Business Ethics and Social Responsibility - Case Study Example

ON BUSINESS ETHICS One of the many things that we learn early in life is that lying or telling untrue stories about anything is not something viewedor appreciated as a positive form of action or undertaking. As such, more often than not, children grow as adults with the belief that being honest or not telling a lie is a clear manifestation of a person who has developed a well-rounded characteristic or personality. But somehow, as human beings no longer just interact with one or two persons but that they enter into an organization some things change. The organization is perceived as the venue wherein the person not only acquires the means to sustain his needs for survival, but it is also viewed as the sphere wherein the possibility of actualizing and gaining human development is recognized. This is made possible for the various forms of interrelationships established in the organization as persons interact with one another in the different levels of its structure, carries with it the core belief that each member of the organization are working towards the achievement and realization of the organization’s goals as they achieved human development and excellence in their field of expertise. And that actions performed by all its players are considered as within the purview of the organizations good. Thus, it is assumed as given and therefore not questioned the truism of the belief that workers and employees do not just performed their tasks in an excellent manner in order to yield a good product but that they have a sense of loyalty to the organization where they are members. However, the relationship between the organization from the management level and the employees is not always bed of roses. Critical issues demanding decisive actions and decision making sometimes arise as some factors and judgments may tend to disturb the “harmonious” balance of the organization. Business has always been considered as “amoral.”(De George, 1999, p5) Implying that basically business enterprises have no other interests than to gain profit. Thereby, presenting the notion that businesses do not bother itself to question of right or wrong which is the interests of morality and ethics but are, instead, concerned with the question of how companies will be able to increase its gains and profits. This view, in fact, is also held by the Noble Laureate Milton Friedman that “the only social responsibility of business was to increase profit.”(Davies, 2000, p 99) Thus, business has no interests except its own interests and that if at some point some questions regarding morality may come out the rule of the thumb is to follow the moral norms and codes of the people and the society where the business belongs. But is it true or correct to maintain that business is amoral as business is usual? Thus, perhaps providing a justification for the claim that “In all market changes, rational economic actors are assumed to seek the greatest benefit for the least cost in order to maximize their own benefit.” (Boatright, 2002, p38) As such, if this holds true, then can we maintain that morality is indeed beyond the scope of business? In order to highlight the apparent but questionable dilemma regarding “business’ amorality” let us look into the case of Akre-Wilson – their fight, battle for freedom of speech. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were both employees of Fox network. They were hired by the company to work as investigative reporters. As such is the nature of their work it is basically assumed that they may be tackling sensitive issues that the viewing public may be informed on matters that is deemed to be important to protect their interests. In this context, Akre and Wilson embarked on investigating the issue regarding the used of BGF or in this case IGFI on cows. Bovine Growth Factor is a synthetic hormone injected on cows so that cows can produce more milk. This means that if a cow normally without BGF can produce 9 gallons of milk per day, with BGF it can produce milk up to 12-15 gallons per day. The increase in milk production normally acts as an incentive to farmers in using the synthetic hormone. Although it should be noted that BGF is naturally present to cows, it is just that there is the desire of farmers to increase milk production. In some sense, the farmers cannot be blamed since an increase in milk production automatically implies an increase in profit or income. This being the scenario, Akre-Wilson tried to look if there was a downside or problem regarding this practice. For it cannot be denied that since a synthetic hormone is injected to the cows, there is strong evidence that such hormone is capable of being passed on the milk which is being drank by young children. And as a result of their investigation it was confirmed by scientists that it is true that the synthetic hormone is passed on the milk that the children are drinking. And that the presence of GMO in the milk increases the risk of the children in getting breast and other forms of cancer. Being such, the documentary presents the information to the people regarding the effect of GMO milk Both Akre-Wilson claimed that in their documentary they did not even intended to tell the people that they should stop buying GMO milk. But that they were presenting the documentary in a manner that will just keep the people, to be more specific the consumers, of very important information regarding the milk