The Ritual of Ethics

by James Dwyer

By the early 2000’s, 81% of all Australian companies offered some form of training for their employees. Over the years, this has only increased - to the point it has become a common occurrence for every new starter in a major Australian institution to complete a series of often repetitive mandatory modules. The ideal of these trainings is to ensure all companies have ”[an] appropriate system of... internal controls”, to ensure employees abide by ethical standards and industry best-practice (AICD). Yet, how well does reality stack up with these guiding documents?

Consider the example of one of Australia’s oldest institutions, QANTAS, the ”Spirit of Australia”. During the early 2020’s, QANTAS faced a number of high-profile governance failures, including allegations of quid-pro-quo favours in order to secure market advantages. At the time public opinion turned strongly against the company. Yet despite this, QANTAS executed a change in leadership, apologising and promising to do right by customers. Soon, public opinion returned to 84% having a positive or neutral view of the company. This surprising neutrality is significantly indicative of our broader attitudes.

I contend that our neutral perception as a society of ethical corporate decision-making relates to our idea of certain rituals organisations perform to become ethical. If a company does wrong, it apologises. If you want to ensure good business ethics, make everyone complete a module. Society tells companies if they simply present cosmetic changes, they redeem themselves.

However, this thinking must be guarded against. SDG 16 calls for ”Strong Institutions” and this applies to businesses. Through holding companies accountable for substantial change to their institutional values - peering beyond the ritual - consumers can hope to improve business ethics in corporate decision making.

Ethical Decision-Making in Corporate Australia

by Manvi Saxena

Master of Commerce (Extension) student, Manvi Saxena is the winner of the 2025 Natoli Student Ethics Competition for a postgraduate student.

Despite extensive resources like ethical decision-making frameworks and guidance from bodies such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors, public perception of corporate ethics remains neutral. The big question is why does this persist?

High-profile scandals have left a lasting imprint on public trust. Cases such as the PwC tax scandal, Optus and Medibank data breaches, and Qantas' refusal to refund cancelled flights despite record profits exemplify what Roy Morgan terms "moral blindness" while prioritizing shareholder interests over community welfare. These incidents reinforce skepticism about whether companies genuinely embrace ethical principles or merely pay lip service to them.

While ethical frameworks exist, their implementation often falls short of public expectations. For instance, the Hayne Royal Commission exposed systemic misconduct in Australia's banking sector, eroding confidence in corporate governance. Ethical policies may be robust on paper but fail to translate into consistent actions that align with societal values.

Corporations frequently focus on financial performance over broader ethical outcomes. For example, Rio Tinto's destruction of Juukan Gorge highlighted a disconnect between profit-driven decisions and community or environmental stewardship. Such actions suggest that ethical considerations are secondary, fuelling public cynicism.

Transparency is essential for building trust, yet many organizations struggle with it. The Governance Institute’s findings show that sectors like banking and finance score poorly in perceived ethics due to opaque practices and insufficient accountability.

As one of Australia’s largest listed entities, Commonwealth Bank has faced criticism for its role in financial scandals revealed by the Royal Commission. Despite efforts to rebuild trust through ethical initiatives, public perception remains tepid due to past missteps and ongoing scrutiny.

To shift societal views, corporations must move beyond compliance to embed ethics into their core operations while demonstrating accountability, transparency, and genuine commitment to societal well-being.

Why Australians Remains Skeptical About Corporate Ethics - A Self-Reinforcing Cycle

by Austin Tran

Bachelor of Commerce student Austin Tran is the winner of the 2025 Natoli Student Ethics Competition for an undergraduate student.

From the public's perspective, corporate ethics increasingly resembles a branding tool rather than a true moral backbone. Companies are believed to sideline ethical conduct unless it is forecasted to increase profit. This belief is reinforced by high-profile cases of greenwashing in Australia, where companies secretly engage in unethical practices while branding themselves as sustainable.

A recent and striking example is Active Super, a superannuation fund that claimed to exclude investment in fossil fuels and gambling. Yet in 2024, after being caught investing in sectors that they proudly claimed to avoid, Active Super became the third entity in Australia to face court over greenwashing.

Worse still, organisations caught out for ethical misconduct frequently continue to operate with minimal consequence. This raises a difficult but necessary question: Are SDG frameworks truly working? When firms can selectively align with sustainability goals and face few repercussions for ethical failings, public scepticism is not just understandable, it’s inevitable.

That scepticism feeds into a self-reinforcing cycle. If ethical initiatives are viewed as hollow, they fail to generate trust or reputational benefit for firms. Without evident benefits, there would be little incentives for companies to move beyond surface-level commitments. 

Worse, some businesses have begun to practice “greenhushing” to avoid public backlash and accusations of greenwashing. In trying to avoid scrutiny, these firms have decided to speak less about their progress, and intentionally underreport their sustainability efforts. Greenwashing, alongside the rising prevalence of greenhushing, is making it even harder for the public to distinguish between genuine and performative businesses. And so, the cycle of public distrust and corporate performativity continues.

Breaking this loop requires more than better frameworks, it demands stronger enforcement and transparency. Until then, Australians are likely to remain on the fence, not because they don’t care, but because they’ve seen this all before.

