The Cultural Evolution in the Business Environment: Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility - Research Paper Example

Ethics has been approached from divergent perspectives and each contributes in its own way to possible understandings of the nuances of the concept of ethics (Svensson & Wood, 2003). Ethics has been the focus of philosophical thought for several centuries and across different cultures. It is hence not a creation of the modern world. Business ethics is a function of culture. The cultural evolution in the business environment determines what the acceptable and the unacceptable business activities and management principles should be. The practice and significance of business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) has changed in the business environment over time. While there are still that continue to behave unacceptably in the market place, some organizations are changing from unacceptable towards acceptable practices. To be fully committed to ethics the leadership must be able to foresee the problems and take preventive measures. Business ethics should become a corporate philosophy, integrated into their system, and not remain simply as a corporate code. With the right leadership and the organizational strategies it is possible to influence the ethical behavior of employees. The larger companies have something to learn on CSR from the smaller companies says (Blyth, 2002). CSR is difficult to define because it is constantly evolving. It is much more than simply charity giving and community development. Such a view gives an impression of being expensive and time-consuming and hence acts as a deterrent. The smaller companies have embraced CSR and ethical practices which exemplary. They play a significant role in their local community. Ethical congruence is necessary in an organization and this comes through communicating the values because employees act on what they believe. If the values are not communicated in the right way, the employees will assume values and motives are less benevolent and accurate (Navran, 2002). Employees must be encouraged to pay attention to the congruence between what their leaders demand and what is demanded by the formal system. Words should match actions. Employee commitment and trust within the organization can increase when the leaders are consistent with the organization’s stated values. This enhances employees’ confidence. When organizational values are consistent with the employees’ own beliefs the values are considered as being worthy of support and employee commitment to the organizational goals, and the value goes up. Hence an ethically congruent leadership is essential. This is as far as internal integration is concerned. A company’s views has also to be congruent with others’ views. The others’ views include those of the customers, suppliers and/or other publics. When the views of the company are not in agreement with others, it results in discord or disagreements. This is known as the “business ethics gap” which can either be positive or negative. A positive business ethics gap means the company is a step ahead of the values and norms of the market place and when the company is a step behind it is the negative business ethics gap. A positive business ethics gap is preferred. It basically depends on how the business activity is perceived by those that mater most for the success of the organization – its stakeholders. Consumers are the biggest stakeholders and ethical consumerism has been growing steadily over the past few years. Thirty years ago ‘caring consumerism’ was a small segment – a few middle class people had become interested (Glasgow, 2006). Today consumers demand ethical goods and services and the range extends from cosmetics to financial services and this segment is growing annually. This is the reason that consumers feel betrayed when the smaller ethical independent firms that have been committed to producing high-quality and ethical products, enter a commercial deal with larger companies or business conglomerates. Of late several small independent ethical firms have been taken over by larger companies. Such takeovers have damaged the company’s former high standing with ethical pressure groups. The ethical pressure groups become disturbed because even if the target company has ethically sound policies, its profits are likely to be channeled to fund unacceptable practices (Glasgow, 2006). The founders of small ethical firms face a challenge because they do not know the outcome when their products will be brought into the mainstream. Their objective is to reach a wider audience with their products, and they find a takeover is the easiest way of accessing the market. While some consumers buy partly others walk away. The tradeoff against the damage to the reputation is expected to be outweighed by the boost to sales. The rationale behind the business conglomerates buying smaller ethical companies is that this is a cheap and easy alternative to building their own. It is not possible for any