Introduction

As Chapter 8 noted, the advent of COVID-19 resulted in the creation of an official ethical framework for adult social care. However, even where ethical ideals are pronounced by government or expressed in organisational mission statements, it is unlikely that they will be much discussed in practice and turned into realistic measures to guide action. Indeed, the most common discussions about ethics tend to be of breaches of integrity, such as intimidation, discrimination, manipulation of information, breaking rules and conflicts of interest (Huberts, 2018). It is therefore important to be clear not only about what is understood by new ethical standards (see Chapters 7 and 8), but also how ethical behaviour can be more robustly incorporated into the way services (and indeed goods) can be delivered.

Instilling ethical behaviour

In England, the most notable attempt to address the place of ethics in public life was the creation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) by the then Prime Minister John Major in 1994. The task of the CSPL was ‘to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities’. The CSPL went on to articulate seven principles of public life, now often referred to as the ‘Nolan Principles’: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (Bew, 2015).

In 2014, the CSPL published a review of the application of these standards to the provision of public services (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2014) and formed several conclusions: that the public wanted common ethical standards regardless of sector, supported by a code of conduct; that ‘how’ the service is delivered is as important to the public as ‘what’ is delivered, with a wish for personalisation and a user-led definition of quality; that public and stakeholder views of what should constitute ethical standards were broadly in line with the Nolan Principles; that commissioners expect providers to conform to ethical standards but rarely explicitly articulate this; and that commissioners themselves wanted guidance on how to embed ethical standards in the commissioning and procurement process.