2025 Student Ethics Prize Details Announced

 

Net zero by 2050 for Qantas

by Natasha Wensley

 

In pursuit of United Nation SDG 12, Australian airline Qantas committed to net zero emissions by 2050. While their broader sustainable development plan has included notable US$200M investments in sustainable aviation fuels, the implementation of a carbon offset program, a fleet enhancement program, and improved waste reduction, sceptics continue to criticise the airline's role in the global climate crisis.  

 

The underlying understanding that companies exist to maximise shareholders wealth is the most damaging argument to companies claim of sustainable production. Research does exist to support the proposition that companies associated with claims of ESG have been experiencing disproportionate growth 1.7 percentage points above their competitors, perhaps incentivising investment in these programs. However, the Board of major ASX listed entities have proven slow to implement real change, often being called out for “greenwashing” with “vague and unqualified claims” supported by a “lack of substantiating information”. 

 

Such distrust is perpetuated by the media. Extensive media coverage of the dramatic $2.5million fine received by Coles in 2023 need not have involved every sustainable claiming company to have directly affected their public perception – if Coles’ claims to sustainable production cannot be trusted then why should that of any other company? As such, this ongoing media scrutiny continues to impact the public's trust in Qantas’ sustainable practices. Publications contained in both the AFR and Guardian encourage readers to question whether their sustainability programs, notably the third-party led carbon credit scheme, are being executed with sufficient due diligence. 

 

The ethical decision making frameworks and guidance provided by the Australian Institute of Company Directors may be comprehensive but the publication of these reports means little to the Australian people. The tension between the publications and the distrust they represent creates the neutrality around ethical practices that is represented in the Australian public today. 

More focus needed on corporation ethical decision-making

by Liwen Tang

 

Nowadays, concerns about sustainability issues increase rapidly and the Governance Institute of Australia intend to measure that how the public think about the national corporation ethical decision-making process. Surprisingly, the final results reveal a neutral view held by Australians, with the trend that financial institutions and private sectors continue to release the guidelines of ethical decision-making, such as the ethical decision-making frameworks in practice, published on February 1^st, 2024.

 

There are multiple reasons why the public is indifference about the ethical decision-making in companies. The first one to be consider is the collision between stakeholders benefits and the ethical issues. The primary goal of many corporations is profit maximization, which sometimes conflicts with ethical considerations. In pursuit of financial gains, companies may prioritize short-term profits over long-term sustainability or ethical practices.

 

Moreover, profitable corporations are more capable in dealing with ethical and other sustainability-related issues since they have more resources and have less pressure on making profit. If we consider big companies such as Woodside Energy who has a complete system about ESG issues and their stakeholders concern more about their strategies on ethical decisions. Therefore, stakeholders consider more about the profitability and then they will care about the ethical decisions.

 

Other reasons could be lack of advertising on those ethical frameworks and unquantifiable results. If few people know the frameworks, there must also be few attentions. Meanwhile, the measurement of ethical decision-making is a long-term and unquantifiable process and short-term investors wouldn’t put energy on this issues.

 

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach. Companies need to not only adopt ethical frameworks but also undergo a cultural shift towards prioritizing ethical values. They should cultivate a culture of transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement to bridge the gap between ethical rhetoric and practice.

Are corporations all talk when it comes to ethics, and how did this assumption affect the public’s view on their decision-making and practice?

by Yu Thai Ha Nguyen

 

In Australia, there is currently no mandatory sustainability reporting standard, enabling high-emitting corporations to breach corporate ethics. Therefore, they tend to engage in greenwashing by making false or misleading claims in sustainability reports. This makes them miss target 12.6 of SDG 12 and creates information asymmetries, which can only be reduced by reasonable assurance. However, there has yet to be a standardized framework for sustainability assurance engagements, and 83% of them are limited assurance, so they cannot help businesses mitigate asymmetries or enhance their credibility. Additionally, greenwashing integrates ethical discourse with unethical praxis, creating the impression that companies are neither ethical nor unethical.

Contrarily, low-carbon firms tend to engage in greenhushing by concealing their progress towards target 13.2.2 of SDG 13, restricting stakeholders’ access to sustainability reports. Thus, media agencies serve as intermediaries between stakeholders and organizations, allowing them to evaluate whether organizations comply with ethical requirements. Nevertheless, how information is presented on the media alters public perception of corporations. By omitting material information and conducting subjective assessments of companies’ decision-making, media agencies instill the sense that companies are unethical into stakeholders. Nonetheless, the media also helps businesses partly rebuild public trust and shift stakeholders’ perspectives on their ethical practices from negative to neutral by promoting their restorative actions.

Moreover, companies can talk the talk, but cannot walk the walk. Take Commonwealth Bank and Westpac as examples. Although its website stated that its employees received generous salary packages, Commonwealth Bank deliberately underpaid them for 6 years. Likewise, Westpac pursued an AML/CTF policy, but it seriously violated the AML/CTF Act and incurred the heaviest civil penalty in Australian history. Despite these facts, they are still ranked among Australia’s Top100 Graduate Employers in 2024. In conclusion, disparities between corporations’ incentives and policies make stakeholders adopt an unbiased viewpoint on their ethical conduct.