It appears that more and more topics are being pulled into an ethical debate, and out of respect for the people looking for straight technical answers I thought it would be fair to begin a thread on this basis, so we can all share our view points without clouding often very straight forward issues.

Currently debated "Hot Topics" include:

Globalisation vs. protectionism - The great overseas BPO debate
Acceptable selection - What IS or ISN'T a valid recruitment criterium / ethic
People vs. Process - Do some technologies devalue staff contribution
Blood, sweat, and tears - Do we ask too much & offer too little
What the people want - Is consumer attitude to ethical policy changing

Although these are all different topics they all come down to peoples perceptions of acceptable business practice, and a prioritising of human & business values.

It has been suggeted that shareholder and consumer appetite for ethical business practice is increasing, and this is certainly demonstrated accross a variety of consumer products and services, such as Fare Trade goods.

However it is often the case that "ethical" stand points are somewhat narrow in view, and that there is almost always an "ethical" argument to support your decision, whatever it may be.

A simplified definition of ethics is to "treat people as you would wish to be treated".

Consumers may be willing to pay a little more for their chocolate because they do not believe that growers should live in poverty while distributors reap huge profits. But would your average consumer be willing to pay more so that administrators are not expected to work 5 minutes over shift? As almost every non-shift worker is expected to work extra without pay, I suggest that sympathy would at best be divided.

Shareholders may demand ethical practices, but how many of them then contribute their dividends to ethical causes? People buy shares to make money. People are in business to make money. Shareholders demand reductions in "fat cat" payouts but do they demand increases in adminsitrator salaries?

The general public's main objection to overseas BPO is the poor quality of service delivery. They like the lower costs, they like the better interest rates, they just need to recognise that they are all a product of the same "ethical" decision.
>>>>my bank has its callcentre in bangalore - do I still want to be with this bank?
Lets be honest about the question that is really being asked - "do I still believe my bank will provide an acceptable level of service". There are some excellent BPO operations based outside the UK where the fact is invisible to the consumer. Do consumers really check the ethical practice of their supplier or do they jump on the "outrage" band wagon when it comes along? The Sun reader massive is not always the best informed nor does it take the least biased view.

A recent debate included the view point that it is unethical to give BPO projects overseas, as it endangered jobs in the UK. That is a very narrow "ethical" viewpoint that denies all the considerations of poverty in the developing world. An equally "ethical" view point is that employers have a duty to provide work in those areas, home & abroad, that would recieve the greatest benefit. Or that they have a duty to keep production costs at a minimum, and pass this on to the customer, thereby reducing the cost of living for the general public - e.g. 10 million customers benefit rather than 200 employees.


I worked for a profit making marketing firm working exclusively in the not for profits domain. Is it right that we made a profit of charity? we beat SCOPE in the national fund raising awards and our charges far outweighed clients in house costs... but we were in it for the money first, ethics later. we set up in the area of Oxford with the greatest need for employment, but the reallity was that our "ethical target" recruitment group rarely succeeded due to cultural issues(and this has NO race or religious conitations - I mean differing social cultural groups). Most of the employees were in fact degree students from the (former) polytechnic. Our MD (ex-Oxfam director) always felt this was a failing, but then we hear all the time about the hardships of being a student in this country - surely to offer steady employment and the opportunity to further themselves (and hopefully society) through study & learning is an ethical success?

My point (if anyone is still reading) is that ethics is not a "black & white" area for snap judgements. Most companies have an "ethical" mission statement and no real understanding of how they intend to apply it.

I know you want me to wade in so how can I refuse when asked so nicely.


A simplified definition of ethics is to "treat people as you would wish to be treated".

No, that definition neglects to include the values of the person - it also assumes all people and their actions are benevolent and all have a common set of values - think Al Queda.