that they were purchasing. But to their amazement, few days before the airing of the documentary they were called by the management and were told to change “incriminating” details of the story. They have told the management that they can basically “kill” the story but it was at the hands of the management to explain everything since their show was highly publicized. But the Fox management did not want to do that. They have continuously asked the couple to soften the story. In fact they have revised the story for more than 80 times just to comply with their request. But that was not in the mind of the management. When they asked them to “soften” the story what they were really asking was to change the tone of the story, they were basically being asked to hide the truth from the viewing public. Being such, both Akre-Wilson did not subscribed to request even if they were offered $200,000 just to silence them. And all of these actions were undertaken by Fox management under the prodding of Monsanto who was the owner of the company that produces the IGFI, the synthetic hormone, injected to cows so that it can produce more milk, more “treated milk”. And when pushed turn into shove, Akre-Wilson turned to the public regarding what they were experiencing from the hands of Fox management and Monsanto. Under business ethics, what both Akre and Wilson did is considered as “whistle-blowing” In fact, if one is to look at what they did Akre-Wilson are basically committing the two forms of whistle-blowing- the direct and in-direct one. But what is whistle blowing? Is it immoral or there are instances wherein it is moral? Whistle-blowing is a term that seems to be difficult to define. But scholars agree that it is “an attempt of an employee or former-employee to disclose what he/she believes to be wrongdoing in or by the organization. Like blowing a whistle to call attention to a thief, whistle-blowing is an effort to make others aware of practices one considers immoral or illegal.”(James, 1990, p160) Whistle-blowing maybe internal or external. Internal if the whistle-blower is part of the organization and external it is done by persons outside the organization. In this definition, it can be claimed that what Akre and Wilson have done are both an internal and external whistle-blowing –internal with regards to Fox Network and external in connection with Monsanto’s IGFI. Knowing, more or less, the agreed upon definition of whistle-blowing, perhaps we can now look whether it is moral or immoral. In answering this question, what we have as our guide for untangling the knot is the case of Akre-Wilson. With their case as our background in the whole elucidation we will now go over the moral question pertinent to whistle-blowing. The perusal of several literature presents the notion that it seems scholars are basically leaning on the idea that whistle-blowing can be both moral and immoral depending upon the context of whistle-blowing. But if we particularize the issue and zero-in in the case of Akre and Wilson, I am claiming that what they did is morally right. on the basis of Kant’s categorical imperative and Mill’s utilitarianism. According to Immanuel Kant, human beings being rational beings are capable of willing universal laws pertinent to morality. In fact, in his work Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals he clearly presented the idea that since rational beings are capable of transcending the dictates of their inclination through the help of reason, moral laws are to be appreciated as a priori principles that demands complete and total compliance on the part of human beings. Kant believes that this is possible since the obligation of fulfilling mandates of morality are not formulated hypothetically (if I do x then I get y kind of statement) but rather it is formulated categorically (I ought to do x). In this framework, Kant tells us that since moral laws are formulated categorically there must be something with regards to moral laws that compel us to follow it. Since he is definitive that it is to be followed not because of certain inclinations for the reason that human inclinations are wavering and differing from one person to another and more or less swayed by the consequences derive from it. So, he maintained that since all human being are rational beings what is being asked of us is that all our moral endeavors should be formulated in the sense that it can be universalized. The principle of universalisability demands that before we act on something we ought to ask ourselves the question “can we will that our action will also be the act of persons who will be facing the same moral dilemmas that we are now facing?” In the case of Akre-Wilson, if they asked themselves if we hide the truth today, will others who may also be in the same predicament as they are now do what we are going to do now? If we let powers that be control important and necessary information for the welfare of the society now, will others who may find themselves in the same situation as we are now in follow the same act that we are about to do? Thus, if both Akre-Wilson can will that their acts can be universalized then they should act on it. On the other hand, if we are going to follow Mill’s utilitarianism, all we have to ask is who will be gaining more benefit or who will be happier the moment that we do the act? Will our act increase the happiness of a lot more people? These are important questions since under Mill’s utilitarianism the