Business and Society - Assignment Example

Business and Society 1. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has introduced sweeping changes in the name of enforcing corporate ethics. Is it really a “fair” piece of legislation? Explain your answer. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 requires Senior Financial Officers of organizations to follow the rules of the company’s code of ethics. Furthermore, ethics training has become a part of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Such a piece of legislation has both positive and negative effects. Among the good results SOX has brought to organizations is companies’ higher awareness of the importance of ethics in business performance. Consequently, organizations and employees have received a foundation for creating and implementing the basic principles of corporate code of ethics to be followed by the staff. Business Credit reports that, according to the research conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP, two thirds of surveyed companies have introduced ongoing trainings for supporting the ethics and compliance programs prescribed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. At the same time, it should never be forgotten that implementing the principles prescribed by the new legislation is usually quite expensive, especially for small and medium businesses. According to Business Wire, 33% of financial executives state that measures companies have to take in order to achieve SOX compliance influence their financial positions negatively: stock prices are suppressed and organizations’ ability to pay dividends is decreased. So, Sarbanes-Oxley Act has lead companies towards implementing changes that positively influence corporate ethics and culture. Business in considered to be conducted in a more transparent and effective way now. At the same time, the requirement of SOX compliance has made organizations spend more and, as a result, earn less. Therefore, from the businesses’ point of view the new law has required them to earn less, which is not a goal of any business at all. 2. How would you feel if you found out that someone halfway around the world from your doctor’s office was reading your CAT scan? I believe I wouldn’t be disappointed or angry, because the purpose of my going to the doctor is to become healthier. Whatever measures the doctor takes for achieving this goal of mine are his or her business. The patient should care about the result, not about where that result comes from. At the same time, a patient has a right to know who and where reads his or her scan, and whether that person is a qualified and certified specialist. I am not against consulting far away or even foreign specialists if for that particular task they are qualified better than my doctor. - Would your opinion change if you knew the cost savings from outsourcing were putting American radiologists out of job? If the only purpose of such an outsourcing is savings, as a consumer, I, most likely, wouldn’t be against. Both quality and cost are important. If an American and, for instance, Indian radiologist can deliver the same results, why shouldn’t I be willing to deal with the Indian doctor for lower cost? Everybody wants to spend less. As a result, the majority, I believe, is not likely to care for jobless doctors whose service is unaffordable or more expensive that that of other doctors. - What if they were being read this way because there was a shortage of qualified medical personnel here? Would that change your opinion? The only though to come into my mind in such a situation would, probably, be the one about our government’s necessity to invest a bit more into education. At the same time, my opinion wouldn’t change: as a patient, I need a result. - Should your doctor be obligated to tell you where your tests are being read? Why or why not? In my opinion, patients have a right to receive such information. However, it doesn’t mean that doctors should be obligated to deliver it. Everyone should do own job: patients – fulfill doctor’s recommendations, doctors – give effective advise. 3. Do you think global businesses would be willing to subscribe to a global code of conduct? Explain your answer. Everything depends on the business and it current mode of operation. On one hand, a global code of conduct would make a challenge of foreign market entry become an issue of market research and opening a new office if needed. Conducting business worldwide would become a more unitized and standardized process. Much more companies would get an opportunity to expand operations to the global level. However, on the other hand, such a state of affairs would, probably, not be favorable for current leaders of the global market. They wouldn’t want their competition to take a share of market. In addition, each multinational or global business has its own strategies and methods of working and developing internationally. If they accept a global code of conduct they will have to act like the others, and would loose their advantage of having developed a currently successful business model. Would it be easier to just follow the business practices and customs of the country in which you are doing business? Why or why not? A global code of conduct would be beneficial for small and medium businesses that don’t work internationally yet. The code would allow them to expand much faster and easier than it might be in current market conditions. As for the currently multinational companies, they already know how to conduct business in each country where they have some presence. In addition, they already have experience of entering new foreign markets. Now this knowledge is one of their competitive advantages. If they loose this advantage, their market position may get weaker. In general, following the business practices and customs of the country is not easier than following a standardized global code of conduct – each country and culture is unique. Therefore, each country’s market requires to be researched, studied, and analyzed separately and individually. 4. When you go shopping, do you feel consumers pay attention to how transparent the company is in its business practices? (i.e. do consumers really care if a company is ethical and moral?) Why or why not? “Ethical Business and Sustainable Communities” report of KPMG states that 91% of consumers prefer to purchase goods or services from the companies that conduct business ethically (KPMG 6). My personal opinion is different, or, possibly, is based on another angle of the issue: consumers prefer to purchase goods or services from the companies that have managed to create an image of an ethical business. Let’s say a company states that it spends $X annually on protecting the environment, $Y – on helping the poor, $Z – on supporting the community. The same company doesn’t inform us about its goods being manufactured in China for pennies. The company doesn’t tell us how much its factory pollutes the nature of China (and the nature of the worlds as a whole). The result is, of course, predictable – in most cases people believe what they are told, so an effective and efficient marketing campaign creates a positive and ethical image of the company. If consumers didn’t care about how ethical and moral a business is, the business wouldn’t have to invest so much into the creation of that positive image. However, one of the most important aspects to influence customers is price. If a person has an opportunity to save on the purchase, he or she is not likely to think much about how ethically that company conducts business. People just want to pay less. 5. Discuss both positive and negative views of whistleblowers in the media. How do you view whistleblowers? What factors can make a whistleblower lose legitimacy in the eyes of viewers. These days the media is a very influential tool for manipulating opinions. It shapes minds, imposes views, and has the power to present any issue in any light, according its needs or preferences. Many events, however, are shown in the media according to standard scripts. In a case with a whistleblower, for instance, everything starts with picturing that whistleblower as a saint victim/hero. The person calls for the media support trying to defend personal or public interest, fairness and order. Then comes the turn of those, who are accused in fraud, abuse, law-breaking, mismanagement (Taylor) or anything else that threatens the public good and seems to be a hot story fro the media. These people try to prove the opposite, stating that in reality it’s not they who acted badly, but on the contrary – the whistleblower. The whistleblower is claimed to be a poor employee, not a team player, mentally ill, etc. For both the public and the media these two parts of the drama (story of the whistleblower followed by a story of the accused person/organization) are the most interesting. The interest slowly fades out afterwards, after the public’s opinion has formed. In many cases the public sees whistleblowers as heroes who have devoted their time, effort, and, most likely, career, to telling the world how unfair it is. It’s not bad, in my opinion. However, I believe media should be the last resort of a whistleblower, because when it comes to the media, everything moves to a cardinally different level. There are things that can be solved internally. Many issues can be solved with some external support. The people who choose to involve the media should be absolutely sure in the correctness of their statements, and in the ability to defend and prove this correctness. Otherwise they will lose absolutely everything, including job and respect of the society. In general, I think whistleblowers are not a bad part of our society – they add to the transparency of government and corporate affairs, as well as make the officials think before doing something. Reference: Taylor, Jacqueline. “The World of Whistleblowers: Are They Sinners or Saints?” Womenof.com. Web. 5 Dec. 2009. Read More