organization to have several differing ethical values. However the question lurks whether the parent company embraces the new comer’s high standards or allows the ethical principles and commitment to quality to dilute over time. The larger companies that take over the smaller ethical companies need to bear in mind that in the long run morality pays (Hooker, 2003). Even if they do happen to reap profits for some time, at one point the unethical people will run into trouble. If the corporations run into trouble, the stakeholders including its loyal customers will come forward to help had they been ethical but not if they have been engaging in unacceptable practices. Profits have been found to be the main motive for the top executives or the CEOs to engage in unethical practices. Economist Milton Friedman is well known for his statement that the social responsibility and the only responsibility of businesses is to increases its profits (Hooker, 2003). According to Friedman the sole proprietor of a company can easily sacrifice the profits when faced with ethical dilemmas or when he wants to remain a decent human being. Hooker argues that if the same business is handed over to professional managers to run it. If these managers engage in unethical practices, it does not relieve the owners of the responsibility and liability just because they have hired someone to run the business. The agents merely carry out the duties that the owners are bound to observe, whether they run the business themselves or hire people to do so. Ethical choices and conflicts are inherent in business decision making and a study revealed that 75% of the managers in their career felt a conflict between profit considerations and being ethical (Laczniak, 1983). Managers have also been under pressure to compromise their ethical stand. The rate of takeovers of smaller ethical companies by multinationals is increasing. Ethical companies influence the big companies to take ethical issues seriously. The smaller companies demonstrate that it is possible to do business in ethical ways (Ethical Consumer, 2006). These ethical companies create consumers who are loyal to the ethical companies and their products. Hence it comes as a betrayal when they learn that the ethical company has been taken over by a bigger company. These acquisitions are seen as a general trend by the multinationals as a move towards being ethical. The sale of ethical products is significant and multinationals consider that it adds to their brand identity if they get involved. The bigger companies today accept that being ethical is important and it pays. These bigger companies are hence entering the ethical segment in three ways. They either launch new ethical products like Nestlé’s controversial Fairtrade coffee and Kenco’s Sustainable Coffee labelling, both of which were launched in 2005. Many others have entered the ethical segment by buying existing ethical companies. Other renowned ethical firms like Green & Blacks organic chocolate, Rachels Organics yoghurts, Seeds of Change pasta, sauces and cereal bars, or Ben & Jerrys ice-cream are now taken over by larger corporations (Hickman, 2008). Green & Blacks is now owned by Cadbury’s, the makers of mass-market low-cocoa bars. Ben & Jerry’s ice creams now belong to Anglo-Dutch household-goods giant Unilever, while Rachels Organics, a big organic dairy brand, is owned by the USs largest dairy company, Dean Foods. Big pharmaceutical companies prefer to take over innovative companies rather than engaging in their own research and development. Another reason is that a large company with a tarnished image would find it difficult to introduce ethical products of its own and buying an existing brand of reputation helps them gain the brand identity (Ethical Consumer, 2006). Big corporations have been buying consumer credibility since the 1990s as they realize that consumers are willing to spend a little more for ethical products. . There is another route that bigger companies are taking to enter the ethical segment. These include ‘re-engaging with their consumers’ like Marks and Spencers has done. Then there is the cause-related marketing like Bono’s Project Red in which American Express and Gap have partnered (Ethical Consumer, 2006). Cause-related marketing uses marketing dollars to fund social programs and raise awareness of social ills (B&J’s Homemade, 2000). Such takeovers dilute the very purpose of ethical companies. As discussed, smaller companies are innovative and they are constantly re-inventing their approach to the issue as well as to the product (Ethical Consumer, 2006). The larger companies have to focus on showing quarterly profits and innovation is not a priority with them. Many social entrepreneurs are trying to protect the vision and mission when takeover occurs. Big Corporates have been known to buy the smaller brands so as to gain immediate access to customers and sales (In-Store, 2006). Big food companies are poor innovators while smaller companies innovate best (Anonymous, 2000). A survey