must be studied more."

To keep out of trouble, Jennings suggested asking oneself: "Why is this area gray to you? If you are there, then you are probably already in trouble, looking for a way around a rule."

Asked what professors and mentors can do to help prevent poor business behavior, Jennings said that teaching ethics has never been more important. Giving business students continual case studies showing the risks and costs of living in that gray area, and giving them the gumption to act when they feel uncomfortable is essential, she said.

"Creating change means driving this home."

Bottom Line:

• Brad Preber, an accountant dealing with fraud and litigation cases, says that we can learn a great deal about a company's ethics through its culture.
  
• He also thinks that when the form and substance of a company are out of whack, attitudes deteriorate and incentives for ethical behavior wane.
  
• Jennings' seven warning signs that a company culture is unethical: pressure to maintain numbers; fear and silence in the ranks and leadership; young and inexperienced executives and a bigger-than-life CEO; a weak board; conflict; pressure to produce constant innovation; and a penchant for philanthropy that assuages guilt for questionable decisions.
  
• If you find yourself in a gray area, you are probably already in trouble, Jennings says.

Additional Reading: "Executive Role Models Crucial in Building Ethical Workplace Culture"

Labels: ethics, leadership, risk mitigation, security

(0) comments

Computer World

What Bryan found on an executive’s computer six years ago still weighs heavily on his mind. He’s particularly troubled that the man he discovered using a company PC to view pornography of Asian women and of children was subsequently promoted and moved to China to run a manufacturing plant.

“To this day, I regret not taking that stuff to the FBI,” says Bryan.

It happened when Bryan, who asked that his last name not be published, was IT director at the U.S. division of a $500 million multinational corporation based in Germany.

The company’s Internet usage policy, which Bryan helped develop with input from senior management, prohibited the use of company computers to access pornographic or adult-content Web sites. One of Bryan’s duties was to monitor employee Web surfing using products from SurfControl PLC and report any violations to management.

Bryan knew that the executive, who was a level above him in another department, was popular within both the U.S. division and the German parent. But when the tools turned up dozens of pornographic Web sites visited by the exec’s computer, Bryan followed the policy. “That’s what it’s there for. I wasn’t going to get into trouble for following the policy,” he reasoned.

So he went to his manager with copies of the Web logs (which he still has in his possession and made available to Computerworld for verification).

Power and Responsibility

Bryan’s case is a good example of the ethical dilemmas that IT workers may encounter on the job. IT employees have privileged access to digital information, both personal and professional, throughout the company, and they have the technical prowess to manipulate that information.

That gives them both the power and responsibility to monitor and report employees who break company rules. IT professionals may also uncover evidence that a co-worker is, say, embezzling funds, or they could be tempted to peek at private salary information or personal e-mails. But there’s little guidance on what to do in these uncomfortable situations.

In the case of the porn-viewing executive, Bryan didn’t get into trouble, but neither did the executive, who came up with “a pretty outlandish explanation” that the company accepted, Bryan says. He considered going to the FBI, but the Internet bubble had just burst, and jobs were hard to come by. “It was a tough choice,” Bryan says. “[But] I had a family to feed.”

In theory, ethical behavior is governed by laws, corporate policy, professional ethics and personal judgment.

Continue reading

Labels: ethics, risk mitigation

(0) comments

ComputerWorld

It still weighs heavily on Bryan's mind, what he found on that executive's computer, especially when he thinks of his own daughters. He's particularly troubled that the man he discovered using a company computer to view pornography of Asian women and of children was subsequently promoted and moved to China to run a manufacturing plant.

"To this day, I regret not taking that stuff to the FBI," says Bryan.

It happened six years ago, when Bryan, who asked that his last name not be published, was IT director for the U.S. division of a $500 million multinational corporation based in Germany.

The company's Internet usage policy, which Bryan helped develop with input from senior management, specifically prohibited the use of company computers to access pornographic or adult-content Web sites. One of Bryan's duties was to monitor employee Web surfing using SurfControl and report any violations to management.

Bryan knew that the executive, who was a level above him in another department, was popular both within the U.S. division and the German parent. So when SurfControl turned up dozens of pornographic Web sites visited by the exec's computer, Bryan figured "my best course of action was to follow the policy."

