The Walt Disney Company Standards of Business Conduct Illustrated

Walt Disney Standards of Business Conduct Illustrated

All quotes verbatim excerpts from Walt Disney Standards of Business Conduct; illustrations shamelessly hotlinked from all over.

Dear Fellow Disney Team Member:

Throughout the years, our guests, audiences, consumers and shareholders have come to depend on us for quality, creativity, innovation and integrity.Karl Rove
Bush with Ears
People trust us because of our commitment to them and to the standards to which we hold ourselves. We alone are responsible for upholding our excellence and our integrity. This means acting responsibly in all our professional relationships, in a manner consistent with the high standards we set for our business conduct.

Mickey 9/11
Upholding legal standards of conduct, while mandatory for every Cast Member and employee, is not enough. We are also responsible for maintaining ethical standards. These standards govern how we treat everyone with whom we have contact. These are standards of integrity… honesty… trust… respect… fair play… and teamwork.
Path to 9/11 w/ Mickey

In short, these are the standards we want Disney to continue to uphold in the years to come. Your company believes that its behavior as a business should reflect the commitment to the values set forth in these “Standards of Business Conduct.”

gop-tv

The Standards in this booklet explain both our legal and ethical standards. Please read them. Be familiar with them. Act on them. And don’t be afraid to speak up when you have a concern or a question. Talk to your supervisor, your respective Human Resources representative, or the Corporate Legal Department.

Our Standards of Business Conduct are here to guide our behavior and to help us live up to the highest expectations of excellence that are “Disney.” As we continue to create Disney magic, I hope your actions show your pride in yourself, those you work with, and the Company.

– Bob Iger
  President and Chief Executive Officer

20060908-swiftboatbobbie1.jpg

Our guests and customers expect and deserve the best.

Quality
The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiary and affiliated companies (collectively the “Company”) are recognized around the world as providers of high-quality entertainment of all kinds, including films, television shows, attractions, consumer products, stores and resorts.

Path to Propaganda

Our Company’s reputation is a heritage that we must safeguard.

It is our goal to provide a reasonable return to our shareholders, and to increase the value of their investment. At the same time, we must be sure to protect the business and reputation of our Company, so that the Company can and will continue to live up to the expectations of shareholders, guests, customers, Cast Members and employees. Honest and ethical behavior in all matters relating to the business of the Company contributes significantly to achieving these goals.

Conflicts of Interest

Our business is built on public trust and confidence, and the expectation of our guests and customers that they can depend on our products and services.

willful deception

To ensure that we deliver our very best, we require the full and undivided dedication and efforts of all of our Cast Members and employees. Moreover, every Cast Member and employee must avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest in the performance of his or her job. Conflicts of interest or the appearance of such conflicts could also damage the Company’s good name.

Mickey's Lying About It

Accurate Reporting
Each individual shall report and record all information, and complete Company documents, accurately and honestly.

L. Accountability for Compliance with the Standards of Business Conduct

The standards referred to herein are mandatory and apply to all employees and Cast Members, who will be held accountable for compliance with the Standards. Failure to abide by applicable standards may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Additional standards may apply to employees of specific business units or locations. Thus, for example, station and network programming and news personnel are subject to additional standards which are set forth in other documents.

Mickey and Towers

M. Dealing with Improper or Illegal Behavior, and Suspected Violations of Law (continued)

Cast Members and employees are encouraged to talk to their supervisors or managers when in doubt about the appropriate or ethical course of action in a particular situation. Every Cast Member and employee must report any unethical, improper or illegal behavior, or any suspected criminal activity involving or relating to the Company. The Company also must be made aware of any complaints regarding accounting or auditing matters, as well as its internal controls. Thus, any Cast Member or employee who believes, suspects, or becomes aware of any complaint that anyone at the Company is acting unethically or is violating, or has violated, any law, governmental rule or regulation on behalf of the Company, must report this to the Guideline or to the Corporate Legal Department. The Company believes that it is most helpful when a Cast Member or employee making such a report identifies himself or herself; however, it is not required. While, in any event, the confidentiality of any person reporting unethical, improper or illegal activity will be protected to the extent possible under the circumstances, reports will also be accepted anonymously. Moreover, the Company strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against anyone who reports unethical, improper or illegal activity.

ouch

The Guideline (800) 699-4870

The Guideline is one way for employees, Cast Members, vendors, suppliers, customers, and others to report 1) questionable activities – including questionable accounting or auditing matters; 2) complaints regarding the Company’s accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters; or 3) to ask for guidance on any work-related issues, or to make the Company aware of any suspected unethical or illegal conduct, or violation at the Company.

