Centre for Ethics and Law

About the Event:

This workshop considered the use of immersive virtual reality technology ("The Cave") to not only improve the understanding of ethical judgment but also explore the didactic value of such a technology when training (future) professionals. There was an opportunity to experience "The Cave" first hand and discuss both the advantages and possible pitfalls of such technology when studying (or preparing for) ethical dilemmas of various kinds.

Speaker: Andrew Bailey (Deputy Governor, Bank of England, for Prudential Regulation and CEO of the Prudential Regulation Authority)

Speaker: Professor Roger McCormick (London School of Economics)

Chair: Professor Emilios Avgouleas (University of Edinburgh)

Speakers:

• Professor David Kershaw, LSE

• Professor Richard Moorhead, UCL

Speaker:

• Baroness Onora O'Neill
  

Commentators:

About this Event:

What do we do when law and markets fail?  When we hear the suggestion we need to transform the culture, or ensure there is a better tone from the top, should we reach for a pistol or, as I prefer to think of it, a dagger dipped in cynicism?  More pertinently, can regulators do anything with concepts as nebulous as culture or as contested as ethics? These questions were posed by the first in Centre for Ethics and Law series of events around law and the ethics of capitalism.

About the Event:

International financial institutions including the World Bank and major regional development banks and other financial institutions such as the International Finance Corporation have set up accountability mechanisms to address projects assisted by these institutions when these projects adversely impact on peoples. The first accountability mechanism was set up in 1993 and experience has been gained over the past 2 decades in handling problem projects through investigation, problem-solving and other modes. This seminar focuses on the growth of these accountability mechanisms, addresses governance aspects, and focuses on case studies of two projects where claimed have been filed with various international financial institutions including the World Bank, African Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, and European Investment Bank. The seminar addresses how problem projects can be handled more effectively and examines how improvements can be made to address these problem projects. This event is being held in collaboration with The World Trade Organisation Scholars' Forum

About the Event

This Think Tank will draw together creators, legislators and users of autonomous systems to discuss the varied ethical issues that need to be considered in an increasing automated and 'smart' world. Researchers from UCL Engineering will provide a live demonstration of autonomous technology to start the discussion between the many parties involved, chaired and led by UCL Centre for Ethics and Law.

This event forms part of a wider series of Think Tanks organised by CEL. Ethical lapses around the globe by leaders in business, government and professions coupled with the increasing demand for ethics and compliance creates a need to enhance the relevance of teaching of ethics. It is important that good academic support exists for establishing the required skill set for academics, corporates, practicing lawyers and civil servants. The strengths of other academics within UCL can also be drawn on to provide crucial context to ethical issues.

The Centre for Ethics and Law hosts Think Tanks to identify, share and enhance best practice ethical decision making by bringing business and academic leadership together around a current ethical issue. The issue will be presented for debate in the context of a case study from which insights and materials can then be further developed for distribution to wider business and student audiences to work with as part of their educational development.

There is an aim to incorporate the output of the Think Tanks into the academic agenda for students of Ethics and Law courses. Whilst the UCL Centre will not form any part of a lobbying group, the debates and academic output may well inform discussions that corporate partners pursue as part of their own industry strategy

Further information

Think Tank Series

25 April 2012, 5:30 (please note this event is by invitation only)

On 29 February 2012, UCL Centre for Ethics and Law invited Sarianna M. Lundan, Professor of Business and Economics at University of Bremen to present on her current research.  Professor Lundan shed new light on the necessary connections between economics, law, politics and corporate social responsibility through her presentation on corporate social responsibility and provision of public goods by multinational enterprises.  The event also featured critical discussion by Professor Charlotte Villiers from the University of Bristol.  Lundan, through an economic lens, explored how multinational enterprises expanding into less developed countries obtain public goods.  These public goods, such as education, health, community infrastructure and other related elements, would usually be provided by governmental entities as an integral part of the production of the private goods which attracted the MNE to the emerging market.  Lundan proceeded to discuss what MNEs do in less developed countries where public provisions are not provided for by the nation state and not available on a contractual basis, and in what cases MNEs step in to provide these public goods.  What Lundan prescribed follows the process described by John Ruggie, UN Special Representative on business and human rights, of “Protect, Respect, Remedy”. By engaging in due diligence and involving the local communities and local NGOs, MNEs can reduce transaction costs and provide necessary public goods, while still adding core value to the business.  Audience discussions centred on the societal role of the firm and how the firm can learn to function in different environments.  What ultimately was called for was a rethink both of governance solutions and the interface between corporations and ever-expanding global society.  

