Corporate Responsibility and Business Ethics - Essay Example

Business Ethics: Corporate Responsibility (or CSR) al affiliation) Introduction A big part of the challenge lies with business organization themselves, which remains fascinated in an obsolete approach to price creation that has occurred over the past few years. Companies have continued to focus on value creation narrowly, optimizing immediate financial performance in a sparkle while at the same time missing the most vital consumer needs and ignoring their greater influences that establish their continuing success (White, 2009). How else could companies overlook the depletion of natural resources that are considered vital to their businesses, the well being of their customers, the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell, or the viability of the key suppliers? How else could business organization thing think that shifting activities to location with fewer wages was a suitable solution to competitive challenges? Civil societies and the government have often raised the challenge by trying to address social weakness at the expense of the business. Business organizations must take the lead in bringing society and business back together. The paper will focus on explaining business ethics and corporate social responsibility by applying cases with theories. Business ethics and corporate social responsibilities Acting in an ethical manner entails distinguishing between wrong and right and then making the right choice. It is often easier to recognize business practices that are termed unethical. However, it is not always easy to generate fast and hard definitions of good ethical practices (Simon, Gunnaann & Powers, 2010). A company despite making competitive returns for the shareholders must also ensure that that the employees are treated fairly. Companies have a greater responsibility of reducing harm to the environment by contributing towards environmental sustainability. Companies have to operate in a way that does not damage the environment (Porter & Kramer, 2014). Companies have a mandate of ensuring that their success is reconnected with social progress. Shared value is not sustainability, philanthropy or social responsibility, but is a way aimed at achieving economic success. Various controversies have been associated social corporate responsibility. It has also been argued that all investors should be concerned with cooperate social responsibility (Gustafson, 2010). It is believed that all people have a minimal moral obligation of not causing or imposing any social injury. Individuals should avoid situations that result to imposing injuries on others and actions that are always aimed at pursuing something good. An issue raised in the Harvard business review over a decade ago, provoked a lot of debates in the field of business (Ingenhoff & Sommer, 2011). Theodore Levitt was opposed to corporate social responsibility both because it was detracted from the main goal of business that is often associated with generation of profits and because it was dangerous in the society. Levitt notes that companies have become more concerned with employee’s needs, aesthetic agencies, welfare, schools and hospitals. He asserts that it is fashionable for the company to show that that it’s a great public benefactor, a great innovator and more importantly that it exist to serve the purpose of the public (Jones, Bowd & Tench, 2009). Levitt however, fails to identify the fact that corporate social culture is often associated with generation of profit in a manner that minimizes social injury. Levitt’s thinking is closely linked to egoism ethical theory which asserts that what makes something bad or good, wrong or right, is that it satisfies the desires or the needs of an individual. He asserts that companies have a mandate of generating profits and not necessarily taking part in issues that are related with contributions to environmental sustainability. Companies that subscribe to such kind of thinking often avoid taking part in the corporate social responsibility with an intention of generating capital to serve their own interests (Granitz & Loewy, 2006). Levitt fails to note that business activities may at times injure other people such as employees and the consumers and that it is important to regulate the social impacts of one business activity accordingly. The slogan associated with morality legislation was encountered by the 1950s and 1960s political campaign. Although it has been challenging to devise a predisposition to kindness and love among citizens, it has been much easier to create laws aimed at minimizing the injury that can inflicted to another person by an individual (White, 2009). The distinction between affirmative duties and negative injunction is old, having roots in equity jurisprudence and common law. Even though an individual may decide to limit the social responsibility concept, one cannot exclude its negative injunction (Kannekanti & Muddu, 2009). Even though reasons may exist as to why institutions or people should not or cannot be required to pursue social or moral goods in all the situations, there are minimal reasons as to why an individual or institution may be excused from the injunction associated with injuries inflicted to other people. It therefore calls for companies to apply the utilitarianism theory and avoid egoism theory. Utilitarianism indicates that what makes something bad or good, wrong or right is that it causes increased amount of pleasure to a large number of people. Companies have to select actions that will lead to increased happiness to a lot of people rather than focusing on activities that can only lead to increased pleasure on only a few individuals (Warhurst, 2008). The theory indicates that companies should be able to maximize on positive outcomes that will target a large population as well as minimize on negative outcomes that will be directed on a smaller number of people (Warhurst, 2001). The theory reveals that one’s pain and pleasure only counts as much as any other individual that are affected in the process. A society where people work towards minimizing injuries towards others is considered a better community. However, individuals tend to vary in degree of commitment aimed at promoting the welfare of the public. It is the reason why some companies practice corporate social responsibilities