It’s no secret that large companies like IBM and Nortel have been exploring the applications of virtual world and advanced Web 2.0 technologies in the context of their corporate environments. Not to mention that a number of smaller companies, such as IA Consultants and VR Workplace that have created specialized services to help clients to take advantage the opportunities that these technologies continue to present.

As these technologies grow in use in corporate environments, it is important to remember that the behaviours of avatars in a corporate context do have real world implications.

IBM has actually posted a page on their website called “Virtual World Guidelines” which, I think is a great example of a corporation recognizing that harassment, intellectual property rights infringement and conflicts of interest can all happen in a virtual world context as easily as they can in other forms of Internet interactions or interactions in “real life.”

One question that emerges is: “Isn’t that just generally understood?” My answer is, “Possibly, yes, sort of.” These types of policies are generally written to govern an employee’s conduct in any environment; however, I haven’t noticed too many corporate codes of conduct that expressly deal with interactions in digital environments quite the way that this code of conduct does. For example:

“Individuals employed by virtual world providers (e.g., “administrators”) have broad powers to monitor and control action within the world with very few, if any, checks on their powers. They are not necessarily obligated to treat user information with any particular level of care.”

And:

“…the originator of a digital persona may deliberately decide to allow his or her avatar to have several “owners” or operators if permitted by the terms of the virtual world. In these situations, the owners are collectively accountable to exhibit consistent behavior through the digital persona and to maintain the level of trust and transparency it previously exhibited with its fellow digital personas, before its ownership or participation was expanded.”

IBM does point out that that the policy relates to the behaviour of employees in virtual worlds in the context of how they might be perceived as representing IBM. This is simply recognition of how many people currently conduct their affairs. We might use a separate email for work and home, maintain separate groups of friends at work and in our personal life (although they sometimes interact) and so why not have separate on-line personas for our work and our personal lives? Or one for work and none for personal use, if that is your inclination.

In a quote from IBM Developer Jo Grant which I first noticed on Virtual World News, he explains that “Other companies look to IBM to see how it approaches virtual worlds when shaping their own approach. Down the road the virtual world guidelines will probably be folded into our normal business conduct guidelines. But for now publishing them explicitly and prominently also draws attention to the fact that business can and is conducted in these environments.”

Obviously, virtual worlds are not quite common-place enough yet in corporate culture that IBM is comfortable with integrating it into their normal policy verbage; having said that legal departments of corporations and agencies may wish to examine the impact that digital environments have on their current ethics policies.