The Guideline may be called any time, day or night, as it is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The Company strictly prohibits any form of retaliation against anyone who reports any suspected wrongful conduct to the Company or any governmental agency. Reports are accepted anonymously, and the confidentiality of all reports will be maintained to the extent possible.

This entry was posted in 9/11 & Aftermath. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Walt Disney Company Standards of Business Conduct Illustrated

  1. Ann Bartow says:

    Totally in awe of this post. Excellent work.

  2. Jonathan Berhow says:

    What I find most revealing, what for me gives the game away, is the film’s focus on the events which led up to 9/11. The more important issue is what was done afterward in response to the attack.

    So why focus on the events which led up to 9/11? Because doing so justifies, reinforces the presumption that the behavior of the US after 9/11 was the only possible course of action for the nation to take – a rather odd, even mythical way of looking at things – and repositions the blame for anything that has gone wrong. In other words, since we all know the only possible response to 9/11 was to declare a GWoT (and now a WAMI), all blame for negative consequences must fall on those who supposedly allowed the attack to take place. The distance from responsibility this tactic accords those who promulgated the GWoT response to 9/11 is tremendous. The stifling of public thinking and discourse that it encourages is destructive to the arguable necessity of an informed public in a functioning democracy since debate and investigation into what happened afterward is not only a settled, collectively agreed upon assumption, but is not up for further inquiry or discussion. This, friends and neighbors, is the essence of brilliant propaganda.

    Of all the things the US could have done post-9/11, why did we decide on the course of action we have taken? Considering the cost of the war in Iraq (in dollars alone, $300+ billion with long-term costs being projected in excess of $1 trillion, not to mention the tens of thousands of lost lives, the questionable legal opinions of the departments of Justice and Defense, prisons, torture, etc.), what would have been so reprehensible about even going so far as – bear with me on this one – doing nothing? Why did we decide to continue the collective fear and perpetual war that we went through for two generations in our conflict with that other evil specter bent on our evisceration, International Communism? Whatever happened to the peace dividend promised upon resolution of the Cold War? What purpose is served by deliberately concocting a war against such a vast and amorphous people and ideology that it never can reasonably be expected to be won, or at least concluded, short of the annihilation of the “other” in a “clash of civilizations”? Our reaction to 9/11 seems a more useful issue and debate to explore in film or otherwise.

    We had a choice after 9/11, despite the official argument to the contrary. How any tinpot dictator or stateless terrorist group can force the domestic and foreign policy-making hand of one of the richest, most powerful nations on the planet is a riddle I have yet to see publicly explored – you know, the “they made us do it” rationale than extends even to the justification of torture (see page 3 of “Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism” for an official explanation of how this works http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/03.04.04.pdf). Either we are not so powerful or someone is feeding us a tissue of horseshit.

    However, having said all this, I do not agree with trying to put the kibosh on this film, as it seems a nay-saying, unconstructive reaction that in no way furthers public education. An opportunity for equal air time, yes. Censorship, no.

  3. Siva says:

    Did you work up those images yourself?

    Siva

  4. Michael says:

    Alas, no: “illustrations shamelessly hotlinked from all over” — all borrowed from elsewhere….

  5. george says:

    Jonathan Berhow asks several questions.

    “What would have been so reprehensible about even going so far as – bear with me on this one – doing nothing?”

    Pacifism is a choice. This is true.

    Sometimes, it conflicts with the hardwired urge of personal survival — otherwise drowing victims would not struggle for breath and fight to stay afloat and simply accept their fate and deliberately breath water. But it is a choice, and we all have free will.