notion that an act is moral or immoral depends on who and how many will receive the greatest amount of happiness. It requires technically the balancing of happiness and pain that may be the result as we embark on a particular act. Again, in the case of Akre-Wilson, they simply have to ask themselves who will be gaining more in the action; will our silence benefit the majority and satisfy the interests of limited few? Or will our coming out to public, satisfy and gains the benefit of the majority of the stakeholders of the information – the people? The moment that you are able to foresee the possible numbers of people that will be benefiting from the act, it is then you decide. But always remember that the primary ethos for the action under utilitarianism is to secure the greatest happiness for the greater number of people. Using these two paradigms in valuating the acts of Akre and Wilson, it appears that their coming to public is moral both under the Kantian categorical imperative and Mill’s utilitarianism. It is moral under Kant since their action passes the principle of universalizability. Implying that they can will that any body who is put under the same dire situation just like them can act to expose the truth. Moreover, it shows the truism that lying whatever is its color is something that cannot be uphold as universal principle for action. This is made clearer under their predicament since they are both in journalism, which demands that truth should be pursued and be made known at all cost. There is no amount of money worthy in exchange for the truth. On the other hand, Mill’s utilitarianism also affirms the morality of their act. Since the vital information that is contained in their report is something that affects technically all the children of America. Thus, if we weigh it on the principle “greatest happiness for the greatest number” then the interests of Masanto in protecting his company and the interests of Murdoch in securing the advertisements and support form Masanto is incomparable to the good to be derived by the consuming public. In this light, it is made unambiguous that questions of morality are something that permeates organizations and businesses. The case of Akre-Wilson presents in a very lucid manner that the responsibility of business enterprises is not solely to achieve the interests of the shareholders. It shows that as businesses are part of the larger community that we call society it definitely demands that people should construe their decision making not only under the context of profit but also at the framework of the good of the society as a whole. This case more or less thrusts business enterprises to the realm of that which is real as the people experiences it and not on how the powers that be want the people to appreciate reality. Business is never amoral. The moment business is created; it is also the moment that it ought to become ethical. We are not saying that businesses should do away with profit. That would basically destroy the very nature of businesses. What we are saying is that businesses should not deemed themselves as over and above the moral norms and structure of the society where they belong. For the merit of money is never comparable to the value and worth of the people. REFRENCE LIST: Bowie, N. The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Boatright, J. “Ethics and Corporate Governance: Justifying the Role of Shareholder” in The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Ed by Norman Bowie. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Carlson, P. and Blodgett, M. “INTERNATIONAL ETHICS STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS: NAFTA, CAUX PRINCIPLES AND US CORPORATE CODES OF ETHICS” in The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Ed by Norman Bowie. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Dandekar, N. “Can Whistle Blowing be Fully Legitimated?” in Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases. Ed Sterling Harwood. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996. Davies, P. Current Issues on Business Ethics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000. De George, R. Business Ethics 5th Ed. New York: Meridian Books, 1990. Ferrell, O.C. and Friedrich, J.ed. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. Freeman, E. Business Ethics: The State of the Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Harwood, S. ed. Business as Ethical and Business as Usual: Text, Readings and Cases. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers,1996. James, G. “Whistle blowing: Its Nature and Justification” in Business Ethics ed by Snoeyenbos et al. New York: Prometheus Books, 1983. Kant, I. Grounding of the metaphysics of Morals in The Cambridge Companion to Immanuel Kant trans Mary Mcgregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Madsen, P. and Shafritz, J. eds. Essentials of Business Ethics. New York: Meridian Books, 1990. Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism. Nader, R. “ The Anatomy of Whistle-Blowing” in Essentials of Business Ethics eds P. Madsen and J. Shafritz. New York: Meridian Books, 1990. Snoeyenbos, M., Almeder, R. and Humber, J. eds. Business Ethics. New York: Prometheus Books, 1983. US department of Commerce. “ Ethical Principles Governing Global Business: Model Business Principles” in The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics ed Norman Bowie. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Read More