of new food and drink products that were launched globally in 1999 was conducted. The survey revealed that of the 15,000 products less than 6% were found to be innovative. This is perhaps the reason that big food companies are taking over smaller innovative brands, especially in America where valuations have been falling. The larger companies have taken over the smaller ‘ethical’ companies but the products are available under the previous brand name without the name of the new owner on the packaging. This is the way the large companies are playing the game to hold on to the market share but without the ethics practiced by the previous owners of the brand. Ben & Jerry’s started their first ice cream scoop shop in 1978 and their social mission was “to operate the company in a way that actively recognizes the central role that business plays in society by initiating innovative ways to improve the quality of life locally, nationally & internationally” (Wang, 2007). Since 1988 the company has donated 7.5% of their pre-tax profits to philanthropy. The company even received grants of $1 million in 1999 before it was taken over by Unilever. Ben & Jerry’s engaged in philanthropic activities and through Ben & Jerry Foundation they also supported progressive social change in the United States by funding grass-root campaigns like the Institute for Social Ecology and the Police Barrio Relations Project. Through its PartnerShop program they supported non-profit organizations in operating Ben & Jerry’s scoop shop with the motive of providing employment to the at-risk youths and young adults. They also donate the proceeds to special charities. This was predominantly a social enterprise and it may have engaged in philanthropic activities to maximize profits but their motive was not profit maximization. However, in 2000, Unilever took over Ben & Jerry’s for £175m (Hickman, 2008). This takeover was the most high-profile takeover of a socially responsible business in its day, describes Hickman. Originally Ben & Jerry’s had been ethical in their business practices as they supported social causes like protecting the rainforest, or using hormone-free milk from local farms (Anonymous, 2000). The previous owners could have been able to fight or resist the take over by Unilever if they had not sought funding by selling a majority stake in the company to Wall Street in 1985. Ben & Jerry’s had always marketed themselves as socially responsible, but this is no more the case after it has been sold to Unilever. Their approach was different from the cause-related marketing. They were different from the self-promotion-based motivation of social causes supported by most corporations. While Ben & Jerry’s were selling ‘ethical foods’ Unilever was in the market for ‘functional foods’ (Anonymous, 2000). Unilever was developing its own range of food packed with ingredients like bacteria which aids digestion or enzymes that help lower the cholesterol, but the sales were small. Unilever amended, amongst other things, the franchise-corporate relationship. Within one year of the takeover, Unilever appointed new CEO for the company and even then there were predictions that the brand’s social values would no more be adhered to. The company’s brand equity was built on its wholesome, small-town origins, funky packaging and cause-related marketing (Arnold, 2001). Unilever expected to compensate this through their massive media-buying power and research capability. The quality of advertisements too changed in the UK targeting the adult audience. The co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s were supposed to be involved even after the take over but when they found that the company was not sticking to the social values even though they had “promised to preserve its "green" and socially conscious traditions” (Allen, 2000). They had been keen to preserve the ‘identity and personality and values of Ben & Jerrys’ but soon business interests overpowered the social interests. Unilever had also promised not to cut jobs for two years and employee benefits would be maintained for five years. Other terms included no change in the franchisee agreements. Short-term perspectives inevitably result in losses. Trying to get a larger market share and open as many outlets as possible, Unilever engaged in unethical practices by appointing any number of franchisees. An embittered group of current and former franchisees complain that they have been misled into investing their life savings in stores that were not destined to meet with success (Smalley, 2007). The company made no efforts to ensure that they do not run into losses. The ice cream shipments that came through weighed less than what they were paid for and there are delays in restocking flavors. Big buyers like Costco and Wal-Mart were given the same prices as other wholesalers which led to undercutting across individual scoop shops. Unilever shrugs its shoulders saying these allegations have been falsely implicated and does not represent the voice of majority of the