Business Ethics Theorists - Essay Example

?Business Ethics Businesses are created for the main purpose of generating profits. It is an accepted fact that business owner’s or stakeholders haveevery right to expect profits from organisations they support. In the desire to realise the goals of organisations and satisfy stakeholders, sometimes businesses choose to indulge in or turn a blind eye to corrupt or unethical business practices taking place within their workforce or conducted by their business partners. Business ethics theories are often adopted by organisations seeking to curb practices that are deemed as corrupt. They usually have moral principles that organisations can implement to make sure that all the workers operating in the company conform to accepted codes of behaviour (Bartlett 2003). Business managers can make use of the ethics theories that they deem as being most appropriate for the implementation of different ethical strategies. There are several business ethics theories that are used in today’s business scene. The rights theory in business ethics endeavors to address ethical dilemmas by taking into account the fundamental human rights that all living people are entitled to (Bredeson and Goree 2011). Essentially, every person has the right not to harm another person. For the most part, businesses around the world observe this law. However, there are circumstances where organisations ‘appear to refuse’ to obey this law when they choose to cooperate with corrupt governments. For instance, in the recent past, the global multinational beverage company, Coca-Cola, has faced negative attention due to its continued association with Swaziland’s absolute monarch, King Mswati III. According to the Swaziland Solidarity Network, Coca-Cola contributes to almost 40% of the small southern African’s nation’s GDP. Critics have stated that if the beverage company’s executives pressed King Mswati III to cater to the needs of his citizens instead of accumulating more wives, luxury vehicles, and real estate at the cost of the national economy, Swaziland would begin to recover. In this case, Coca-Cola could be accused of indirectly abusing the rights of Swaziland’s citizens (Clegg, Kornberger and Rhodes 2006). The modern rights business ethics theory is deontological in character. This theory seeks to affirm that there is a particular answer for every ethical problem. The most common structure of deontological theory is that which draws on God’s word for moral obligations (Garriga and Mele 2004). Where the subject of organisational ethics is concerned, this could involve revealing corrupt practices of an organisation due to personal beliefs of the importance of exposing wrong doers. Whistle blowers, however, often endanger their working lives when they reveal information that proves the corruptness of their employers (Weiss 2008). Even though in developed nations like the United States, there are laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act allows workers to file claims in accusation of corrupt employees, it is still hard for workers to turn against their organisations due to many reasons, the least of which is not the fear that they will be dismissed or ignored (Husted and Salazar 2006). The justice theory of business ethics seeks to affirm that every worker has a basic right to human liberties (Torres 2005). In a way, this is somewhat similar to what is stipulated by the rights theory with the exception that the justice theory mainly deals with the rights of the lowest classes of workers. For instance, in an organisational setting, this means that the workers who do the difficult physical work should be treated with the same respect as the business executives who work out of their big offices (Smith 2007). Many labour unions around the world argue for the implementation of the justice theory in functions such as corporate decision making in modern businesses (Felsher 2005). Utilitarianism, as a business ethics theory, is the polar opposite of the justice theory. This is because it argues for the entire society’s good instead of particular people. In an organisational setting, this calls for the manager to make the most of the business resources for the whole society. This theory encourages for corporate leaders to consider the needs of all people and then make decisions based on what is advantageous for the whole group and not particular individuals (Carlisle and Faulkner 2004). Sometimes this theory may be used to justify the passing of difficult decisions. For instance, a drug-producing company can make the decision to release drug to the public which produces negative side-effects in a small percentage of the population on the basis of the fact that it will benefit the majority of its users. Personal Views In today’s business setting, workers as well as managers may find themselves having to deal with ethical dilemmas that they were dragged into or created for themselves (Trevino and Nelson 2007). There are also many examples of multinational corporations that have had to deal with accusations of ethical malpractice in the public forum. Companies such as Coca-Cola, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Dillard Company and Nestle have been encumbered by problems involving either their workers in foreign branches or their foreign business partners’ practices (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2010). Dillard, a huge departmental store, has in the past been accused of engaging in questionable business practices. It was also accused of racial profiling and refusing to pay its contractors. Exxon Mobil has been censured for not supporting campaigns that encourage environmental preservation (Chun 2005). In my estimation, even though these are serious charges to level against any company, there is usually much more to incidences of corrupt practices in any organisations than is openly evident. The executive managers of organisations such as Apple may find it difficult to make honest decisions due to the fact that there are factors such as company interest which have to be taken into consideration when decisions that affect the organisation are being made (Fritzsche and Oz 2007). Managers are not likely to make honest decisions if they know that their decisions will impact the company negatively (Jones, Parker and Bos 2005). Employees also have to take the possibility that they might lose their jobs into consideration when they make certain decisions. Before this course, I supposed that there are rigid ethical standards that ought to be adhered to by every organisation. However, I now think that organisations, particularly those working in foreign nations, have to base their ethical stand on a variety of principles that are of their own choosing. For the most part, domestic corporations can more easily adhere to specific ethical standards because they usually operate exclusively in the home country. This means that they are expected to observe just one set of lawful requirements (Budd 2004). Even in multi-ethnic nations such as the United States, there are a definite number of standards for ethical behaviour in a business setting which operate within a reasonably integrated population. Conversely, multinational corporations have branches in many countries where every nation has its own rules that govern business operations. Due to this fact, most multinational enterprises find themselves baffled by the business regulations of host nations (Davies 2003). They are