As we head into March and NationalEthics Awareness Month for insurance, I've been thinking a lotabout acting with integrity.

Not that any of us aren't. I'm a firm believer that most of usare trying our best to do right by our fellow humanbeings. But in tough times, it's easy to slip into asurvivalist mentality where we will do anything to hang on,hoping that when (and if) good times return, we can go back to theluxury of ”doing the right thing.”

Except that doing the right thing should never be a luxury.

Probably the biggest thing that got me thinking about integritywas a story that's been bubbling up for awhile but finallyachieved huge national exposure this week on ABC's Nightline:working conditions at the Foxconn electronics plant in Shenzen, China.

The massive plant churns out products like the iPad — notby machine (too expensive), but human labor. To me, the mostsobering aspect of the Foxconn story is the “suicidenets” draped along the upper stories of the building to preventjumpers.

You could argue that the young Foxconn workers arelucky to have jobs, that living conditions in the dormitories areno worse than in rural China, and you'd be right. But theimage of all those silent workers put me in mind of conditions atthe Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, and it would be nice to thinkwe've evolved beyond that.

I don't think the Foxconn expose will cut into the hordes ofpeople queueing up for the lasest Apple toy, or slow down thebeatification of Steve Jobs. But it might cause us to thinkabout whether our corporate practices are ethical.

Ironically, some scientists say that the ”nice guysfinish last” mindset is wrong — not just morally, but becauseit's inaccurate.

Dacher Ketlner, a professor at the University ofCalifornia/Berkeley and co-director of the Greater Good Science Center,maintains that we humans have survived as a species bycontrolling our destructive instincts and protecting, helping andbeing kind to one another.

That's very high-minded and all but, to be crass, canit turn a buck? Conventional wisdom might say no — but a quiettrend that started in Dearborn, Mich. actually suggeststhat it can.

About a year ago, Panera Bread launched an experiment in Dearborn by setting up astore where customers “paid what they could” for menu items. Theexperiment worked: The company estimates that about 20 percent ofpatrons give more than the suggested donation, about 20 percentgive less or nothing, and about 60 percent leave the suggestedamount.

A year later, the cafe is breaking even, taking in about 80percent of the retail value of the food, enough to pay expenses.Panera is happy enough with the results to be launching more “paywhat you can” locations in other cities.

And Panera's shareholders are probably pleased, too: At year-end2011, Panera reportedadjusted net income of $42 million, or $1.42 per diluted share,a 28 percent year-over-year increase from 2010.

Of course, insurance is neither electronic toy nor bread. Andactuarially speaking, there is no way insurance could replicate thePanera formula. But by thinking altruistically, Panera is takingthe long-term view of corporate success and building a devotedreturn-customer base — and insurance is all about repeatcustomers.