I am, frankly, Gobsmacked. Undone by this turn of events.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

Why, you ask?

Because the "million monkeys at a million computer keyboards" theory of The Interwhoozis has come up with a site that is about something important. That's why.

How important, you might inquire? I think that these guys are on the leading edge of the most important sociological and economic conversation our society will be having for the next decade and beyond. Just you wait and see. This conversation and all that arises from it WILL be the one that changes everything, and it is lurking just below the horizon, looking for someone such as a site like this to get the party started.

Go. Read. Grok.

http://ethisphere.com/

[havocmom]

1. to your last remark, I'll add: Bookmark

Gotta new browser homepage now! Thanks.

[pinto]

2. Thanks for the heads up. I liked this article -

Embracing Controversy
by Patrick Byrne

Like many CEOs, I am skeptical of government action. It’s often uninformed, expensive, and even pernicious. I think, therefore, that we business leaders have a special obligation to help cure society’s ills.

Some CEOs shirk that obligation. In my experience, their defense is that they do not want to be associated with controversy. The problem is, many social ills are a source of profit to some group, and naturally, that group resists change to the status quo. Therefore, all positive social action is going to be controver-sial to someone. Instead, in trying to cause offense to no one, CEOs spend their influence on less important causes. Donating shareholders’ money to a local symphony-that’s not my idea of ethical action. How much better to give away one’s own wealth to bring attention to a social problem-even if it is a controversial one?

<snip>

Education and capital market reform are my two issues. Others may care more deeply about other issues. But I encourage all to conquer their fear of offending someone by taking a stand, even on a controversial issue. I urge my col-leagues not to waste the unique opportunity that their current position affords while bemoaning the inefficiency of gov-ernment action. Instead, they should take advantage of their position to bring about positive change in the world. That’s what I call ethics in action.

Patrick Byrne is the CEO of Overstock.com

http://ethisphere.com/embracing-controversy/

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Weird irony here:

Rick Chapman - Senior Counsel - Halliburton Law Department...is on the staff of ETHISPHERE The World’s Most Recognized Name in Business Ethics and Anti-Corruption

[charlie]

4. No LoLCats

Sorry, I can only regard something without OM-NOM-NOM pics as cynical misuse of our beloved InnerNets.

This is intriguing, thanks Tandy. I hope they can remain true to their stated purpose.

[snot]

5. Is this simply an attempt to ward off needed gov'l regulation?

I.e., aren't they saying, we believe in being good on our own, so we don't need the SEC, antitrust laws, OSHA, environmental restrictions, tort liability, etc.?

Sorry if I'm a skeptic, but unless they're calling for GREATER gov'l regulation, I tend to assume this is at least partly p.r.

[AntiFascist]

6. Business ethics?!

I'm sure the deregulators will have something to say about that! :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

8. Yeah what sort of "ethics" are we talkin' here? I'm sure these folks never union bust

right? Or are ethical business practices all a matter of green lightbulbs these days? Smacks of disinformation and deregulation to me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. First impression: greenwash.

Bookmarked for later.

[Merlot]

9. They've got Bobby Jindal in "100 Most Influential People...

in Business Ethics 2008" in # 8 position.

Obama's at #14

TB Pickens at #75

Lee Scott (CEO of Walmart) at #6 for investing in clean energy

[TahitiNut]

10. I'd sprinkle some grains of salt on that one.

After over three decades in the "belly of the beast" (Fortune 100 corporations), I notice some names in their list of "100" that give me some pause. A brief perusal of the site makes me wonder whether this is the typical window dressing of a culture that opts for the PR approach in lieu of substantive diligence.

I've seen a LOT of lip service by folks engaging in waste, fraud and abuse with abandon.