franchisees. Franchisees are filing suit against the company on the grounds that the financial projections were false and misleading. These are not the vibrations that the founders had left the company with when they sold off their interests. Glasgow (2006) contends that Ben & Jerry’s influence on the vast Unilever empire is restricted even though it was initially felt that Ben & Jerry had received an opportunity to contribute to Unilever’s social practices worldwide. This fear has been confirmed by a social audit and is believed that the ethical culture of the organization does not seem to have fared well. According to a social audit conducted only 45% of its employees thought that the company was taking its social mission seriously (Ethical Consumer, 2006). In the first three years, 20% of its original employees were fired and Unilever has stopped donating 7.5% of its pre-tax profits to charity as was assured. It was a hostile takeover and the co-founders advise other smaller ethical companies to stay independent and cater to a small segment rather than trying to reach the mass market. Green & Black’s is another company that had been ethical and had a caring corporate culture before it was taken over by Cadbury’s (Hickman, 2008). Founded in 1991, they used to sell gourmet chocolate: organic (green) and high-cocoa (black). The company had registered growth but in 2005, just as in the case of Ben & Jerry’s, the founder felt the company needed funds for expansion to help it cope with competitors like Hershey and Mars Seeds of Change. Cadbury’s had a 5 percent stake in 2002 in this company and the agreement carried an option that they could buy the rest in 2005. They then decided to take over and run Green & Black’s as a stand alone company. While Cadbury’s themselves did not have any single organic or Fairtrade product, the company MD claimed that they shared "a passion for quality products and ethical values". This takeover of Green & Black’s made them market leaders in organic chocolate. The Cadbury brand is not organic but has a high reputation. Green & Black’s had been careful in selecting a partner and they chose Cadbury because Cadbury’s empathized with and respected Green & Blacks for its ethical stand (In-Store, 2006). Cadbury has huge strengths in terms of ethical business and corporate responsibility, according to the then marketing manager of Green & Black’s. The takeover would only strengthen the ethos and the arrangement is mutually beneficial. Cadbury’s knowledge of the chocolate market is much longer and Green & Black’s had a better organic and ethical knowledge. At the same time, Cadbury’s corporate vision could reach the smaller company to heights that it could not have reached on its own. Cadbury had been shareholders in Green & Black’s for three years before the take over which allowed it to understand the character of the brand. Both these companies valued the themes of ethics and quality. However, its rating came down from an impressive 16 to just 8.5 (Glasgow, 2006). Even though Cadbury does not carry a negative brand image like Nestle, and even though it has a long standing in the socially responsible perspective, it does not imply that it is universally committed to organic or fair trade practices. Green and Black’s management, at the time of take over claimed that consumers do not care who the owner is and they evidence this based on a survey (Glasgow, 2006). There are many consumers who do not believe that the company Cadbury’s - have fully embraced the ideals of the fair-trade movement. Craig Sams of Green & Black’s believes that an acquired ethical company can influence the larger company that has taken it over, to improve its corporate behavior. This however has not been so in the case of Unilever’s take over of Ben & Jerry’s. Corporate takeovers of socially responsible businesses have been described as “a threat to democracy when wealth and power are concentrated into a few hands” (Ethical Consumer, 2006). It is generally believed and agreed upon that socially responsible and ethical companies should not be larger than 500 people. When larger companies take over the smaller ethical firms, they try to influence the regulatory standards. Multinational suppliers always focus on the bottom line and then they tend to dominate the markets. They claim that standards have to be tightly regulated when product standards like fair trade have to be maintained or organic certification becomes essential. Mass market is what needs to be achieved because by selling more the cocoa farmers that had been working with the original entrepreneurs would benefit (Galsgow, 2006). Craig Sams also claimed that the cocoa suppliers welcomed the acquisition because it increased their sense of security as they became confident that they would continue to enjoy the same relationship with the new company (Glasgow, 2006). He claimed that nothing except the identity of the shareholders had changed and Cadbury’s should be given sufficient time to settle down before judging them. Green & Black’s was