    YOU, personally, may make that choice for yourself. Freedom means being “FREE TO CHOOSE.” See the book by Milton and Rose Friedman. The decision to not fight back against an attacker that attacks you, personally, is yours. Yep. Your call. You are entitled to your beliefs as a matter of right.

    But it would not be my choice, nor the choice of the majority of Americans.

    To all but the historically illiterate, appeasement never grants safety. And you are counseling appeasement.

    Sure, we could have simply licked our wounds. We could have responded to it like Clinton responded to the WTC ’93, Mogidishu, the Khobar Towers, the 2 embassies, the USS Cole — and made angry noises using brave words. And done little to stop the attacks or protect the American people.

    But the question becomes, what do we do the next time we are hit? How many times do we sit still and take it. Forever?

    Appeasement to bullies appears to be part of modern LIBERALISM’s character — and NO, this discussion cannot be held without linkage to ideology. It is not “nonsense” because it is what seperates your kind from mine.

    And it is why a center-right administration and Congress should be in power and not a leftwing one. This precludes allowing the current Democratic Party from ever regaining power.

    The movie — while putting some words in mouths that didn’t say them — points out that the Clinton administration DID NOT BELIEVE AN ATTACK UPON AMERICA was worthy of a military response. Period!

    This portrayed mindset is historically accurate and was predictable by anybody who observed his draft dodging, his total contempt for the military, and the people he brought into government.

    Read Lt. Col. Robert Patterson’s “Deriliction of Duty” if you want to know specifics.

    One more thing. The Constitution in Articles 1, 2, and 4, GUARANTEES that the people of the United States will be protected from invasion, that Congress will fund the national defense and determine when war is necessary, and that the President will fight it. It is the MANDATED responsibility of the United States government to protect the People.

    In otherwords, when the President of the United States of America takes his oath of office (and also every member of Congress), he accepts the responsibility of the national defense. If he cannot accept the job of protecting America, he ought not to *BE* President. Clinton’s innappropriate response to the attacks upon the United States during his term of office was enough to impeach and remove him, irrespective of his perjury and sexual antics, IMHO.

    “Whatever happened to the peace dividend promised upon resolution of the Cold War?”

    Some say that it never existed, that it was nothing but political noise in the struggle over budget dollars. Liberals are known for OPPOSING expeditures on the military. See John Kerry’s record as a Senator. It is why this American believes that the Democratic Party is not fit to run the government. It is an opinion that quite likely will prevent the Democratic Party from taking control of Congress, too.

    George H. W. Bush’s programmed reduction in size of the US military were sufficient, in the estimate of many, to meet the security needs of America in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. The additional cuts by Clinton, many also agree, seriously undermined national security because they went too far.

    But then, we ARE talking abut the president who hated the military. The Clinton/Gore claim to have reduced the size of government by 305,000 people was made by mostly shrinking the military by some 280,000. This was accomplished by scrapping about half of the Army’s divisions, half of the Air Force’s air wings, and about half of the Navy’s fleet.

    The liberals decrying the alleged “breakdown” of the military over operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — and crying crocodile tears over it — have only themselves to blame for it. But watch them fight like hell to PREVENT an increase in the defense budget!

    “What purpose is served by deliberately concocting a war against such a vast and amorphous people and ideology that it never can reasonably be expected to be won, or at least concluded, short of the annihilation of the “other” in a “clash of civilizations”? “

    Wrong question.

    The correct question is: “What do the devotees of Fundmentalist Islam hope to gain in trying to overthrow a nuclear armed, militarily and economically powerful Western civilization in pursuit of trying to establish the world-wide Caliphate?”

    This war that *THEY* *STARTED* can be won by the West without destroying all 1.6 billion muslims on the planet. Unless that is what THEY insist upon.

    But it has to be won using concepts that people with a 7th Century religious fanatical warlord mentality can understand. And, I’ll give you a clue: “Appeasement” is not a “winning strategy.”