Ethics are about maturity - what it is to think and act in a way that reflects the integrity of a human being. But what price this integrity? Those who are determined to live with integrity (ethics) do not necessarily have the easiest lives - those who risk their lives in order to save others? Those who publicly expose corruption? Those who campaign for human rights in countries devoid of them? There is always a temptation to compromise principles for the sake of an easy life but it is often a matter of scale as Dylan observes. If a moderately well off Westerner is offered a risk free way of making £10 through some morally dubious scheme he/she may well refuse. But if the same scheme involved millions of pounds - (Think big business and boardrooms). What if it promised to benefit not just you but others as well. When the stakes are high integrity (and its morality) becomes expensive.

In a sense one cant have a simple understanding of ethics, it is an attempt to study moral choices and the arguments that spring from them. Ultimately our personal choices are based on what our life is trying to say, based on the image you have of yourself and your conscious and unconscious convictions about life.

Thus ethics and integrity spawns martyrs and movements - Emily Pankhurst, Mother Theresa. Most often current ethical thinking reflects the trends of society in its day - there is nothing wrong with being a Sun reader and having a viewpoint however well informed or uniformed it is - the ethical choice isn't about 'right and wrong' its about a 'sense' of right and wrong - these ethics change according to time and place in history. (Haven't we started to devalue Sun readers here - thats unethical??)

I agree with Dylan - My point (if anyone is still reading) is that ethics is not a "black & white" area for snap judgements. Most companies have an "ethical" mission statement and no real understanding of how they intend to apply it.

At the moment the 'current thinking' appears to be is that there is an ethical issue about outsourcing and the loss of UK jobs. Whether its right or wrong isn't the point but it could be the start of a movement and a new type awareness may grow.

the ethical choice isn't about 'right and wrong' its about a 'sense' of right and wrong - these ethics change according to time and place in history

That's a really nice way of putting it.

Essentally every man has his price. Just how high?

DaveA

"...every man has his price. Just how high?"

An iPod will do nicely, 'specially if it's one of them dinky 40Gb ones...

I'll get me coat...

John

Thanks for the compliment Dave, I do try.
In fact its often been said how trying I am.

It was indeed an invitation to yourself and anyone else, as I think there are important points being debated, but they were clouding far simpler questions. I believe this thread would be far poorer without your well thought out arguments.

>>>>>the ethical choice isn't about 'right and wrong' its about a 'sense' of right and wrong

While we are in agreement in principle, we clearly have a different stance on personal ethics - the only truly morale choice is "I do what I genuinely believe is right" (paraphrased Plato) - this is the only decision that cannot be wrong! Even if hindsight shows it to have been entirely the wrong thing to do then the individual making the choice did the right thing. The converse is true - if you do something you believe to be wrong then even if history shows it was the best course of action the individual making the choice did the wrong thing, as they deliberately set out on a course of action they believed was wrong. If "good" is the bi-product of another action, then one cannot claim the morale / ethical high ground, unless that was the driving motivation and the result was intended.

My point in the above is that the motivation for many "ethical" decisions is still not the "ethical" outcome; many companies are addopting an "ethical" policy because they believe it is required, not because they wish to have a positive impact on the world - hense the meaningless mission statements. Likewise, many people will jump on the "jobs overseas is bad" band wagon because they are told we must protect british jobs, not because they have made an honest assessment of the impacts of the various options and come to the self drawn conclusion that protectionism is the right approach (please note that I am fully aware that yours is an arrived at point of view, I am not suggesting you are spoon fed this opinion). Hopefully debates such as this will allow others to participate in forming their own opinion.

>>>>>that definition neglects to include the values of the person

Why? Do you not wish to be treated as an individual with your own set of values, principles, and beliefs? Again, it comes down to the level of self consiousness an individual possesses - this is why ethics isn't a coffee break topic. If people think beyond the obvious, then they will realise that they would not want someone elses values imposed upon them, and would reflect this in their dealings with others.

>>>>>Thus ethics and integrity spawns martyrs and movements

So does ill informed superstition, bloody mindedness, self interest & self preservation, and "what else could I do?". The same "ethical martyrs" that burnt on the stake on both the Protestant & Catholic sides in that grim period in European history lit the torch on eachothers pyres. All ethics actually creates is the ability to live with oneself, everything else is a by-product of specific actions.

