Business Imperatives and Environmental Concerns - Research Paper Example

TOPIC: Sustainability and Globalisation Helena Norberg- Hodge ‘article Localise, Localise, Localise- alternative to globalisation (2001) pertains toglobalisation and sustainability raises ethical issues of a business nature, it questions environment sustainability in the face of globalisation. Norberg- Hodge (2001) contends that the mobilisation of trade and transport increases when companies ‘go global’, this, in turn, increases carbon deposits which accelerate environmental degradation and undermine environmental sustainability. The solution is to curb the damage by restricting operations to an organisations locality and she feels that organisations have an ethical responsibility to do this (Norberg- Hodge 2001). The primary role of an organisation, however, is to maximise profit, this is often best achieved by globalising, and this too is an ethical consideration for them in terms of self interest one. Thus, business imperatives and environmental concerns are often at odds with each other. Domestic household waste is also an environmental hazard yet householders are not penalised for not recycling or for purchasing products with environmentally damaging packaging, why then must there be an obligation for business owners and not wider society? Yet, the current state of the environment is a global concern with scientists only forecasting so many years before we pass the point of no return. Adopting an environmental ethic is a must for organisations but seeking a less damaging approach to globalisation is an alternative to the forced localisation that Norberg- Hodge (2001) is suggesting, which may also be unethical. Globalising businesses should place an onus on reducing carbon emissions but should they have to cease international trade to do so? Norberg- Hodge, H. (2001) Localise, Localise, Localise- alternative to globalisation, The Economist, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_5_31/ai_76285462/ (accessed August 12 2006). TOPIC: Ethical Issues in Advertising Childhood obesity has officially reached epidemic proportions but as Michele Simon points out in Government Abandons Children to Big Food (2006) food and beverage companies still refuse to take any social responsibility and curb advertising deliberately aimed at children. There are numerous ways that companies target children, companies deliberately purchase advertising time slots to air advertisements during children’s programming and specifically market to the child. Persistent children then harangue unsuspecting parents; the ethical consideration here is whether or not companies should be permitted to target children. This type of marketing also encourages social divide when parents can not afford or are themselves ethically opposed to the food or beverage being advertised, children who are continually told no begin to recognise that they are treated differently to their friends or classmates. Nobody likes to have upset children and in terms of ethics it is questionable that companies be allowed to prey on this sentiment particularly when the product has adverse health effects for the child. Then there are the health implications of targeting children with a product that puts there health at risk when they are unable to make healthy lifestyle choices for themselves or make independent decisions without the influence of advertising campaigns shaping those decisions. Poor dietary habits in childhood often carry through into adulthood creating a life time of obesity and residual conditions such as heart disease, depression, diabetes and so on. Advertising campaigns aimed at children require regulation by either government or self regulation by food and beverage firms to curb the dangerously high level of childhood obesity (Simon 2006). Simon, M. (2006) Government Abandons Children to Big Food, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/story/23648/ (accessed August 15, 2006). TOPIC: Corporate Influence and Accountability Anup Shah’ Pharmaceutical Corporations and AIDS (2002) documents pharmaceutical giants’ ability to use corporate influence to force US government to heavily enforce Patent laws and prevent African nations from producing their own cheaper brand of drug to treat AIDS. The Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights are used by pharmaceutical companies to manipulate governments and prevent the global society from finding a solution to the spread of the disease (Shah 2002). Given the nature of the illness in question there are grounds to suggest that those companies have an ethical obligation to lift the patent restrictions and allow generic brands to be made available for cheaper to prevent the spread and improve the quality of life of those already suffering. In light of the seriousness of the disease it is reasonable to suggest that pharmaceutical companies be forced to be accountable on some level for depriving a nation of much needed medical support or face liable for perpetuating the AIDS epidemic. Pharmaceutical companies also used political influence to further company gains when they requested the American government to impose trade sanctions on South Africa if they produced generic drugs (Shah 2002) so they went beyond using their influence to gain an advantage over the competition to deliberately seek to condemn an entire nation for profit. In the interests of somebody being accountable what are the ethical responsibilities of the World Trade Organization given that they have the power to force pharmaceutical companies and the US government to lift the patent, yet they choose not too? Shah, A. (2002). Pharmaceutical Companies and AIDS, GlobalIssues, http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/AIDS.asp. (Accessed August 12, 2006). TOPIC: Loyalty and Whistle Blowing Wal-Mart came under close scrutiny for allegedly firing employees who had reported several instances of corrupt practice amongst executives at the company. According to Michael Barbaro (2005: 7) reports that the franchise invented stories of elicit employee affairs and the like to justify the sackings but the discarded employees maintain that they were fired for speaking out. Inevitably this raises issues of professional ethics, employee loyalty, whether or not they had an ethical obligation to remain loyal to their employer or to speak out in the interests of the public and the free exchange of information or if they breached the companies trust. It also raises issues of corporate responsibility to foster honesty in their workforce, job security and the promotion of a fair and equitable work environment. Wal-Mart prides itself on its ethical stance in relation to whistle blowing and openly promotes the fact that it values honesty amongst employees, litigation placed that reputation in jeopardy (Barbero 2005: 7). Simple deduction indicates that Wal-Mart may have been willing to fabricate scenarios to legitimate the sackings and protect their reputation as a transparently run corporation, ethics in this case favoured self interest. Transparency in large corporations is something that is in the interest of the people it is easier to contend that employees had an ethical obligation to divulge what they knew than it is to argue that their loyalty should have remained with Wal-Mart. Workers rights are protected by legislation, this case is a clear example of what happens when employee loyalty clashes with their ethical obligation to society as a whole. Barbero, M. (2005) Wal-Mart Fights Whistle-Blower Suits, Washington Post, p-7. TOPIC: Privacy The right of businesses to monitor their employees has come under increasing pressure, Electronic surveillance in the Workplace (Sinrod 2001) details how employees are beginning to get restless about issues of personal privacy. Employers are using closed circuit television (CCTV), internet, phone and email monitoring to keep tabs on the activities of their employees. Some companies have even gone as far as bathroom monitoring. It is not unreasonable for business to want to ensure productivity and minimal time wasting by checking if personal calls and emails are being kept out of the workplace or that they are not paying high internet bills for their employees to look up porn. The ethical onus is on employees to adhere to company policy on these issues. However, CCTV is difficult to justify in companies that are not at risk of an external security threat. Constant monitoring is contentious and may actually be illegal and employees have no way of knowing what exactly is being recorded or where it is recorded nor can they control the eventual destination of the material. What happens to an employee’s personal information once employers have discovered via computer usage monitoring is also a concern. It may be used to harass employees or their families, it may be forwarded on to others breaching the employee’s right to confidentiality, and the possibilities are endless. Ethical obligations run both ways under these circumstances but employers have a further obligation to divulge the measures they will use to monitor activity in the interview process or upon revising their measures. Sinrod, E.J. (2001) Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2001/10/18/sinrod.htm (Accessed August 16 2006). Read More