The Moral Basis Of My Work

The Moral Basis Of My Work

As an eCommerce Consultant I have often pondered the moral basis of my work. When I go into a company to analyse their electronic business requirements what I am really being asked to do is increase throughput and reduce costs. In effect I am being asked to help the Company do the same business with fewer people, and in eCommerce that can mean laying off around 80% or more of the administrative staff. That hurts, I know it does, because I have been through several redundancies myself. Of course we always talk about re-skilling and upgrading job content, but that still leaves a bunch of people who either can't or won't be re-trained or relocated elsewhere.

Should I concern myself with the detail of who I hurt when I proudly hand over a shiny new system to my clients? Or should I be content with the thought that by making my client more efficient I am also making them more competitive and therefore safeguarding the jobs of those lucky enough to have escaped the cull? The passing of years and a lot of nights gazing sleepless at the ceiling have taught me to take the latter view. Any battle, even one where the enemy is the intangible ghost of escalating costs, incurs casualties and I am lucky because the conflicts that my client embroil themselves in after I have completed my work do not result in fatalities - at least I haven't heard of any.

That is not the case where somebody works for a Company whose product actively damages people, animals, the environment or all of the above. For example, how do the salesmen who work for cigarette manufacturers reconcile the conflict between making their monthly targets and the death of millions of people from smoking related diseases? How do they look themselves in the mirror each morning in the knowledge that world-wide, almost 5 million die prematurely each year as a result of smoking and, based on current trends, knowing that this will rise to 10 million within 20 years. (Source: The World Health Report 2003. World Health Organization, 2003.) And does the marketing department question the morals of advertising their products in developing countries to help meet an expected demand of 5.09 million tonnes of tobacco by 2010 (Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations) and so ensure that the expected mortality rates are also achieved?

The food industry does not escape the morality test. A recent report by the UK's Commons Health Select Committee criticised the food industry, the British government and advertisers for failing to do anything about the growing levels of obesity which it claims costs England £3.7billion a year. The associated levels of diabetes, cancer and heart disease are also expected to rise. But this is not just a British problem. The American HHS Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that deaths due to poor diet and physical inactivity rose by 33 percent over the past decade and may soon overtake tobacco as the leading preventable cause of death. The reaction of the British Food and Drink Federation was interesting, placing much of the responsibility on the consumers who they blame for not using moderation in their eating habits. This in the face of ongoing media criticism of the amount of fat, salt and sugar dumped into pre-packaged foods.

The sector that has much to answer for globally, but which does not in my opinion deserve total moral condemnation, is the automotive industry. In Europe and Japan manufacturers have been striving to increase the efficiency of their products and make a considerable virtue of fuel economy alongside safety in their advertising. Diesel engines, which form a significant part of the European motoring scene - 44% of all luxury cars purchased in Europe are powered by diesel engines (Source: Diesel Technology Forum) - have been refined alongside gasoline power plants to the point where pedestrians are hard pushed to hear the difference between them. This story is not reflected in the USA however where automobile advertising actually makes a virtue of large engine sizes and huge chassis which combine to make fuel efficiency into a farcical concept. A misguided concept when you consider global warming - honestly, the poles really are melting - and imminent oil shortages caused by increased demand from developing countries such as China. But at least the American automotive industry is showing some semblance of good citizenship by developing hybrid vehicles to balance this hydrocarbon feeding frenzy.

So where does this leave me and my conscience? Do I feel any better about making money out of separating people from their sources of income? Well, yes I do because my personal ethics would never let me work for any Company that I thought was harming the community. And no matter how much I streamline a client's operation I know that nobody will ever die from cancer, obesity or pollution as a direct result of my activities.



	As an eCommerce Consultant I have often pondered the moral basis of my work. When I go into a company to analyse their electronic business requirements what I am really being asked to do is increase throughput and reduce costs. In effect I am being asked to help the Company do the same business with fewer people, and in eCommerce that can mean laying off around 80% or more of the administrative staff. That hurts, I know it does, because I have been through several redundancies myself. Of course we always talk about re-skilling and upgrading job content, but that still leaves a bunch of people who either can't or won't be re-trained or relocated elsewhere. Should I concern myself with the detail of who I hurt when I proudly hand over a shiny new system to my clients? Or should I be content with the thought that by making my client more efficient I am also making them more competitive and therefore safeguarding the jobs of those lucky enough to have escaped the cull? The passing of years and a lot of nights gazing sleepless at the ceiling have taught me to take the latter view. Any battle, even one where the enemy is the intangible ghost of escalating costs, incurs casualties and I am lucky because the conflicts that my client embroil themselves in after I have completed my work do not result in fatalities - at least I haven't heard of any. That is not the case where somebody works for a Company whose product actively damages people, animals, the environment or all of the above. For example, how do the salesmen who work for cigarette manufacturers reconcile the conflict between making their monthly targets and the death of millions of people from smoking related diseases? How do they look themselves in the mirror each morning in the knowledge that world-wide, almost 5 million die prematurely each year as a result of smoking and, based on current trends, knowing that this will rise to 10 million within 20 years. (Source: The World Health Report 2003. World Health Organization, 2003.) And does the marketing department question the morals of advertising their products in developing countries to help meet an expected demand of 5.09 million tonnes of tobacco by 2010 (Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations) and so ensure that the expected mortality rates are also achieved? The food industry does not escape the morality test. A recent report by the UK's Commons Health Select Committee criticised the food industry, the British government and advertisers for failing to do anything about the growing levels of obesity which it claims costs England £3.7billion a year. The associated levels of diabetes, cancer and heart disease are also expected to rise. But this is not just a British problem. The American HHS Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that deaths due to poor diet and physical inactivity rose by 33 percent over the past decade and may soon overtake tobacco as the leading preventable cause of death. The reaction of the British Food and Drink Federation was interesting, placing much of the responsibility on the consumers who they blame for not using moderation in their eating habits. This in the face of ongoing media criticism of the amount of fat, salt and sugar dumped into pre-packaged foods. The sector that has much to answer for globally, but which does not in my opinion deserve total moral condemnation, is the automotive industry. In Europe and Japan manufacturers have been striving to increase the efficiency of their products and make a considerable virtue of fuel economy alongside safety in their advertising. Diesel engines, which form a significant part of the European motoring scene - 44% of all luxury cars purchased in Europe are powered by diesel engines (Source: Diesel Technology Forum) - have been refined alongside gasoline power plants to the point where pedestrians are hard pushed to hear the difference between them. This story is not reflected in the USA however where automobile advertising actually makes a virtue of large engine sizes and huge chassis which combine to make fuel efficiency into a farcical concept. A misguided concept when you consider global warming - honestly, the poles really are melting - and imminent oil shortages caused by increased demand from developing countries such as China. But at least the American automotive industry is showing some semblance of good citizenship by developing hybrid vehicles to balance this hydrocarbon feeding frenzy. So where does this leave me and my conscience? Do I feel any better about making money out of separating people from their sources of income? Well, yes I do because my personal ethics would never let me work for any Company that I thought was harming the community. And no matter how much I streamline a client's operation I know that nobody will ever die from cancer, obesity or pollution as a direct result of my activities.