Dylan,

I think basically we agree we've just read different books and phrase things differently.

We seem to differ on what constitutes right and wrong - my stance is they are relative and depend on time place and prevailing trends - the Nazis thought they were doing right - but right when compared with what. Right and wrong are transient concepts when considering ethics.

Likewise we disagree on ethical choices - my stance is that just because you aren't aware of every minute fact it doesn't make your decision any less. 'Expert' opinions differ all the time despite their obvious wealth of information - margarine is good for you, margarine is bad for you - Flora are pumping millions into my local area to 'raise the health' of the local population - they also flog loads of margarine as a result. We can continue to examine motives and the intricacies of arguments and influencing ad infinitum but at some point a decision has to be made. Just because someone has less information or heard it word of mouth, from the Sun, TV Quick, Newsnight, The Guardian, BBC Worldservice or Al Jazeera it doesn't mean their choice is any less valid especially in a democracy - the point is that a decision was made not the validity of it.

>>If people think beyond the obvious, then they will realise that they would not want someone else's values imposed upon them, and would reflect this in their dealings with others.
>>Do you not wish to be treated as an individual with your own set of values, principles, and beliefs?



These statements break down when dealing with international ethics, international ethics and globalisation are at the forefront of ethical debates at the moment. It also assumes all people are benevolent and act for benevolent reasons.

I'm currently reading The Age of Consent by George Monbiot www.monbiot.com it is about globalisation in every sense (it totally supports your first sentence ****) and I wholeheartedly recommend it. "If you believe that slogans are a substitute for policies or that if we all just love each other more there will be a transformation of consciousness and no one will ever oppress other people again, then I am wasting your time, and so are you."

>>The same "ethical martyrs" that burnt on the stake on both the Protestant & Catholic sides in that grim period in European history lit the torch on each others pyres. - agreed, don't forget Joan of Arc, it was ethically right to do so at the time but beware judging them by today's yardstick. We may abhor it now but modern day equivalents still exist despite our wealth of information on the subject.

As to the value of ethics - it analyses moral choices and devises theories to show how they may be justified. It is a valuable process and a guide for future action but it can never fully explain the process of creative living.


===============================================================================

**** My point in the above is that the motivation for many "ethical" decisions is still not the "ethical" outcome; many companies are adopting an "ethical" policy because they believe it is required, not because they wish to have a positive impact on the world - hence the meaningless mission statements.

I went into Sainsbury's Waterloo about 18 months ago and I saw these 'self service' tills. I wondered if they'd ever catch on, imagaine my surprise when I saw 4 of them at a local Tescos in a small market town.

It was 5pm and the cashiers were obviously changing shifts so a few queues had built up. I was just buying a pint of milk and 30p purchase and the supervisor came up to me and asked if I'd like to learn how to use the 'self service tills'. I declined BUT WHAT WOULD YOU DO????


Pros
Some people use them and obviously like 'jumping' the queues and perhaps like technology.



Cons
4 jobs lost
Less supervisors required - more job losses
No human interaction
Inflexible
Unable to rectify errors - (the store will side with the machine every time)
Didnt Tescos used to advertise how they'd 'open a new till' if queues were too long?
Is this actually a service or is it DIY? - where does it end? perhaps they'd like us to open and close the shop for them, refill shelves as we remove items from them???

Will it catch on like ATMs have??

I know this is supermarkets but its a pretty basic issue and it neatly outlines the balance between customer service, human interaction and what is actually in the customers best interest. Do you think customers actually requested this service or was it the execs trying to save money.

I'm curious to explore the issue and whether we think its a good idea and sustainable idea for the c/s industry in general.

I think I just posted this but it hasn't appeared. I apologise if I've ended up posting it twice.

The thing is with the supermarket example is that you should never have been there in the first place. Your milk should've come from the milkman, meat from the butchers, etc...

The decline in these trades and the "supermarket take over" is what we're told is causing Jobs lost / less human interaction / Inflexibility in general, and you have to admit that it's true. However, surely we're on the verge of sounding like people who can't let go and move on?

