The Greeks considered ethics a moral philosophy employing right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility for one's actions. Roget's thesaurus defines ethics as goals, morals, principles, standards, and values.

Individually, we develop a personal code of ethical values during our lives. Children tend to not absorb such an abstract concept, preferring to refer to being made to feel guilty, or as our son used to say. "You keep making me have a conscience and now I can't make it go away!" This code may be derived from family values, culturally driven acceptable behaviour within a community, or self-imposed standards of observed appropriate behaviours.

Societies also impose behavioural ethics on its citizens, some very explicit and many more quite implicit. The British, who can be very succinct, would say in judgement on some flagrant impropriety , "it is just not done." How does a child figure all this out? I do not know too many families who have endless debates about what's on and what's not appropriate, but we still implicitly pass on our disapproval when societal codes of conduct are breached.

Looking the Other Way.

Enter the pursuit of happiness and the making of money, two diametrically opposed goals. Our personal code becomes increasingly difficult to adhere to as we slide on the slippery slope of compromise. Yes, some would argue emphatically that they never, ever lower their personal principles, but the rest of us do make compromises with ourselves, far more often than we care to admit.

When we ignore unethical behaviour by others or justify a slip to ourselves, for instance. Some examples: an overseas health care visit is really a shopping trip - courtesy of the health insurer; a co-worker charges for overtime not worked; small things disappear from the office store room and the construction site; a walk through customs with a totally loaded bag - declaring nothing; an employer pocketing pension money; a friend buying stolen tech equipment; a boss running personal purchases through his/her expense account.

These may be dismissed as small necessary frauds, but habitually they turn into big deceits - harming organisations and individuals in the process.

Code of Professional Ethics.

Regulatory agencies are instituted to mandate higher standards and to protect to the public citizen. Unethical inappropriate conduct perpetrated by a qualified professional exposes the person to a minimum of public censure (in the media) and loss of license while in egregious cases, criminal prosecution, felony charges and imprisonment follow.

Qualified professionals (and there are thousands of them in Bermuda) must follow an ethics code for their specific profession. To wit:

Chartered Financial Analyst, Certified Financial Planner, Certified (Chartered) Public Accountant, Juris Doctor, and Doctor of Medicine all have ethics code requirements.

Chief Executive Officers, while not under a specific code, now must adhere to the requirements of Sarbanes Oxley, while a politician's greatest (and generally only) regulatory body is the harsh critic of public opinion.

A brief description from some professional ethics codes will read as such (this is a generalised combination of the professions);

*Act with integrity, competence, diligence, respect, and in an ethical manner with the public and clients.

*Practice in a professional and ethical manner that uses reasonable care and exercises independent professional judgement in all matters.

*Comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations of any government, regulatory organisation, licensing agency, or professional association.

*Dissociate from any violation of such laws, rules, or regulations.

*Professionals must not offer, solicit, or accept any gift, benefit, or compensation or engage in any professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or deceit that compromises their own or another 's independence and objectivity.

In the court of public opinion - good business ethics means higher shareholder value.

According to an article written in Businessweek 2002 and even more pertinent today, by Heesun Wee "Corporate Ethics: Right Makes Might": Avoiding scandal isn't the only reason to observe a stringent code of conduct. Doing the right thing also generates more tangible dividends. After the dust from the Enron collapse settled, one positive outcome provides an important lesson in the value — the necessity, really — of having a corporate conscience and a culture built around knowing the difference between right and wrong.

It's tempting to brush aside business ethics as a nebulous, well-intentioned subject suitable for Business School 101 but of little practical value in the real world

Big mistake.

A 2000 survey by the Ethics Resource Center found that 43% of respondents believed their supervisors don't set good examples of integrity. The same percentage felt pressured to compromise their organisation's ethics on the job. That's a startling number - two years before Enron imploded.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by the US Congress to raise the standards of good business behaviour thereby authenticating shareholder value, became another beacon of responsibility placed directly at the signing hand of the Chief Executive Officer.

Political trust may be an oxymoron.

Running a country is on a grander scale (to some extent) but really no different than that a corporate entity. The citizens (and outside investors) are the shareholders wanting to maintain a high market value on their country's stock.

They understand that reputation for excellence means the opportunity for an enhanced lifestyle, greater business employment opportunities and access to amenities - the perceived bonuses in life.

Politicians are implicitly charged to conduct themselves with due professional care, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, standards that are even higher than professionals because of their responsibility (and their accountability) to their constituents.

When they slip in that every day duty by succumbing to, for instance, lobbyist excesses: Tom Delay, and the famous private jet trips to golf in Ireland; the World War II heavily decorated Airforce pilot in California turned congressman who had his construction friend literally fund his life, the list becomes depressingly endless.

These transgressions leave citizens feeling more disillusioned that another elected official put into office to protect the public interest has let them down, misused their trust and public funds.

The most important point, though, just as in a corporate hierarchy, the political buck stops with the man/woman at the top. He/she is responsible, period.

And if lack of trust by the public and investors punishes the company (or country) stock, inevitably the market will exact its price.

Martha Harris Myron CPA CFP is a dual citizen (Bermudian/US). She is a Senior Wealth Manager at Argus Financial Limited specialising in wealth investment advisory services for capital preservation and comprehensive financial solutions for clients considering lifestyle transitions and rewarding retirements. Confidential email can be directed to marthamyron@northrock.bm or 294-5709

CFP, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER, and CFR are certification marks owned in the U.S. by Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc.

The article expresses the opinion of the author alone. Under no circumstances is the content of this article to be taken as specific investment, legal, tax or financial planning advice, nor as a recommendation to buy/ sell any investment product. The Editor of the Royal Gazette has final right of approval over headlines, content, and length/brevity of article.