"That's what it's there for," he reasoned. "I wasn't going to get into trouble for following the policy." He went to his manager with copies of the Web logs in question (which he still has in his possession and made available to Computerworld for verification).

Continue reading the article on ComputerWorld. The article is long and intensive, followed by a strong discussion forum.

(0) comments

Computer World

A California man who served jail time for hacking hundreds of military and government computers nine years ago was charged yesterday with new computer crimes: stealing tens of thousands of credit card accounts by breaking into bank and card processing networks.

Max Ray Butler, 35 of San Francisco, a.k.a Max Vision, and also known by his online nicknames of Iceman, Digits and Aphex, was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on three counts of wire fraud and two counts of transferring stolen identity information. Arrested last week in California, where he remains, Butler could face up to 40 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine if he is convicted on all five counts.

According to the indictment, Butler hacked multiple computer networks of financial institutions and card processing firms, sold the account and identity information he stole from those systems, and even received a percentage of the money that others made selling merchandise they'd purchased with the stolen card numbers. The U.S. Secret Service ran the investigation into the hacks and resulting scams, which took place between June 2005 and September of this year.

Butler was charged in Pittsburgh because he'd sold data on 103 credit card accounts to a Pennsylvanian who was cooperating with authorities.

He and others also operated a Web site used as a meeting place for criminals who bought and sold credit card and personal identity information. "As of September 5, 2007, Cardsmarket had thousands of members worldwide," the indictment read. Although the site was still online as of Wednesday morning, the forums had been deleted. A message posted by a forum administrator identified as achilous said he had erased the threads when news of Butler's arrest broke.

"Everybody who hasn't already done so, I would strongly advise that you delete all PMs you have saved," achilous advised. "Also, any unsecured data you have, now would be the time to make sure it is very strongly encrypted. These precautions seemed justified given the severity of the situation. It may only be a matter of time before a government agency takes over this forum, and I did not want them to get the raw SQL database containing all the threads and posts."

Although some documents in the case remain sealed, including one or more affidavits, news reports cited grand jury witnesses who had told of Butler selling tens of thousands of stolen credit card accounts. A former partner who had been arrested in May reportedly claimed that Butler supplied him with a thousand numbers each month for more than two years, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Achilous called Christopher Aragon, 47, the Californian named in the Tribune-Review story, a "rat" for fingering Butler. Aragon was arrested with another man, Guy Shitrit, 23, in Newport Beach, Calif. on May 12 at a local shopping mall after buying more than $13,000 worth of Coach handbags using counterfeited American Express, credit cards at Bloomingdales. Police found more than 70 bogus credit cards on the pair.

After he was arrested, Aragon was banned from the Cardsmarket forums, said achilous, for "security" reasons.

Prosecutors in Pittsburgh said that Butler used high-powered antenna in "war-driving" style attacks to hack wireless access to computer networks at organizations that included the Pentagon Federal Credit Union and Citibank.

Butler is no stranger to the judicial system. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to charges that he hacked military and other government computers three years prior, including those belonging to the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and NASA. He was also accused of breaching the network of id Software, developers of the PC games "Doom" and "Quake," and stealing several hundred access passwords to a California Internet service provider.

Butler pleaded guilty to one felony count, even though he continued to proclaim his innocence, saying that he had found an unpatched vulnerability in government networks then written software to scan for the hole and close it. Prosecutors at the time, however, said Butler also added a "back door" to every system his software penetrated, giving him secret access to the networks.

Ironically, Butler, then 28, was a well-known security researcher before his arrest, frequently posting to security mailing lists. He had also created arachNIDS, a once-popular open source collection of attack signatures used intrusion detection systems. During court hearings in 2000, it also came to light that he had been an FBI informant for at least two years, and perhaps as many as five years, before his arrest.

Butler was sentenced in May 2001 and served 18 months in federal prison and three years' probation.

Labels: attack, hackers, risk mitigation

(0) comments

HBS (pdf)

People commonly predict they will behave more ethically in the future than they actually do. When evaluating past (un)ethical behavior, they also believe they behaved more ethically than they actually did. New research discusses why.

Labels: ethics, HBS, leadership

(0) comments