    I submit that a religious culture that segregate women into 2nd class status — that condone clitoral mutilation, “honor killings” and does so in accordance with Sharia Law and their holy writings — is not capable of accomodating our concepts of tolerance and civil rights, or the value of women in our society.

    I also submit that a religious culture that holds these tenants (right from the Koran, BTW):

    “Strike off their [infidel's] heads. Strike off their finger-tips! … because they defied God and his Apostle [Muhammad].” (Sura 8:12-13)

    “Make war on them [infidels] until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Sura 2:193)

    “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (Sura 4:89)

    “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Sura 9:123)

    “When the sacred months [Ramadan] are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [convert to Islam] and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.” (Sura 9:5)

    …forcloses any option of rational accomodation between the two cultures.

    And I submit that it is hard to discuss peaceful coexistance when their religious leadership publicly prays to their God thusly:

    “O God, destroy the United States and its allies and let them suffer, particularly tyrant and arrogant Americans. O God, destroy the Jews, for they are within your power.” Televised from the Grand Mosque in Sanaa by Sheik Akram Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqeihi, December 2002.

    Given all the above, what do you expect? Do you expect those of us who love freedom, who wish to be left alone to worship (or not) according to our choice, who respect women and treat them as equals, to simply surrender to them? For us and our children to become Dhimmi?

    Perhaps, given your first question about the worth of not fighting back, I already know your answer.

    I direct you to an essay written by “Wretchard” at the Belmont club at http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html

    It deals with 3 conjectures of what might happen should the Islamofascists obtain nuclear weapons and why the current course charted by the Bush administration in the war on terror might save hunanity from the extinction of more than 1.6 billion people.

    It should be pointed out that since this essay was written, Jaques Chirac promised nuclear retaliation as a response to terrorism against France, indicating that seriousness of the situation created by Islamofascist terror.

    Specifically from the Washington Post:

    “PARIS, Jan. 19 — President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country’s nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

    The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France’s four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction.

    “Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction,” Chirac said, according to the text of his speech posted on the presidential Web site. “The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit.”

    See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html

    The choice of the extermination of Islam if they continue their war of conquest against us, or not, lies COMPLETELY with them. As they believe that death as a martyr to Allah is their highest calling, I do NOT hold out much hope for the majority of muslims on this planet.

  6. Jonathan Berhow says:

    I am not advocating (hence the question marks) that the US should have done nothing after 9/11. I am not advocating appeasement. I am not suggesting the correct course of action for the nation should mirror my own. A world where everyone thinks the same is not my idea of fun, which is why the sort of homogenous, collective thinking that rarely questions the GWoT rubs me the wrong way – questioning the GWoT does not equate to questioning national security. I am not suggesting that the people of the US not be protected, indeed I’m arguing for the contrary. But from whom? Ah, the eternal question.

    What I am trying to say is that we should be questioning the action we did take instead of assuming that this was the only possible response to have; why so many of us seem to be so sure that the GWoT response was inevitable (I hear very little from Democrats to suggest they would deviate from this). We should question the validity of the argument being made that the terrorists forced our hand. I am trying to suggest things that we can talk about that get beyond the zero-sum game from which so much of our current debate suffers. Whether one thinks Clinton is responsible or whether it is Bush, unless we can move past this we will continue fighting amongst ourselves and find it difficult to come up with positive, viable foreign and domestic policy solutions that we can collectively agree upon, or at least tolerate. I am trying to point out that the GWoT is a policy decision that benefits very few at the expense of millions of others in terms of their safety and material conditions, yet many of these same people unquestioningly support it. Why? What is so appealing about a perpetual, ideological war, and why do we so enthusiastically pursue it, consequences be damned? Why are we all so scared?

    P.S. In re the peace dividend: “Some say that it never existed.” Exactly! This is exactly what I’m suggesting in regard to that whole guns-versus-butter thing, George. We come close to agreement on this as well: “I do NOT hold out much hope for the majority of muslims on this planet.” At least in the near future, me too, but not for the same reasons. George, calm down, breathe deeply, maybe try a little lithium, and question, honestly question, just one of the statements in you post. And I promise you I will do the same for mine. Thanks for your comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.