Although history work has evolved. There are very few jobs that are still done now in the way they were 100 years ago (I can think of prostitution, but not a lot more). The reason for this is that most jobs become nearly obsolete (Think chimney sweep, dockyard workers) as either fashions change (less open fires) or industry modernises (containerisation).

This is essential for a healthy capitalist society. It's what enables us to develop and move onto bigger and better things. For example, without supermarkets full time workers would have to spend most of Saturday getting the weekly shopping. Now I can get everything I need in an hour on Tuesday night. Things that once were a major part of our lives can take a back seat while new things become a major part of our lives.

On the flipside, some of these jobs will never die out altogether. I still like to go to the butchers on a Saturday morning every now and then. I like to chat to him, and come back with meat of quality I'd never dream of getting from the supermarket. For this reason the number of quality butchers may decline, but it'll reach a sustainable number and plateau off.

I think this is what we'll eventually see happen in the customer service industry. We'll have our boom years (and I think there's a few more to come yet), but I think that self-service will take hold. It won't be the end of CSR's altogether - we'll find that there's a time and a place for them. I don't mind using an automated system when I give my gas company a meter reading, but when I ring my bank I want to speak to someone. I want to speak to them straight away. (And that's why I bank with First Direct).
As for jobs to India; it upsets me because I'm just one of those people that has to "buy British" wherever I can. I believe that we should do everything we can to boost out own GDP before that of other nations.

Regards,
Darryl
www.darrylbeckford.co.uk

One point to mention on the self check out tills - it is 4 seats lost not 4 employees, allowing for shifts each till/seat will be used by more than one person.

Therefore one automated till open 24/7 if used to it's potential would allow redeployment of more than one person. However, the flipside is the actual utilisation of this till over the human version, not having worked in a supermarket I dont know how they measure productivity - is it items or customers cleared / transactional value. These tills probably cover off customers with less than 10 items and here it may be cost effective to self serve, coming back to call centres it will be your balance enquiry / last payment / account status callers - low value and wanting quick turnaround.

However, for self service to work, the supermarket / callcentre has to do it's homework and establish what it is the customers want and delivering to that. Unfortunately Supermarkets are very good at manipulating us to thinking their way (how else do they get us to put more in our shopping basket than we really want) and call centres generally work to the bottom line.

when a new piece of technology provides an alternative to human resource, it is easy to say "jobs lost". But that assumes that there is no industry around the production of the new technology.

funnily enough the place I most regularly see these is CO-OP! The shining light of ethical consumerism. Not only do they pride themselves on the ethical stance to purchasing, buit they are a co-op.

If a piece of technology leads to cost reduction, and that reduction is passed on to the customer, then surely more people benefit than loose - wonder what the net economic benefit / loss case is to the nation in these circumstances?

If the public demands the automation (regardless of actual need) then it may not be possible to operate in a competitive market without adopting the change - a company going under costs a lot more jobs than a single piece of BPR to keep the company in the game!

The reality is that (like IVR) instead of opening another queue the supermarket 'can afford' to let people queue that bit longer in the hope they'll give up and 'educate themselves' to learn how to use the self service. One is coerced into using the self service. Coersion and manipulation is how the cost savings are passed on.

Interesting views guys, speaking as somone who delivers trainng to human beings to deliver customer service the philosophy is somehow lost on me. Part of that transaction involves humans. OK you can buy your rail ticket from a machine but thats a much simpler and quicker transaction, much less time is spent.

To what extent automation can improve service as opposed to only speed is the issue that I find at the heart of this matter. Sure we've seen it in other industries but now its hitting the service industries and there's something about retailing and servitude that involves humans otherwise it'd be a vending machine.

What will win out in the end?...only you can decide

To what extent automation can improve service as opposed to only speed is the issue that I find at the heart of this matter.

I agree with this. The problem I come across time and again when reviewing automated systems if that they've been built to serve the organisation, not the customer.

My number one rule for an automated system is that if you expect the customer to use it then be clear about the benefit they get from it.