while others do not. It is therefore important to realize that individuals have an obligation of correcting or avoiding injuries that are often directed to others. In the moral judgment and basing on the utilitarian ethical theory, individuals have a right to blame other people because they have caused harm to other individuals and that they should be able to offer compensations for the injuries that have been caused. Legal systems demands that compensations are paid in situations where actions or omissions have caused harm. Companies that cause harm to employees or the consumers ought to be responsible for their actions. Notions of the values that men actively seek to implement as well as public good are subject to intense disagreement (Trong, 2012). Pluralism is almost inevitable in this realm, and some individuals may debates that it is healthy even though disagreement still exists pertaining to what is recognized as injury or harm. For example, the approach that business organization should make efforts to employ and train members of a minority group can be seen by others as a way of fulfilling an affirmative duty on the company’s part to meet the needs of the society yet it can be seen by others as a correction of social injuries that resulted after many years of organizational racism (Walters, 2009). Additionally, a Marxist will in all chances believe that all company activity is socially injurious and that all pursuits by the company are not affirmative action but corrective response. It is therefore an obligation of all people, both institutional and individual to avoid causing social injuries to others. In some cases, it may not be clear or true that one has helped or resulted to social injury and yet an individual may be bear the responsibility or averting or correcting the injury (Sternberg, 2009). The legal responsibility of helping others when they are exposed to injury or physical harm even when caused by somebody else is recognized by criminal laws in the united states of America as well as many European civil codes (Mahajan, 2013). The laws states that an individual who identifies that a colleague or any other person is exposed to great danger should be able to offer reasonable assistance to the person unless the assistance is being offered by other individuals. A person who violates the law is fined for negligence or failure to act. A moral obligation to help an individual out of danger is often arise when the four features are present. This feature includes the critical need, the capacity of the individual, and the proximity of the incident as well as the absence of others (Mason & Mudrack, 2012). According to Friedman (2010), most business people often think that they are supporting free enterprise when they take part in corporate social responsibility. Such business men often take seriously their responsibility on issues such as provision of employment, avoiding pollution and eliminating discrimination. Friedman (2010) believes that businessmen who subscribe to the idea of corporate social responsibility are unwitting puppets and that they are associating themselves with the basis of free society in the past years. He believes that it is only people who are entitled to responsibilities and not businesses. His approach is linked to deontological theory of ethics that tend to emphasize on rules. He asserts that businessmen are the people that should be socially responsible (Welford, 2007). Social responsibility discussions are often linked or directed to corporations, therefore to corporate executives are the ones to be responsible for corporate culture. In a free enterprise society, the deontology ethical theory is often applied. The theory asserts that people tend fulfill duties towards other persons or self. Corporate executive often have responsibilities over the workers (Embaye, 2011). They often posses the responsibility of conducting business based on the desire to generate as much money as possible while abiding to the basic rules of the community. The primary responsibility of the managers is often linked to the people who own the cooperation. Of course, the corporate executive is also associated with a person of his own rights. As an individual, he may recognize other responsibility to his conscience, family, his club, his church, his country, his city as well as his feeling to charity (Gordon, 2013). He may personally be compelled to contribute part of his income to social responsibility but not on behalf of the corporation. His argument are however opposed by the Indian government’s policies aimed at ensuring that corporate organizations are able to contribute some of their capital towards a sustainable environment (Friedman, 2010). It is believed that corporate social responsibilities that are well managed are associated with numerous advantages that are related to social impact. Business organizations will be able to enjoy the result of branding, research organizations may be able to access data and subjects, the government may end up receiving help in developmental works as well as tremendous benefits to the community. The Indian government’s flagship schemes for the rural and urban poor need a lot of assistance in order to be successful and this can only be done by organizations that have subscribed to social corporate culture. Development practitioner, teams of consultants, academics and technologists and researchers hired by thick tanks funded by corporate social responsibility funds can offer major support on the ground. Corporate social responsibilities may present a lot of benefits to the company. A new study has indicated that consumers are always willing to purchase goods and services from communities that are perceived as caring for the communities, social issues and the people (Farnsworth & Holden, 2006). Basing on the article, devil’s dust, James Hardie, the owner of the asbestos company fails to be responsible for the injuries caused by the worker. He proceeds with his production even after two of his workers are identified by WA chief inspector, to be suffering from effects of the asbestos dust (Devils dust, 2012). He opens new camellia factory and continues with manufacturing asbestos products. Despite warning on the dangers of Asbestos by some of from safety officers attached to the company as well as ABC journalist’s series of warnings on the dangers