often left to make the decision on whether to adopt the business practices of their host nations or maintain their own preferred practices. If they decide to conform to the business practices of their host nations, they may be confronted with a new set of challenges in the area of ethics. This is because what is presumed to be ethical behaviour in one nation could be viewed with disapproval in another nation (Millage 2005). This means that the definition of what constitutes unethical behaviour is dependent on the nation in which multinational corporation in question happens to be operating in (Verschoor 2005). This is quite detrimental for the push to curb unethical business practices on a global scale because it gives a leeway for organisations to be able to subvert rules to suit their own ends. For instance, many multinational establishments usually pay their expatriate workers based on their nation’s wage scale-which, if the country is developed, will be higher; while remunerating those that are hired from the host nation, which may be a less-developed nation, at a lower rate that is corresponding with the local wages (Sheng and Sheng 2004). This is obviously an unfair practice, especially when both groups of workers have performed the same tasks. Moreover, it is not often addressed in the same proportion as environmental issues. Another issue that is not often addressed has to do with differences in pay where male and female workers are concerned. There are developing nations in which it is normal for female workers to be paid less than male workers. For instance, in Japan, female workers are often regarded as being of less value than male workers. This retrogressive cultural standard generates an employment value system that is partial towards male workers. There are many multicultural companies that choose to adopt this skewed system when paying workers so as to save on costs. There are even corporations that intentionally choose to start branches in nations that support such biased practices so as to have the chance to save on costs. This is yet another more pervasive form of unethical behaviour that is not often publicly condemned by many organisations that seek to stem corruptive business practices. Another issue has to do with the giving of business ‘gifts’. There are many developing nations in which gift giving and bribes are accepted as a social norm. When conducting business meetings, business people from such nations exchange gifts for the sake of expeditious business transactions. In most developed nations, such exchanges are viewed with disdain as they are perceived to be unethical. In such cases, the multinational corporation is expected to adhere to the business practices that are ethical and even dissuade their business partners from the developing nation from engaging in such business exchanges (Phillips 2003). Moreover, there are many companies that choose to engage in the gift giving with ulterior motives. In doing this, they know that they cannot be directly blamed for exchanging bribes with potential business partners because it is a cultural practice that is accepted in their host nation. Moreover, their inference is not likely to be missed by the business partner. Such ethical concerns are not addressed in a public forum often; and thus do not receive much publicity. Only ethical issues involving international corruption, child labour, or environmental pollution are frequently addressed in the press. This is unfortunate because there are many more ethical subjects that ought to be openly debated on and addressed. It is very challenging for business establishments to become and stay ethical in the present globally competitive environment, particularly when they are straining to remain profitable and meet the expectations of their stakeholders and customers. In reality, an organisation’s views of what is ethical or not ethical vary widely with different nations. It is safe to presume that multinational businesses as well as the national governments of overseas nations are heavily dependent on their particular business values when determining what constitutes unethical behaviour. The increase of economic and cultural diversity in an organisation’s customer base usually results in a corresponding rise in the ethical dilemmas faced by large organisations with branches in several countries. It is therefore necessary for organisations looking to be successful in the global economy to embrace a multicultural guideline which deals in the business ethics of various nations. This will help them in creating a stable foundation for future business relations. References Bartlett, D. (2003) ‘Management and business ethics: a critique and integration of ethical decision-making models’, British Journal of Management, vol. 14, pp. 223-235. Bredeson, D. & Goree, K. (2011). Ethics in the workplace, Cengage Learning, New York. Budd, J.W. (2004) Employment with a human face balancing efficiency, equity, and voice, Cornell University Press, New York. Carlisle, Y.M. & Faulkner, D.O. (2004) ‘Corporate social responsibility: a stages framework’, European Business Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 143-52. Chun, R. (2005) ‘Ethical character and virtue of organisations: an empirical assessment and strategic implications’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 57, pp. 269-284 Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. & Rhodes, C. (2006) ‘Business ethics as practice’, British Journal of Management, vol.17, pp. 1-16 Davies, R. (2003) ‘The business community: social responsibility and corporate values’, in Dunning, J.H. (Ed.), ‘Making globalization good - the moral challenges of global capitalism’, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Felsher, L.M. (2005) ‘Improving workplace ethics: how to become a better manager, employee or co-worker’, Meetings & Conventions. Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J. &Ferrell, L. (2010) Business ethics- ethical decision making and cases, Cengage Learning, New York. Fritzsche, D.J. & Oz, E. (2007) ‘Personal values' influence on the ethical dimensions of decision making’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 75, pp. 335-343. Garriga, E. & Mele, D. (2004) ‘Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, pp. 51-71. Husted, B.W. & Salazar, J. (2006) ‘Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance’, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 75-91. Jones, C., Parker, M. & Bos, R. (2005) For business ethics, Routledge, London. Millage, A. (2005) ‘Ethical misconduct prevalent in workplace’, Internal Auditor. Phillips, R. A. (2003) Stakeholder theory and organisational ethics, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Sheng, C.L. & Sheng, Q. (2004) ‘A defense of utilitarianism’, University Press of America. Smith, A.D. (2007) ‘Making the case for the competitive advantage of corporate social responsibility’, Business strategy Series, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 186-195 Torres, N.L. (2005) ‘Ethically speaking: what are today's students learning about business ethics’, Entrepreneur. Trevino, L. & Nelson, K. (2007) Managing business ethics: straight talk about how to  do it right, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Verschoor, C.C. (2005) ‘Benchmarking ethics and compliance programs’, Strategic Finance. Weiss, J.W. (2008) Business ethics- a stakeholder and issues management approach, Cengage Learning, New York. Read More