Fifty Years of Business Ethics: A Milestone Worth Celebrating

The W. Michael Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University is turning 50 this year. That’s worth pausing on.

Founded in 1976, the Hoffman Center is one of the oldest and most respected business ethics institutes in the world. Think about what 1976 looked like: Watergate was barely in the rearview mirror, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act hadn’t been signed yet, and the idea that a university would dedicate an entire center to business ethics was ahead of its time.

They were right to do it early. The world caught up.

On October 15 and 16, 2026, Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts is hosting a two-day celebration. The festivities begin Thursday evening with a reception and dinner ($50 to attend), followed by a full conference and reception on Friday. If you work in ethics, compliance, or business leadership, this is not an event to miss.

Ethics doesn’t sell itself. It never has. Getting business leaders to take ethics seriously — really seriously, not just as a line item in a compliance budget — takes sustained effort by people who believe the work matters even when the headlines don’t demand it. That’s what the Hoffman Center has been doing since Gerald Ford was president.

Their mission is simple to state and difficult to execute: align effective business performance with ethical business conduct. Not one or the other. Both. The “and” in that sentence is where most organizations stumble.

As a member of the Center’s Advisory Board, I’ve seen firsthand how seriously they take that mission — bringing together academics and practitioners through programs like their Brown Bag Research Series and ethics@work, where real dilemmas get examined by people who live them.

Fifty years of that kind of work deserves a celebration. I hope to see you there.

Register here.

Open-door policy

I once had a boss who always smiled and asked me how I was doing when we crossed paths in the hallway. Every day at lunch he would sit at a large table in the cafeteria and more than half the department would join him for conversation. The only forbidden topic was work. If you were sitting nearby, you would see about ten of us laughing for thirty or forty minutes, sharing personal stories. Not once did I hear him say that he had an open-door policy. We all knew that we could walk into his office any time, and we did.

I also worked for another leader who repeatedly said that they had an open-door policy. That leader always looked stressed, rarely smiled, and barely acknowledged anyone in the hallway, evidently rushing to the next meeting. Their office door was closed most of the time. No one knocked on it.

If you have to announce that you have an open-door policy, you probably don’t have one.

Culture and tenure

Apple is turning 50 this year.

One of its employees – and only one – has remained on the payroll since 1976.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Chris Espinosa, Employee #8, shared that he could never be let go because his severance package would be too expensive for Apple.

I won’t suggest that Espinosa coasted at Apple for 50 years, confident that he couldn’t be let go. On the contrary, he made significant contributions over the decades. But his unique story should make us pause and ask “Why do some employees stay in our organization for so long?”

Find your long-tenured employees and ask them.

It might turn out to be your most actionable culture survey yet.

What is good for the hive…

Australia is the latest country to pass a law protecting workers who don’t respond to work-related messages outside of working hours.

According to NPR, “a 2022 survey by the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute […] found that seven out of 10 Australians performed work outside of scheduled working hours, with many reporting experiencing physical tiredness, stress and anxiety as a result.”

As a result, these employees are likely to experience resentment, which they often use to justify some form of retaliation against the company (lying about their performance, stealing time or resources, etc.)

Giving our employees some breathing room between shifts is good for their health, and that of the organization.

Unfavorable winds

Think of employees as sailors and leadership as the wind.

Sailors can navigate forward no matter the direction of the wind, but anything other than beam reach is more challenging and time consuming.

If your organization is struggling with a poor compliance culture, could it be that leadership is blowing in the wrong direction?

We should have seen it coming

We knew there would be a corruption scandal around the Paris Olympics when the city was selected in 2017. This is not a jab on Paris. It happens with every Olympic event.

We also know that sales professionals who are paid only on commissions and required to meet unreasonable targets are almost certain to cheat and lie. We know this the minute we create the incentive program.

What else is your organization doing today that clearly points to a compliance failure in the future?

Crisis and change

We know that people don’t like change.

Which is why employees, and often leadership, resist when a company tries to improve its ethics and compliance program. “Our learning modules have always consisted of 40-minutes videos with real actors. Don’t change that.”

So meaningful change typically happens only after a crisis. A crisis that perhaps was occasioned by the prior resistance to change.

Right and wrong

Socrates used to say that “nobody does wrong willingly.”

He simply meant that when people do wrong, they think they are right. If they thought otherwise, they wouldn’t do it.

And so it goes with those who engage in wrongdoing in the workplace. They think they are right. Because it’s funny. Because the company owes it to them. Because their family needs the money. Whatever the reason, they feel justified.

This is why it is so important for management and leadership to understand why people engage in wrongdoing at work. No amount of policies and controls will stop people who believes they are right. We must convince them that they are wrong.

And we must be right about that.