The Strategic Importance of Ethics: Beyond Emotion

Ethics inevitably addresses the question of good and evil: what is right and what is not. In itself, this is not a problem—it is even the starting point. The challenge in organizations lies rather in the way we try to persuade: too often, our arguments rely on emotional adherence to values (“you just don’t do that,” “that’s not appropriate”) rather than on rational demonstration. Yet this register alone is not enough when it comes time to decide, because an executive team wants to understand concrete impacts: what does it change, what does it cost—and above all, what does it expose us to?

Our moral intuition is useful: it quickly captures what “feels wrong.” We sense that a situation is problematic, we perceive it as unfair, we feel that it is not appropriate. But this feeling varies depending on individuals, relationships, loyalties, and context. And above all, it does not automatically translate into an organizational decision: even when everyone “feels” the same way, one must still be able to explain and justify it convincingly.

To move ethics forward in organizations, the point is therefore not to reject emotion, but to go beyond it: emotion can guide, but it is not sufficient to persuade. What is needed is an objective and structured approach—one that allows us to move from impression to demonstration. In other words: clarify what is expected, and then show why the deviation is not only “wrong,” but risky.

Concretely, this approach rests on two pillars. The first is to objectively determine what is “right” and “wrong” for the organization, based on the expectations of key stakeholders: employees, customers, citizens, partners, investors, and public authorities. This makes it possible to anchor credible values within the ecosystem—and, conversely, to define misconduct as behaviors incompatible with those values. The second pillar is to demonstrate the strategic risk associated with such misconduct through a structured analysis, notably by assessing inherent risk (the “gross” risk, before mitigation measures): what is the magnitude of potential impacts, and how likely are they to occur? Among these impacts, reputational damage is a frequent consequence when risk materializes; it can quickly undermine stakeholders’ trust. It is this demonstration that makes it possible to show, objectively, how misconduct can weaken credibility—and ultimately the organization’s ability to achieve its objectives.