of asbestos, he continues utilizing asbestos in his company (CULPAN & TRUSSEL, 2005). He only stops after a claim is laid by legal firms targeting his actions. James Hardy seems to only care about his desires for profit rather than the dangers Asbestos will have on his employees. Bernie is one of the workers who have spent many years working in the asbestos factory. Bernie develops pleural disease, asbestosis as well as terminal Mesothelioma. The company fails to compensate him earlier and he dies eight years later (Kang, 2012). He is however not the only one, while working as SCIA funeral director, he was able to bury many men who were working in the Asbestos company and had developed complication. , James Hardie fails to utilize care ethics theory which is associated with offering care towards individuals that need support and considered vulnerable (Belyaeva, 2011). Most of the workers in his company are vulnerable to asbestos related conditions that are deadly. He fails to advice them and even avoids offering them compensations. His act is inhuman and unethical. A business owner has a responsibility of ensuring the place of work is safe for the employees and should be able to compensate them in case of any danger related to the work environment. He lacks virtue ethics that will enable him compensate the workers in time and intervene to solve the problems encountered at the place of work (Bose, 2011). Conclusion Business organizations have a responsibility towards the consumers, the employees and the environment. Companies should ensure that the working environment is safe for the employees. In addition, business organizations should be able to minimize environmental harm and should operate in a manner that does not affect or damage the communities in which they operate. Corporate social responsibility is supported by various ethical theories and should be implemented by corporate organizations (Baron, 2012). \ References Baron, D. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.861145 Belyaeva, Z. (2011). Transformation processes of the corporate development in Russia: corporate social responsibility. Eor, 142-146. doi:10.17059/2011-1-17 Bose, U. (2011). An ethical framework in information systems decision making using normative theories of business ethics. Ethics And Information Technology, 14(1), 17-26. doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9283-5 CULPAN, R., & TRUSSEL, J. (2005). Applying the Agency and Stakeholder Theories to the Enron Debacle: An Ethical Perspective. Business & Society Review, 110(1), 59-76. doi:10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00004.x Devils dust [Motion picture]. (2012). Roadshow Entertainment Embaye, A.(2011) Nurturing Social Entrepreneurship through Corporate Social Responsibility. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2417772 FARNSWORTH, K., & HOLDEN, C. (2006). The Business-Social Policy Nexus: Corporate Power and Corporate Inputs into Social Policy. Journal Of Social Policy, 35(03), 473. doi:10.1017/s0047279406009883 Friedman, M. (2010). THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS IS TO INCREASE ITS PROFITS. Harvard University Press, 3(6), 85-89. Gordon, A. (2013). The Work of Corporate Culture: Diversity Management. Social Text, (44), 3. doi:10.2307/466904 Granitz, N., & Loewy, D. (2006). Applying Ethical Theories: Interpreting and Responding to Student Plagiarism. Journal Of Business Ethics, 72(3), 293-306. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9171-9 Gustafson, A. (2010). Rorty, Caputo and business ethics without metaphysics: ethical theories as normative narratives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(2), 140-153. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2010.01582.x Ingenhoff, D., & Sommer, K. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility Communication. Journal Of Corporate Citizenship, 2011(42), 73-91. doi:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2011.su.00007 Jones, B., Bowd, R., & Tench, R. (2009). Corporate irresponsibility and corporate social responsibility: competing realities. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(3), 300-310. doi:10.1108/17471110910977249 Kang, J. (2012). The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance. Strat. Mgmt. J., 34(1), 94-109. doi:10.1002/smj.2005 Kannekanti, S., & Muddu, V. (2009). Corporate Space for Social Sciences through Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives Rising trend of Corporate Social Responsibility is a Boom for Asia’s Social Sciences from Theory and Practice Perspective. ASS, 4(11). doi:10.5539/ass.v4n11p149 Mahajan, P.(2013). Corporate Social Responsibility: A New Wave in Corporate Governance. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1840601 Mason, E., & Mudrack, P. (2012). Gender and ethical orientation: A test of gender and occupational socialization theories. Journal Of Business Ethics, 15(6), 599-604. doi:10.1007/bf00411793 Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2014). Creating various shared value. Havard Business Review, 3(2), 3-14. Simon, J., Gunnaann, J., & Powers, C. (2010). The Responsibilities of Corporations and Their Owners in ethical investors, university and corporate responsibility. Yale University Press.. Sternberg, E. (2009). CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 1. Economic Affairs, 29(4), 5-10. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01940.x Trong Tuan, L. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), 547-560. doi:10.1108/17471111211272110 Walters, G. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility through Sport. Journal Of Corporate Citizenship, 2009(35), 81-94. doi:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2009.au.00008 Warhurst, A. (2008). Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Social Investment. Journal Of Corporate Citizenship, 2001(1), 57-73. doi:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2001.sp.00008 Welford, R. (2007). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: issues for Asia. Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental Management, 14(1), 42-51. doi:10.1002/csr.139 White, J. (2009). Frameworks for Teaching and Learning Business Ethics within the Global Context: Background of Ethical Theories. Journal Of Management Education, 28(4), 463-477. doi:10.1177/1052562904265656 Read More