Public Ethics at the European Commission

Politics, Reform and Individual Views

Andreea Nastase

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315470559
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Relaciones internacionales

Since the early 2000s, reforms in the area of public ethics have represented a significant part in the European Commission's efforts to improve its internal governance and democratic legitimacy, and address the crisis of public confidence in European integration.

This book comprises a study of ethics and public integrity issues in the administrative services of the European Commission. The author traces the reforms implemented in this area since the early 2000s, and asks whether and how they have shaped Commission officials' thinking about appropriate behaviour in public office. Based on in-depth interviews and the use of vignettes, the book reveals that the influence of ethics regulations is subtle and full of contradictions: while a heightened awareness and discussion of ethical issues exists in the Commission nowadays, the topic is nonetheless often considered as a matter of "common sense". This book breaks new ground as the first analysis of ethics at the level of individual EU officials. It advances a new angle to the study of the Commission as an administrative actor, and sheds light on an important but under-researched component of its efforts to address criticism concerning democratic legitimacy. In the field of administrative ethics, the book tackles research gaps regarding the practice and impact of ethics policies within public organizations.

This text will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners of EU Studies/Politics, institutional reform, administrative ethics, and more broadly European governance and public policy.

1
Public ethics, socialization and the organizational profile of the European Commission

Drawing on public administration scholarship, this chapter defines the core concepts and sets out the analytical framework of the book. It also covers the organizational characteristics and complexities of the European Commission and shows how they translate in choices of research design.

The chapter begins by offering a basic framework for thinking about ethics in an organizational context. Specifically, it defines public ethics and its parameters, as well as the related concepts of unethical behaviour and ethical dilemmas, and shows how the latter can be used to elicit individual views relating to ethics. After establishing these conceptual reference points, I draw on the rather practitioner-oriented literature on ethics management to explore what this exercise consists of and what its boundaries are. The second section of the chapter discusses the theoretical perspective of organizational socialization and shows how it relates to ethics and ethics management and how it will be deployed in the book. It ends with a couple of observations on the treatment of socialization in EU integration research (which differs from the approach used here).

The last section of the chapter introduces the reader to the European Commission and, drawing on previous points, tackles questions of research design. It has been argued in the Introduction that the Commission represents a hard case in ethics management, because its internal heterogeneity poses above-average challenges in terms of instilling a common line among staff. In line with this argument, interviewees were selected to form a sample which reflects this internal heterogeneity – I present here the criteria on which participants were selected for in-depth interviews, the characteristics of the sample and some details regarding the recruitment method.

1.1 A conceptual framework for addressing public ethics

Generally speaking, morality is a term which refers to the nature of good or bad, right or wrong. Ethics (or, more precisely, public ethics), which is the focus of this book, refers to appropriate behaviour in public office. It is connected to the performance of public roles and duties. As such, it does not deal with absolute, universal principles but has a limited, situational character. It is best conceived of as “role morality”, because it covers only a particular aspect (or role) in one’s life (Rohr 1998).

It is of course a matter of debate whether it is possible – or desirable – to treat job-related normative considerations separately from the wider individual and societal moral frameworks. A good part of the literature dealing with ethics in public life highlights the possible clashes between opposing moral cues coming from different spheres of life (e.g., the fervent Catholic official who works for a government which passes legislation making abortion legal; the “dirty” policeman who tortures the kidnapper in order to save a child’s life¹). These are indeed very important questions, but they can be better answered by political philosophers. Here, the delineation of a specific sphere of public role morality – i.e., ethics – is done strictly in order to define and limit the scope of the research. It should be understood as an analytical position, not a normative one.