already established in the market and carried a high reputation in the organic market but they got the benefit of the distribution network of Cadbury’s. Green & Black’s has had a strong influence on the Cadbury’s because Cadbury’s is maintaining the commitment to all parts of the ethical supply chain. It appears that Cadbury’s is interested in remaining committed to the ethical stand and practices that the Green & Black’s team has brought with them. Both Ben & Jerry’s and Green & Black’s had been enjoying explosive growth just before they were taken over. Even without assistance from multinationals it is quite likely they could have reached the mass consumers. As far as Green & Black’s is concerned, the CEO is convinced of the complete commitment of their values. They are confident that this take over will help them bring the benefits of organic farming and ethical trading to a larger segment (Glasglow, 2006). The Body Shop’s acquisition by L’Oreal has also been an issue of controversy. Body Shop had become well know because of its ethical stand on animal testing, human rights, community trade and the environment (Glasgow, 2006). What aggrieved the customers was that some of the ingredients of L’Oreal were still tested on animals and besides, the company is more than 25% owned by Nestle. Nestle has been criticized and boycotted for its unethical practices especially for marketing baby food in the developing world. The customers of Body Shop looked at this venture as betrayal. It affected the company’s reputation and two weeks after the sale was announced, the company’s buzz rating had dropped 10 points and the satisfaction level by 11 points. Because of the bad track record of animal testing by the parent company, the use of pollutants and chemicals in cosmetics, the Body Shop rating dipped from 11 out of 20 to just 2.5. Some action groups like Baby Milk Action and Naturewatch are influencing the Body Shop consumers to boycott the products altogether. The company however contends that overnight they cannot use the Body Shop approach in all of their companies (Glasgow, 2006). They do have a long-term commitment to adapt the standards of Body Shop. L’Oreal is learning about community trade from the Body Shop. Same fear that it could be a value-destroying acquisition. The company had used its high-street position to campaign vocally against animal testing. The Body Shop had been positioned as an ethical and green-conscious business, believing in fair-trade practices (Alarcon, 2008). This made it difficult for their former supporters to accept its acquisition by L’Oreal. Body Shop had been struggling financially and wanted support to sustain. Even after the takeover, it was announced that Body Shop would continue to operate as an independent unit. Even in 2007 the company is struggling to convince the people that standards have remained since the takeover. The long-term Body Shop supporters who were animal rights and environmental campaigners have threatened a boycott. The management however claims that takeover has not altered the management structures. Animal testing became the main area of disagreement. L’Oreal had always tested its cosmetics on animals while Body Shop took just the opposite stand (Russell, 2007). L’Oreal now refuses to use ingredients that have been tested on animals since 1990. Further, L’Oreal’ has refused to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics – a Code of practice – that requires the removal of potential carcinogens and other toxins from beauty products. Body Shop still maintains cordial relations with its major NGO stakeholders such as Peta, WWF and Friends of the Earth. They continue to maintain the traditional approach to the core sustainability concerns. Firstly they refuse ingredients tested on animals; secondly they phase out chemicals which are still allowed by law, and thirdly, they promote products with a purpose and not simply to attain beauty. The company is also trying to be carbon neutral by 2010. They are first trying to reduce energy consumption and then would gradually switch over to other forms of renewable sources. Alarcon (2008) also reports that L’Oreal has made efforts to create a more sophisticated and fresh brand out of Body Shop. The store layout and the packaging have improved while maintaining their focus on all green things. Consumers are now green-conscious as green is now a hygiene factor. If a company is found to be lacking in green credential, it can turn off a consumer. However competition in the sector has intensified as other brands are following the same path. This is the reason that they have now switched over from word of mouth and in-store promotions to above-the-line advertising. Galbreath (2009) argues that being a social entrepreneur has other responsibilities. A firm should maintain a balance between its mission and the level of CSR. An imbalance can raise concerns about long-term viability. Ben & Jerry’s mission was based on the assumption that manufacturing products creates waste and hence the