Editing Openai/693a6e5e-1a04-8012-a8a7-a701feb20662 (section)

===== Shared strengths (both) =====
* Mature ethics & safety ecosystems: ethics boards, lab protocols, research-integrity offices.
* Clear written codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures, which aligns well with U-Model’s “do not harm” foundation.
* Increasing attention to climate and sustainability, bringing Code closer to long-term intergenerational “no harm”.

Harvard – specific Code opportunities
# Transparency boost - More granular disclosures on donations, partnerships, and endowment investments, especially around fossil fuels, weapons, and controversial sectors.
# Conflict of interest & lobbying - Tightening rules for faculty consulting, think-tank work, and revolving doors between academia and business/politics.
# AI & data governance - Stronger, unified standards for AI research, automated decision-making in admissions/HR, and data use.

Oxford – specific Code opportunities
# Public accountability on historical harms - Clearer, measurable commitments and timelines around legacies of colonialism and related institutional responsibilities.
# Open governance - Simplifying and opening up complex college/university decision structures so that students and staff can see “who decides what, when, and why”.
# Sustainability execution - Turning high-level climate statements into highly visible operational metrics at college and department level (energy, travel, procurement).

Shared “Quick Wins” across both
* Publish annual Code dashboards with key indicators (misconduct cases, resolution times, safety incidents, climate progress, COI declarations).
* Increase participatory oversight: mixed committees with students, staff, and external members reviewing ethics and sustainability.
* Embed U-Model style triage in risk management: - Step 1 – Could this cause harm? (Code) - Step 2 – Does it bring net benefit? (Credo) - Step 3 – Does it fulfil all rightful expectations and rights? (Rights)