Do No Harm… or Do More Good?

In both the U.S. and Australia, psychologists are bound by ethical frameworks designed to protect the people we serve. But there’s an interesting—and important—difference in emphasis between the two countries.

The American Psychological Association (APA) builds its ethics code primarily around the idea of nonmaleficence: “do no harm.” It’s a principle deeply rooted in medical ethics and focuses on avoiding actions that might cause physical or psychological distress. The APA’s code tends to be more duty-bound and legalistic, with a strong emphasis on protecting individual autonomy and minimizing professional risk.

In Australia where I learned my ethical practices, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) leans into a broader ethical mandate: do good and avoid harm. The APS explicitly highlights beneficence—actively promoting wellbeing—alongside nonmaleficence. It encourages psychologists to consider not only individual care but also social impact, community responsibility, and systemic factors such as cultural safety and justice.

This distinction reflects a deeper question every ethical leader faces:

Is it enough to focus on the bottom line while avoiding harm—or is the real opportunity in focusing on the bottom line while also doing good?

In other words, do we measure our success by the problems we prevent, or also by the value we create.

At Koliso, our work is shaped by the idea that business and psychology both thrive when we move beyond compliance to contribution—where “not just for me, not just for you, but for us” becomes more than a motto. It becomes an ethical stance, and a strategic advantage.