negative impact on the environment should be minimized. They did not rely on toxic materials and other methods that were unsustainable. They believed in non-violence and they used this to achieve peace and justice. They demonstrate deep respect for human being both within and outside their company. They recognized that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened and they strived to create economic oppurtunities to those that had been denied. They attempted to advance new models of economic justice that could be sustainable and replicable. With all this, it is ultimately necessary to remain profitable and that implies to reach the mass market. This becomes possible when bigger companies step in and which in turn dilutes the mission and vision of the social entrepreneurs. Takeover can be avoided if the CSR can be effectively built into the corporate strategy. The founder of Body Shop recognized that consumers were willing to pay a premium for the products if they were environmentally friendly and were marketed in the right way. Today everyone including mass marketers like Wal-Mart also preach of going green. They claim to sell products like energy-saving light bulbs and organic food by appealing to consumers’ sense of environmental responsibility (Financial Times, 2007). The promoter used business to promote social and environmental causes. The consumers today have become conscious of the ethical and social concerns and prefer to stick to brands that demonstrate concern for the environment and the society. According to a research group, the Leatherhead Food International, the organic chocolate market is expected to grow faster than the overall chocolate market as consumer trends have changed. Consumers today prefer healthier confectionery (Wiggins, 2005). Tests conducted by Trudel and Cotte (2008) confirm that consumers are wiling to pay a slight premium for ethically produced goods. People with high standards for corporate behavior will reward the ethical companies with bigger premiums and they would punish the unethical ones with bigger discounts. An ethical company according to consumers is one that practices diversity in hiring and consumer safety. They must use eco-friendly technology and they must demonstrate respect for human rights like employ no child labor or forced labor. This study found that if a company makes a conscious effort towards ethical production, it would be a wise investment. Once a company reaches a certain ethical threshold consumer will reward them by paying higher prices. Regardless of their expectations consumer are wiling to pay more for ethical goods than unethical ones. Companies need to segment their market and reach the buyers that are socially responsible and would like to maintain high ethical standards. These are incidentally also the customers that would bring in the maximum profits on ethically produced goods. The smaller firms like Ben & Jerry’s, Green & Black’s and Body Shop started out as entrepreneurial ventures and registered steady growth. All of them had the same vision of being social entrepreneurs. Most of these ventures struggled when mass-market rivals entered the market. Ethical brands have to be careful in selecting their partners. Body Shop and L’Oreal were ethically opposite but L’Oreal has been able to maintain the social responsibility and the values of the ethical company while Ben & Jerry’s position after the takeover by Unilever leads one to believe that it is better to cater to a small niche market than approach the mass market. It has also been seen that some customers would always be dissatisfied with such takeovers. It usually takes time to convince them that the same values have been retained or nurtured. Cadbury and L’Oreal have been able to regain this image while Ben & Jerry’s is still struggling. It depends upon the new partner to change the perception of the customers through the right approach. This implies that the company must first have clear values and then emphasize the values and make sure that the public understand them. When an ethical brand is taken over the success can be ascertained if the original integrity of the brand remains consistent. This requires a commitment on the part of the firm that has taken over. As cited by Laczniak, most managers feel a conflict between being ethical and making profits. Some times they are under pressure to compromise as corporations have to show profits in every quarterly financial statement. Human Rights issues, animal testing and environmental degradation are some of the issues that larger companies compromise with. When they take over the smaller ethical companies, they do make promises of maintaining the stand but companies like Unilever have faulted. They have engaged in unethical practices and today they are not what they and assured the co-founders. This is what prompted the founders to say that ethical companies should not sell their stakes to larger companies. Customers are willing to pay a premium for the ethically produced goods and hence the larger