The parameters of “ethics” are defined in relation to the core values which ground the operation of the public service. In modern representative democracies, such values and standards often include impartiality, legality, transparency, efficiency, fairness, confidentiality and commitment to the public (see, for instance, OECD 2000). As yet, the European Commission has no official document dedicated particularly to enunciating the core values of the European civil service. However, these can be revealed in a combined analysis of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and the Public Service Principles for the EU Civil Service (both adopted by the European Ombudsman and applicable to all European institutions), the Treaties, the Staff Regulations, as well as the Communication on Enhancing the Environment for Professional Ethics in the Commission, which includes a draft statement on principles of professional ethics. Box 1.1 draws on all these official documents, but also on various flyers, brochures and training support materials used internally in the Commission.

The standards described above canvass the normative framework which applies to public office occupants – or, to put it simply, they tell us what an “ethical” official is supposed to be like. However, they do so in a rather general fashion – which means that in practice, the concrete meaning of these standards is often disputed, and what seems as clearly condemnable to some may be perceived by others as acceptable, or at least open to discussion. Significantly, a study of public ethics in EU Member States notes that “especially from a comparative point of view, there is very little common understanding about what constitutes ethical behaviour” (Bossaert and Demmke 2005: 21).

1.1.1 Ethical dilemmas and views towards public ethics

Public actors are expected to always bear in mind standards of professional ethics – that said, not all activities they perform are equally meaningful from an ethics perspective. To be clear, ethics becomes significant in situations of choice (which allow for the exercise of discretion), and only when values and standards of conduct are directly called into question, or likely to be jeopardized. Wittmer (2001) refers to these situations as ethical decisions. This book probes Commission officials’ ethics thinking in the context of ethical dilemmas, which represent a special class of ethical decisions, where people find it difficult to judge what would constitute ethical

Box 1.1 Values and ethical standards in the European Commission services

Independence

Commission officials are expected to carry out their duties “solely with the interests of the Communities in mind”, and “neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organization or person outside his institution”. They are also expected to avoid any situations which could cast doubts about their independence.

Objectivity and impartiality

Officials should ensure that their conduct reflects no bias. They should consistently ensure equal treatment and avoid discrimination on the grounds of nationality, sex, ethnic origin, or other factors. All parties with a direct interest should be heard. Reasons for decisions should be stated clearly and communicated to all parties.

Lawfulness

Conduct should always be in line with the laws, rules and procedures laid down in Community legislation.

Integrity

Officials should be guided by a sense of propriety and conduct themselves at all times in a manner that would bear the closest public scrutiny. This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law. Officials should take steps to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of such conflicts. They should take swift action to resolve any conflict that arises.

Loyalty

Staff should offer honest advice and inform management of any risks or disadvantages associated with a planned action or decision. Staff is expected to implement loyally the orders they receive from superiors, except when these are manifestly illegal. Staff should take care that their behaviour is not contrary to the interests of the Union.

Discretion and confidentiality

Staff should refrain from disclosing information received in the line of duty, unless that information is already in the public domain. They should ensure that confidential information to which they have access is adequately protected.

Transparency

Citizens have access to all Community documents within the boundaries of exceptions instituted in the specific legislation. Officials should keep proper records and welcome public scrutiny of their conduct.

Responsibility

Officials are expected to take responsibility in the performance of their duties. Public assets and resources should be used in an honest and professional manner. If they become aware of any irregularities or serious failings in the course of their duties, officials have an obligation to report them.

Circumspection

Staff has a duty to avoid delicate situations. They should inform the hierarchy of possible conflicts of interest, and obtain hierarchical permission before engaging in any outside activity. They should discourage the offering of gifts related to their professional duties.

Competence

Commission officials are expected to achieve the Commission’s objectives with competence, in an effective and efficient manner. Decisions should be taken after careful consideration of advantages, disadvantages and potential consequences.

Respect and courtesy

In their dealings with the public, staff should provide quality service which is open and accessible and respects the applicable deadlines and procedures. They should treat colleagues with respect and courtesy, take their ideas and contributions into account and be ready to help them if needed. Officials should refrain from anything that could be perceived as psychological or sexual harassment.

