Interesting question raised by Forbes about ethics officers. Noting that an ethics officer did not help Hewlett-Packard, Forbes asks the rhetorical question: Chief Ethics Officers: Who Needs Them?

The piece maintains that the whole thing might just be a job creation program, and can serve as a mask for the company to hide behind.

Interesting arguments but they miss the point. Hewlett-Packard got into trouble because of the systems in place that mixed up ethics with law. And it might well get into trouble again because it hasn't fixed the problem.


HP's ethics officer in the lead up to the scandal, Kevin Hunsaker, was also the company's senior counsel. Trouble is that business ethics is more than compliance with the law. Companies can behave unethically and still behave totally within the law.

Business requires a huge shift in corporate culture and conducting all aspects of business and dealing with all stakeholders, which include employees, suppliers, shareholders, partners, etc in an ethical manner. And chief ethics officers are supposed to drive that.

That's where the appointment of Hunsaker's replacement, Jon Hoak, becomes problematic.

According to the HP press release, Hoak has a background as an attorney and general counsel and will report directly to the HP chairman and CEO Mark Hurd.

Once again, HP has failed to distinguish between the law and ethics. And given the history of the pretexting scandal, it would have been smarter to have him reporting to, say, the audit committee, or some other board committee.

This is not going to solve the problem.