companies should not compromise on the ethical stand. However, the larger companies do not always change their values on social responsibility and hence it is important that the right partner is chosen. Most importantly, the company must incorporate the CSR in its corporate strategy. It is yet to be seen whether the smaller ethical companies can maintain their principles as well as the profits once they sell. Promises are made and assurances given at the time of take over but then other motives creep in or the managers come under pressure to maximize profits. However, maximizing profits is not the only social responsibility of businesses. This has been proved by the smaller ethical companies that started with the motive and vision of serving the society, with the purpose of producing ethical goods through ethical means and still making profits. They did manage to get a sizeable amount of consumers and they served the local community as well. They created what is known as ‘ethical consumerism’ and this has made the society wake up to the realization that goods can be produced ethically. There is a segment that is prepared to pay a premium and they have reacted against the takeovers by larger business conglomerates. In certain instances, particularly in the case on Unilever, there are indications that the ethical stand of Ben & Jerry’s will not be maintained. In the other two cases studied, there are mixed reactions and over time it would be revealed how firmly the larger companies have been able to sustain the ethical values. References Alarcon, C 2008, THE BODY SHOP: LOreals other Body beautiful, Marketing Week. London: Mar 27, 2008. pg. 19 Allen, RL 2000, Unilever scoops Ben & Jerrys, ices changes, Nations Restaurant News. New York: Apr 24, 2000. Vol. 34, Iss. 17; pg. 4, 2 pgs Anonymous, 2000, Business: Fat and thin, The Economist. London: Apr 15, 2000. Vol. 355, Iss. 8166; pg. 63, 2 pgs Arnold, M 2001, Is Ben & Jerrys losing its bohemian appeal?, Marketing. London: May 3, 2001. pg. 17, 1 pg B&J’s Homemade, 2000, Ben & Jerrys Homemade, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=234691 Blyth, A 2002, Small business and social responsibility - lessons for larger companies, retrieved online March 10, 2009 from http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=199 ERIS, 2005, Corporate Ethics Overview, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.eiris.org/files/misc/ceoegforwebsite.pdf Ethical Consumer, 2006, Swallowed up: ethical company takeovers, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/CommentAnalysis/Features/ethicalcompanytakeovers.aspx Financial Times, 2007, Roddicks revolt The Body Shop founder changed how businesses operate, London (UK): Sep 12, 2007. pg. 16 Galbreath, J 2009, Building corporate social responsibility into strategy, European Business Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 109-127 Glasgow, F 2006, Have they sold their souls? retrieved online March 10, 2009 from http://www.acca.org.uk/members/publications/accounting_business/archive/2006/june/2671895 Hickman, M 2008, The food chain: How big business bought up the ethical market, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/the-food-chain-how-big-business-bought-up-the-ethical-market-845854.html Hooker. J 2003, Why business ethics? retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ethics/whybizethics.pdf ICMR, 2003, Nestlés Socially Irresponsible Practices, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Business%20Ethics/Business%20Ethics%20-%20Nestle%20Social%20Irresponsibility%20in%20Developing%20Nations.htm In-Store, 2006, STRATEGY REPORT: New model ethics, London: May 2006. pg. 21 Laczniak, G 1983, Business Ethics: a managers primer, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.cba.ua.edu/~aturner/MGT341/MGT341%20Readings/Business%20Ethics%20A%20Managers%20Primer.pdf Navran, F 2002, Ethical Conflicts in Ethical Companies, retrieved online March 10, 2009 from http://www.ethics.org/erc-publications/staff-articles.asp?aid=747 Russell, J 2007, Strategy & Management: Body Shop takeover – Ethical business as usual, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=4936 Smalley, S 2007, Ben & Jerrys Bitter Crunch; Some ailing franchisees say the ice-cream maker isnt nearly as sweet as its image, Newsweek. New York: Dec 3, 2007. vol. 150, Iss. 23; pg. 50 Svensson, G & Wood, G 2006, Business ethics in TQM, The TQM Magazine, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 19-34 Trudel, R & Cotte, J 2008, Does Being Ethical Pay?, The Wall STreet Journal Online, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://www.donorsforum.org/forms_pdf/Does_Being_Ethical_Pay_WSJ.pdf Wang, T 2007, Ethics & Enterprise: An Examination of Different Normative Theories of the Firm, retrieved online March 7, 2009 from http://tonyjwang.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/ethics-and-enterprise.pdf Wiggins, J 2005, Cadbury goes organic with Green & Blacks FOOD PRODUCERS, Financial Times. London (UK): May 13, 2005. pg. 22 Read More