Dignity of the service

Staff should be aware that in their private lives they may be viewed as representatives of the European institutions and should therefore refrain from any actions which might reflect adversely on their position or on the reputation of the Commission.

behaviour. Ethical dilemmas are often described as choices between competing, irreconcilable values which define the public role. As explained by Gortner, here “two or more competing values are important and in conflict. If you serve one value you cannot serve another, or you must deny or disserve one or more values in order to maintain one or more of the others” (1991: 14). Put differently, ethical dilemmas are not choices between right and wrong, but between right and right (Kidder 2009).

Ethical dilemmas should be distinguished from unethical behaviour, which represents deviance from appropriateness, i.e., breaking one or several of the behavioural standards which define the operation of the public service. While ethical dilemmas are inherently ambiguous, unethical behaviour is generally understood as being wrong (Maesschalck 2004b). Probably the most well-known form of unethical behaviour is corruption, understood here as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (TI 2015b).² Following Lasthuizen et al.’s (2011) typology of “integrity violations”,³ other forms of unethical behaviour, apart from corruption, include: fraud and theft of resources; conflict of (private and public) interests though gifts or sideline activities; improper use of authority; misuse and manipulation of information; indecent treatment of colleagues, citizens and customers; waste and abuse of organizational resources; and, finally, misconduct in private time.

The book focuses on ethical dilemmas because they represent spaces where the boundaries between the ethical and unethical are negotiated. As stated in the Introduction, one of the core objectives of this investigation is to explore Commission officials’ views about ethics. To be clear, the term “views” is used in a broad sense, to describe what individuals think about ethics. For the most part, it refers to judgements of acceptability regarding certain types of behaviour, but it also covers related aspects, such as the justifications evoked in assessing acceptability, or opinions on the appropriate course of action. Ethical dilemmas represent a good ground to elicit individual views about ethics because they trigger a process of evaluation (reasoning) about what is ethical and what is not, through which such views are revealed. Furthermore, if Commission officials differ in their thinking, it is reasonable to assume that those differences would most likely manifest themselves in the “grey” areas of organizational ethics represented by ethical dilemmas. To give an example, while it is very improbable that anyone would condone bribe-taking, a “grey” gift situation is much less clear-cut. As a general principle, a public servant should not receive gifts from external parties, as this may (be perceived to) damage his/her impartiality. Nevertheless, sometimes refusing a gift can be interpreted by the one who is offering it as disrespectful – maybe even to the point that the working relationship is jeopardized. In such a circumstance, it is certainly not clear whether it is still “ethical” to refuse the gift.

The approach used here is in line with the practice in empirical ethics research, where individual positions regarding ethical matters are established by presenting respondents with concrete scenarios, which lead them to engage in a process of decision-making (this is why vignettes are widely popular in this literature – see reviews by Frederickson and Walling 2001, O’Fallon and Butterfield 2005). In synthesizing several influential models in the field (i.e., Rest 1986, Treviño 1986, Bommer et al. 1987, Jones 1991), Wittmer (2001: 484–488) establishes that the process of ethical decision-making begins with the perception that a problem has ethical content (i.e., ethical sensitivity), continues with judgement or reasoning concerning this issue, after which a choice is made and the process ends with the actual behaviour of the decision maker. As an aside, it should be noted that the link between ethical choice and ethical behaviour is particularly problematic, as the literature provides mixed evidence that ethical beliefs and intentions lead to corresponding behaviour (see review by Treviño et al. 2006).

Generally speaking, ethical decision-making, in particular ethical reasoning, is considered to be (a predominantly) rational and conscious process, but this assumption has been challenged. For instance, Haidt (2001: 818) draws attention to the importance of moral intuition, understood...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Public ethics, socialization and the organizational profile of the European Commission
• 2 Change, continuity and the politics of ethics reforms
• 3 “You are the human face of the Commission”: ethics translated in internal administrative practice
• 4 Individual views towards ethics in the European Commission
• 5 Discussing “common sense”: how ethics management shapes individual views towards ethics
• Conclusion
• References
• Index