Microsoft On List of Most Ethical Companies

walterbyrd writes "Microsoft is among the world's most ethical companies, according to a list put together by the Ethisphere Institute in New York. Overall, 110 companies made the prestigious list, including Microsoft and 35 other newcomers. The complete list was reported by Forbes."

Comments

"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[Eric S. Smith]

The bar, after all, is so low.

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[OttoErotic]

Not surprisingly there are a lot of negative comments here, but to play devil's advocate: what practices of Microsoft's are really unethical? I mean that as an honest question. Maybe there's a huge list that I'm forgetting but I can't think of a lot offhand that really make me think of them as really evil. I don't always like their approach, but most of the time it seems like legitimate competitive behavior. When I think 'unethical', I think bribery, hidden agendas, employee abuse, poor environmental practices, etc, none of which springs to mind when I think of Microsoft. They're obviously a capitalist company looking to make as much profit as they can, and I suppose that can be considered unethical in it's own right, but in that case a list of 'ethical companies' seems moot anyways. And I never hear about child labor pumping out (legitimate) Windows DVDs or Bill Gates throwing parties with strippers for the employees.

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[Max Littlemore]

I think the whole OOXML thing was unethical. Buying off members of a standards body.

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[mysidia]

I was just wondering about that too, if Google wasn't nominated, or just didn't make the cut

Google had "significant" legal action against them in the past 5 years. They nixed their chances by accidentally capturing WiFi data while riding around in their privacy-violating google vans.

And they probably didn't donate enough to *cough* sufficiently worthy causes (such as the organization making the list)

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[OttoErotic]

Honestly not meant as a troll, I guess my eyes just glaze over most of the time the topic comes up so I haven't paid much attention. I see a couple other responses with some actual examples, which certainly do seem unethical at a glance (and at the very least should make for some interesting wiki browsing for me tonight at work) that I'm looking forward to reading more about. But assuming your question was legit too: it does seem to me (again, just randomly sampling the wiki) like there are more than a few areas where they've made some positive efforts. Good environmental policies, good stance on LGBT rights, producing some notable philanthropists (not strictly speaking a commentary on company ethics, I suppose, but speaks towards a decent corporate culture in my experience).

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[dgatwood]

More than that, having known people who have worked there, it looks to me like Symantec's modus operandi is to buy companies with successful products, lay off all the staff working on the products, force people to train their replacements at an outsourcing firm in India, and provide the absolute minimum amount of support required in order to fulfill their contractual obligations without getting sued, all while progressively breaking the product with every release through poorly tested updates.

Ethical? Does ethical mean "will sell their customers' and employees' souls for a dollar?" If so, then they're ethical. If Symantec is one of the most ethical companies on the planet, then I'm Mother Teresa.

And eBay? The company that took the better part of a decade of complaints before they fixed the problem of power sellers abusing the feedback system to pressure buyers to retract negative feedback? The company whose PayPal arm routinely makes decisions about who to allow to use their service based on politics or even random whims, and freezes people's accounts without warning, leaving small businesses on the hook for thousands of dollars in payments that they can no longer afford?

If eBay is one of the most ethical companies on Earth, I'm the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Did the people who wrote this story even do the slightest bit of research beyond reading the corporations' PR blurbs when deciding who to list? Seriously?

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[Locke2005]

So what is the criteria for being 'ethical'?

Not getting caught.

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[Anthony Mouse]

So you really want a list?

Let's see.. Ignore all the antitrust stuff because that's way too easy... There was the permatemp thing. The Linux patent FUD. Funding SCO. Palladium and its offspring. A lot of people credit them with being behind the recent smear campaign against Google. The ISO OOXML debacle. EEE. Need I go on?

Re:"Most" doesn't mean "very".

[artor3]

This is quite a pathetic list. Cashback programs are bribery? Better not tell the DoJ, or every credit card company on Earth is going to be in deep shit.

"Microsoft buys patents". Seriously. Buying things is now unethical is the fevered minds of the MS-haters.

MS adds support for PDF. This is bad because it helps MS Office compete against Open Office. And God knows, trying to compete against FOSS isn't just unethical, it's a crime against humanity!

The CEO gets angry and throws a chair. Ergo, MS routinely abuses their employees. This is logical your mind? I doubt even you believe this one.

Christ man, the ONLY thing on that list that's really unethical is their corruption of the OOXML standards process. Next time, just leave it at that. Posting all that other stuff just makes you look like you're grasping at straws.

Clearly

[mmmmbeer]

Clearly this is a different meaning of the word "Ethical" than I'm familiar with.

Re:Clearly

[Max Littlemore]

Clearly this is a different meaning of the word "Ethical" than I'm familiar with.

Yes. This is "ethical" in the same sense as the word "standard" is used to describe OOXML.

Coincidence

[gmuslera]

I was attributing this to Forbes malice, then i noted the message at the bottom of the slashdot page: Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Ethical. You keep using that word...

[dido]

I do not think it means what you think it means. For a convicted monopolist with a track record of betraying their partners, subverting governments and standards bodies, and all around ruthless behavior to make the list, I wonder if the word 'ethical' means something to them other than what my dictionary says it does. Oddly enough Google, with their 'don't be evil' motto, doesn't seem to have made the list. I know they have committed their share of sins over the years, but it seems that what they have done so far does not hold a candle to even what Microsoft has done over the last decade.

Re:What about Apple?

[Daniel Phillips]

I would have thought that refusing to license patents, demanding 30% of every purchase, and generally behaving in an anti-competitive fashion would have earned Apple a top spot on the list.

You forgot, kicking in the front doors of journalists.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the little things that make your post stand out as a shill. You almost had it perfect except for a few sections:

Microsoft is part of my family

My stuff works with MS stuff, and I enjoy their offerings.

I feel pretty educated in the Technology world (note the capitalization)

I have to say, it was one of the better insidious postings I've seen. Empathizing with the target audience by noting historic controversy, then defending their current direction is a powerful rhetoric device. If you didn't make such over-the-top enthusiastic claims, you might have escaped detection.

Shill rating: 8.5 out of 10.