Ethics and the Canadian Wheat Board - Essay Example

Ethics and the Canadian Wheat Board Ethics and the Canadian Wheat Board Introduction Ascapitalist systems are implemented in more and more countries throughout the developed world, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been brought steadily to the forefront of business practices in the UK and in its close trading partners. The theories of CSR are meant to bring accountability to corporate bodies where they have not necessarily acted in a positive, community-building way in past decades. Instead of creating monopolies and selling products or services for record profits, CSR means that corporations must take a closer look at all the levels of operation to ensure that workers are being treated respectfully and are receiving a decent wage; products are safe for consumption and sale and the economies of every country involved in production and sale are not being hindered by their involvement in the business. The Canadian Wheat Board has faced the incorporation of CSR theories since its conception on the early prairies; today the Board still operates as a dynamic organisation focused on trading high quality produce while giving farmers the best money for their efforts. Basic Aspects of CSR Fisher and Lovell believe that Corporate Social Responsibility is something that every business, great and small, should be keeping in mind throughout the daily transactions and trade (Fisher and Lovell, 2006). They know that every country is built not directly on its government structure, but instead on its internal business structures, including those smaller organisations that make up a basic business infrastructure at the community level. According to these authors, CSR can incorporate any of three major ideologies into its structure: libertinism, universalism and utilitarianism. Each of these encompasses a different perspective of social justice and therefore will have a different method of identifying and dealing with perceived issues within a corporate structure. Libertinism theory will put the emphasis on the right of the researcher to try any new methods within farming, regardless of the criticisms of other individuals or government bodies. It is, Libertarians will argue, the right of the individual to pursue his or her own theories and try out new methods of seed manufacturing if these theories are basically positive. Scientists and other researchers who promote genetic modification are not singularly focused on the destruction of agriculture, after all; they simply believe that their methods will prove the most viable in the near future. Although at its core, libertinism in CSR aims to free the developer from government restriction for the good of technological advancement, in terms of real social responsibility it is better to use past successes and failures as a guideline when creating new corporate theories (Otsuka, 2003). Universal theory has a different approach to CSR. Promoters of this school of thought believe that the best way for corporations to better serve their customers and communities is for them all to adopt a universally accepted set of rules and laws for operation. This would mean that corporations of any size in the UK, Canada, the United States or in Africa would all have to meet the same guidelines as set out by an intermediary and international governing body. Because of a universal set of rules, corporations would not be able to argue that they can't compete with other similar bodies because of national restrictions; this lets each business come to terms with the same human rights and environmental guidelines within its own organisation and as such, there can be no question whether one business is morally better than another. In contrast to Libertinism and Universalism, Utilitarianism promotes yet another approach to Corporate Social Responsibility. Primarily, this ideology holds that the most crucial aspect of any business endeavour is to bring in new ideas and equipment as they are needed to bolster a weakened or weakening business structure. Instead of working to expand on an already successful organisation, Utilitarianists will advise that the best methods of business are to keep practises the same until a problem is pinpointed, and then work can begin to eradicate the issues one by one. By limiting business expansion in this way, business owners and operators will be able to more clearly see where they need to focus their energies in terms of social responsibility. Keeping the infrastructure of the business in mind more than the profit margins means that people at the top of a corporate chain can be more in tune to the needs of their employees, their customers and the issues inherent in their environmental and economic impact (Fisher and Lovell, 2006). CSR Theory and the Canadian Wheat Board CSR theories, at least on some level, have been incorporated into every Western corporation regardless of size and global impact, and the Canadian Wheat Board is no exception. The Board has had to find ways of appeasing customers, farmers and environmental lobbyists since the very beginning of its existence because of its place in the midst of the main vein of Canadian economy: agriculture. Canadian law states that a public corporation ("[which] conducts major undertakings in Canadian business - retailing, manufacturing, mining, forestry, construction, communications, financial and service industries" [CAA, 1984, p.561]) follows essentially the same rules as a private company with the exception of one thing: "the added emphasis on protection of the general public" (Ibid. p.561). The Canadian Wheat Board is one corporation that has always taken this rule seriously since it was created to protect farmers at a time when Canada's population was primarily agriculturally-oriented. Currently, the Wheat Board finds itself actively fighting against genetic modification of crop strains as its researchers have found that despite theories that such engineered mutations will not persist in nature, they have indeed changed the make-up of tiny organisms within the soil and the insects in an affected area. The Wheat Board has a unique dedication to both human rights and environmentalism, since its purpose is to both provide profits to farmers and to ensure that the land on which they grow their crops remains fruitful (Dressel and Suzuki, 2002). Unfortunately, the Canadian Wheat Board has witnessed the poor implementation of genetic modification in struggling agricultural nations like India, and under the guidelines of the so-called Green Revolution the modified grains failed to feed more starving people or to cut costs to struggling farmers. With information like this in mind, the Wheat Board is wary of genetically modified crops and yet also interested in parallel advancements of growth technology like those of new pesticides. Since the Board was created to protect the future of growers in Canada, members realise that it is their duty not only to maintain current standards but to expand their view of growing in the future (Friedmann and Denning, 1951. p.258). The Board openly recognises libertarian theories in that it would not have survived without drastic new cultivation methods in the early 20th century (such as windbreak trees and fences and rotation of crops), however it also looks to failures in other countries like India as warnings for certain methods. Because of the early difficulties of planting in Canada when the first settlers came to work the land, the Board also recognises the fact that not every nation or corporate body can be expected to follow the same set of ethical guidelines. England and Canada could not physically treat their land the same way, and because of this fundamental difference the two cultures have also become different to a degree that calls for separate governmental status and ethical rulings. Conclusion In terms of libertinism, utilitarianism and uniformism, the Canadian Wheat Board has clearly subscribed to the utilitarian theory of Corporate Social Responsibility as described by Fisher and Lovell. Historical circumstances have taught members of the Canadian Wheat Board that their situation is permanently different to those of foreign countries and foreign corporate bodies, and because of this the Board recognises that uniform corporate policies are simply too restrictive and libertarian policies are too without restraint. The Board's primary focus is the welfare of its farmers and the quality of its grain; to accomplish these goals it must employ a utilitarian approach and closely monitor all levels of organisation within its structure. To comply with ethical concerns of its patrons and its customers, the Board must ensure that the land itself is being cared for, that farmers can be guaranteed a decent price and as such it must firstly be aware of those factors which are influencing the quality of the earth. In this, the Canadian Wheat Board is a corporate body with unusual responsibilities to the land and its patrons; in this the Board has accepted terms of utilitarian social responsibility for years. References CAA, 1984. The Law and You. Canada: Reader's Digest. Denning, A. and Friedmann, W., 1951. Law and Social Change in Contemporary Britain. London: Stevens. Dressel, H. and Suzuki, D., 2002. Good News for a Change. Toronto: Stoddart. Fisher, C. and Lovell, A., 2006. Business Ethics and value: Individual corporate and international perspective 2nd edition. FT/Prentice Hall. Otsuka, M., 2003. Libertarianism without Inequality. Oxford: Clarendon. Read More