On 14 February 2012, UCL Centre for Ethics and Law invited Aaron Dhir, Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Canada, to present on how the global expansion of the corporation brings with it new tensions such as human rights related impacts. By examining certain sections of Canadian corporate law, Dhir looks at the impacts of the shareholder proposal on corporations and locally affected communities of third world countries.  Professor Dhir stressed that, as socially responsible corporations navigate this new terrain, they have an ethical duty to respect the interests of locally affected communities in the global business world and empower the communities in third world countries.  To empower communities, companies and investors should consult with these local communities, put them in a position to help and be involved in the process, and most importantly, obtain “free prior and informed consent of locally affected communities” before moving forward.  Dhir concluded that this new governance approach not only promotes a constructive mutual dialogue between stakeholders and corporations, but also reflects a “broader movement towards a new reflexive governance approach”.  Dhir expressed his hope that this approach will encourage corporations to focus on norm generation and the enhancement of “internal self-regulatory capacities”.  Described as “advocacy beyond orders”, Dhir’s presentation spurred audience discussion centred on whether using corporate law mechanisms to further human rights impact awareness will create a trickledown effect, encouraging multinational corporations to raise their CSR standards.

The lecture offered critical reflections on the role of social media in social change and outline how the obligation of corporations in the information communications technology sector to avoid complicity in rights violations may evolve over time. Exploring the Internet's potential to further democratic discourse and inclusion or foster discrimination and exclusion considering whether the Internet industry has an obligation to protect against hate propaganda.

Summary

Managers working outside their home environments often confront local practices that are inconsistent with their company’s practices back home.  If forced to choose, leaders often frame their dilemma as a choice between doing as the locals do or doing as they do at home.  But there are other normative benchmarks that could be referenced in these situations. In this session, I will present key findings from research that my colleagues and I have conducted on standards of conduct for multinationals in several major markets of the world.  This research suggests that leading companies will increasingly need to conform their behavior to a set of emerging global standards and that success in doing so will require leaders to think of business conduct not just in terms of compliance and remediation but also in terms of performance and continuous improvement.

About the talk

Lord Young of Graffham, following a Whitehall-wide review of the operation of health and safety laws and the growth of the compensation culture, discussed his recently launched report 'Common Sense, Common Safety'.

Summary

The UCL Centre for Ethics & Law held its second annual lecture, 'The Moral Limits of Markets' on 7 October 2010. The lecture was delivered by Professor Michael Sandel, Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University. In a lively and interactive session involving the participation of a number of members of the audience, Professor Sandel explored the question: "are there some things that money can’t, or shouldn’t buy?" The lecture was chaired by Richard Alderman, Director of the UK government’s Serious Fraud Office and an alumnus of the UCL Faculty of Laws.

Summary

Autonomous systems will become integral to a wide range of areas of technology in coming years.  From transport, to the military, to healthcare and home help, systems capable of learning and performing decisions will be used with the aim of increasing safety, convenience and efficiency.  They offer great benefits, but also demand guidance and control of their use to protect the interests of users and society in general.

Summary

On Thursday 1 July, the UCL Centre for Ethics & Law held its inaugural Think Tank debate in conjunction with AstraZeneca. The Think Tank series involves a selection of real-life case studies on dilemnas currently facing companies, which lie at the interface between ethics and regulatory compliance. The debates provide a forum whereby industry and academic thought leaders, along with current UCL students, can engage in a challenging exchange of ideas.

The topic of the first debate, which was led by AstraZeneca’s Global Compliance Policy Director Paul Woods, was Health Literacy and Provision of Information by Pharmaceutical Companies on Prescription Medicines. This case study formed the basis of a stimulating evening's discussion involving participants from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. The participants in the debate were:

Summary

Following many years of argument, it is now generally accepted by decision makers that the ethical aspects of a new technology may be a legitimate element of risk regulation.  However, it has proven difficult to integrate ethical concerns into regulatory decision making. Providing decision makers with access to ethical expertise, alongside expertise in other disciplines such as economics, risk assessment or law, is one response to this dilemma.  But expertise in ethics has a controversial place in the regulatory process. The EU regulation of nanotechnology provides  a case study through which to explore the role of ethical debate in risk regulation.

Speakers

Dr. Chris McKenna (Reader in Business History and Strategy, SAID Business School, University of Oxford) & Doreen McBarnet (the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh)

Summary

The roles and responsibilities of business in society, in particular global business, are being defined more broadly and deeply than ever before, and by an expanding range of increasingly demanding stakeholders.

About this event

We now live in a ‘risk society', pre-occupied with hazards to life and heath. Risk is both negative and positive: risk is both danger and innovation. What is the appropriate balance? Under what circumstances is it acceptable for individuals to be exposed to risks to which they have not consented? How do we encourage socially beneficially risk-taking while avoiding recklessness? How do we frame regulation in order to reduce danger, but support innovation?