It's basic sales technique, isn't it? Sell the benefit, not the product.

Regards,
Darryl
www.darrylbeckford.co.uk

I know one swallow doesnt make a Summer but with twelve Indian agents on remand in Pune and $350,000 of customers money missing isnt this argument about its all ok let the market decide somewhat redundant?
Didn't those of us defending UK call centres a year ago have something right - namely consumer concern, data protection and whole the outsourcing bubble having a hole in it?

Whilst I agree with the premis, I think the nationality is irrelevent.

BBC News Link

Where there's brass there's muck :-)

DaveA

It's basic sales technique, isn't it? Sell the benefit, not the product.

I went to a very interesting sales training session where they told us, "don't sell benefits, sell pain". I.e. the pain that the prospect feels that could be alleviated by buying the product or service.

Interesting.

Pros
Some people use them and obviously like 'jumping' the queues and perhaps like technology.



Cons
4 jobs lost
Less supervisors required - more job losses
No human interaction
Inflexible
Unable to rectify errors - (the store will side with the machine every time)
Didnt Tescos used to advertise how they'd 'open a new till' if queues were too long?
Is this actually a service or is it DIY? - where does it end? perhaps they'd like us to open and close the shop for them, refill shelves as we remove items from them???

I dunno if I can agree with this really. In fact, many of your cons are either a) assumptions or b) things I may not really consider a con

The 4 jobs lost have been somewhat addressed already. It is quite possiblel that those 4 tills are only the equivalant of one FTE. That industry could also have massive ramifications that could cause job growth in other segments. The people working those tills could have moved on in the company.

Mundane Human Interaction is not a requirement of me going to the grocery store or something I particularly look forward to. I heard similar complaints when ATM's (automated Teller Machines or the more politically friend Automated Banking Machines) were introduced but from what I can surmise there has not been a major employment loss in the banking industry.

Inflexible? Can you haggle deals with tellers over on that side of the pond? Not sure what you mean here.

Saying that the machine will never rectify an error I am confident is inaccurate. Sure..it may require you going to get a person...just like when an ATM makes an error.

I think your remarks about re-stocking shelves and closing and opening the store is really not taking it far enough.

I myself do not grocery shop. why you ask?

I get them delivered. I can go online, select what groceries I need, select when I need it deliver (3-4 hour window), use coupons, etc and then BAM! A couple hours later I have a very friendly person at my door with the boxes I ordered. It costs me $5cdn for this service which I think is well worth my time and effort.

On occasion I will even receive a call from the grocer informing me of some other deal or that "this brand is on sale" or "the bread was baked yesterday", etc, etc

Justin,

>>>Mundane Human Interaction is not a requirement of me going to the grocery store or something I particularly look forward to.

Call me old fashioned, call me a softee, call me downright emotional but I'm saddened by this remark. When people dont enjoy human interaction then something inside me dies. The interaction between human beings however petty, sophisticated, complex, subtle and beautiful is what makes us human. It inspired art, poetry, music and William Shakespeare. It makes us care, it is the basis of compassion and it helps inform us how to be better to our fellow human beings.

I enjoy all 'face to face' human interaction above a machine. Especially a smile. :-)

It was a statement that I reviewed several times over before actually posting it. I even looked briefly into a thesaurus to try to determine what the best word was to get my point. Mundane is what I came up with, frivilous was close.

I view grocery stores much like I do banks. While I am uncertain of the banking situation in England our ABM (Automated Banking Machine)network/online banking has for the most part replaced the friendly old bank tellers of yesteryear. Where a person even a few years ago had to visit the bank tellers often several times a week now I find it can be literally months and even a year between visits.

I do not find many of my grocery store clerks smile anymore :(, perhaps it is past poor (or mundane) customer service experiences that have driven me to this point.

I enjoy human interaction quite a bit. I just do not place it as a requirment to get me sustenance.

Do you use a Automated Bank Machine or do all your withdrawls/deposits through a teller? Do you use online banking or prefer making the trip to your bank during hours of operation?