If you discovered a supplier was using forced labor, would you keep the contract and give a portion of savings to an anti-slavery charity? Most would instinctively say no, because the core business practice is the ethical issue. Ask an Ethicist columnist Vera Cherepanova applies this test to a chief risk and compliance officer’s unease about a mental health philanthropy campaign launching while the company continues optimizing potentially problematic engagement features.
I’m chief risk and compliance officer at a fast-growing online platform. A big chunk of our revenue comes from “engagement maximization” features that, as we now know, may correlate with mental health issues among teens. Nothing we do is illegal. But … I’ve just come back from our kick-off week, where I learned that in 2026 we’ll launch a major philanthropy and awareness campaign on youth mental health. At the same time, the CEO made it clear we’re expected to keep optimizing the product. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I’m uneasy. If we believe our design choices are part of the problem, redirecting a slice of profit to good causes feels … not enough? At what point does it become unethical to keep monetizing a product and try to “clean it up” through donations and campaigns, rather than redesigning or limiting the product itself? — Name Withheld
A great start to the year with an evergreen classic reimagined for the modern day. Your dilemma goes to the heart of a very old (and very much still living) argument about what companies are for. Let’s dive in.
From a compliance standpoint, your company can plausibly say: “We’re legal. Regulators haven’t banned these design choices. We’re also generous donors to mental health causes.” That’s the familiar story: The firm maximizes profit, while individuals, charities and governments are expected to deal with the side effects.
The problem is that in your case, money-making and harm don’t look to be separable. The very things that drive your firm’s revenue and valuation are the things causing the externality (e.g., how and to whom you market). It seems virtually impossible for any amount of donation to “undo” that and balance out the moral ledger.
Think of it this way: If you discovered one of your suppliers was using forced labor, would you keep the contract and just give a portion of the savings to an anti-slavery charity? Most people would instinctively say no, because the core business practice is the ethical issue. Your situation is structurally similar. Some harms just can’t be offset with charity.
There’s also a long-term business argument. The scandals they teach in business ethics classes, including Enron, Wells Fargo’s fake accounts or VW emissions cheating, all involve leaders convincing themselves that they could separate performance from integrity. When the reckoning came, it wasn’t only about moral norms violation. Shareholder value, careers and trust were all destroyed. In each case, it would have been cheaper (financially and reputationally) to adjust the business model earlier than to pay for the fallout later.
So where does that leave you? I’d frame the conversation with your leadership along three lines:
- Start with evidence: First, be clear about what you already know. Which groups of users are most affected? What does internal data show about time spent, self-reported distress, or complaints? Ground your theoretical argument in the language of numbers; that will make it more compelling and harder to dismiss.
- Propose experiments: Suggest limiting or tweaking the practices that emerge as the most problematic, starting from one market or segment, and agree in advance what you’ll track (e.g., revenue, risk, user outcomes, regulator interest).
- Challenge the “donations can fix it” narrative: Gently but firmly call out this logic. Philanthropy and ESG initiatives can still play a role, but only as a complement to responsible product decisions.
You also asked: When does continuing to monetize become unethical? There isn’t a single bright line, but there are some red flags:
- When a company has credible evidence of harm and chooses not to act on it.
- When a company’s public messaging (“we care about users”) and its internal incentives (“maximize minutes at any cost”) diverge.
- When remediation is designed more for reputation than for impact.
Milton Friedman famously wrote that corporate executives must make as much money as possible for their shareholders while conforming to “the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.” The legal part may be intact. You’re rightly asking whether the ethical-custom part is being conveniently forgotten.
2025’s Unscientific Barometer: What Your Questions Revealed About Ethics & Compliance
The collision of free speech, company reputation and political pressure was one of the hardest leadership tests of the year
Read moreDetailsReaders respond
The previous column was a look back at the themes Ask an Ethicist explored in 2025, from managing politically polarized teams and navigating the ethics of greenhushing to grappling with AI-driven healthcare denials and candidates using technology to game hiring assessments. Readers asked what “doing the right thing” really means, whether “being nice” can crowd out accountability and how to balance strict procurement rules with compassion for struggling contractors. Read the full column here.
Keep up the good work! — CF
Please keep going — KK
Vera Cherepanova
