Two Models for Teaching Business Ethics - Assignment Example

Name: Date: Instructor: Business Ethics Question 1 Business cases are among the most controversial cases in the contemporary world since normally they involve stakeholders who are vital in success or failure of a business (KwarciÅski 116). To evaluate a business case on the basis of an ethical approach, various stakeholders must be involved and in the described case; they are grouped into two units; secondary stakeholders and primary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are those who are at the inner circle and they highly influence the decision made in the company. For instance, the CEO of Green works (Clorox) Don Knauss and the CEO of the CEO of the Sierra Club Carl Pope, are the crucial stakeholders and any decision that is made in the two companies, and the ultimate solution depends on their consent. To affirm this, Sierra club had issues concerning signing of the deal with Clorox but pope the CEO managed to overturn the issues and signed the deal. The Sierra club volunteer had rejected it in collaboration Stuart Auchincloss-a retired environmental lawyer who was a key member but their assent was not significant affirming that the two gentlemen (CEOs) are primary stakeholders. Primary stakeholder directly influences the actions, a company or organization undertakes and it is highly valued in such entities. More on primary stakeholders, the president of Sierra club is also primary stakeholder since he influences significantly the removing of the 35000 member chapter in Florida on 25th of March and consequently suspending the remaining four chapters in the following years (Kamenetz, 2014). Secondary stakeholders are also paramount in an organization or company since they are determinants of what the primary stakeholders will do. A CEO who is an example of Primary stakeholder cannot make a decision that is not backed by the secondary stakeholders. The secondary stakeholders are the surrounding team, which advises and informs the primary stakeholders on various issues. For example, in the above mentioned case, Sumi Cate who is a research group manager asserts that they have watched technology grow and the world changing and, therefore, they have to produce the quality product that will be received warmly by the clients. She continues to affirm that she has done the task for nearly a decade and, therefore, she must produce the quality product that will be accepted by the clients. Moreover, Jessica Buttimer is another secondary stakeholder who is the executive marketing manager for Clorox. Her research on the biodegradable product provides sufficient information to the company and that is why the CEO gives her mandate to produce new product line. Considering her actions and responsibilities, it is evident that she works as a secondary stakeholder. Her action highly influences the action of the CEO (primary stakeholder) hence branding her a secondary stakeholder (Kamenetz, 2014). Another secondary stakeholder in the case is Joel Makower who is the founder and director of the Greenbiz.com. He acts as Clorox adviser and tells them to engage in a nonprofit organization, in an attempt to build support. He goes ahead and recommends that Sierra Club to be considered for the case. However, he ends up criticizing the company after they made the agreement and failed to open declare the financial gains. However, a critic and advisor, he acts as a secondary stakeholder in Clorox. Jessica Frohman who is a volunteer and Co-Chair of the toxic club committee affirms that her committee never took standard vote on Clorox and its products. She continues to assert that nothing much would have been done since the members of the committee are policy wonks and that is why the deal was signed. In as much as her assertions did not affect the company significantly it affected Pope’s decision to some extent (Kamenetz, 2014). The members of Sierra club also feel that the organization has passed the limits and they even propose for a national referendum concerning the issue of Clorox. They feel that the original aim of the company of safeguarding the environment is changing to be affiliated to profits that are outside their concern. In line with that, they posit that they formulate policies aimed at maintaining their original policies. The government and customers are the other stakeholders and their actions directly influence the companies. The government must conform to the union and must prove that whatever the companies are providing to the civilian is what inscribed. Additionally, clients must be satisfied with the product and at the same time access it easily. If the two stakeholders are not nurtured well, then it means that the entire deal will be vague (Kamenetz,2014). Question 2 In the two organizations, there are stakeholders who hold dear positions in the companies and their views and decisions are paramount. In Clorox, Jessica Buttimer who is a marketing executive in the company plays an important role in the organization, in the sense that her advice and information are crucial in the process of decision making. Being a mother, she has managed to interact with fellow mothers and she knows the choices mothers make when it comes to buying cleaning agents. She also acknowledges the fact market is unexploited since its only 1% of the consumers are reached by the Seven Generation which also produces products which green and biodegradable. Her survey affirmed that approximately 44% of the consumers were practically interested in buying the green cleaners, but there were some impeding causes that handfed them from purchasing the products. She went ahead and conducted interviews to the mothers and general consumers and identified three core reasons why the consumers did not want to buy the products. First, the customers doubted the effectiveness of the green cleaners and they did not want to act as the guinea pigs for testing the new product. Second, the green cleaners were very expensive and according to her, they were twice the cost of the conventional cleaners. This discouraged the average citizen and, therefore, they would not go ahead and purchase the product. Third, the green products were in special stores where the common man would not afford to buy. Combining the three factors, it was impossible to establish profound market without solving the above challenges first. Due to profound knowledge and understanding from marketing executive Ms Jessica Buttimer, the CEO went ahead and mandated her to produce a new product line which would meet all the requirements of the clients. She and people involved proves to be the most important stakeholder since they are responsible for the brand and distribution of the product. The success of the company to the extent of joining the stock market is attributed to her efforts and creativity (Kamenetz, 2014). Carl Pope and his committee is the most important stakeholder in the sierra club because his policy and vision go beyond restriction to that of encouraging and showing the way. He says that they should focus on ensuring that they do not only stop bad things from happening, but also they should enhance the good things to happen. Quoted from his office, he says,” let’s get a nice product and help the individuals who are trying to help consumers” the message shows that he does not only want to help the consumer, but preventing infiltration of bad products, but also in supporting the companies that produce the goods that are valid and biodegradable. Pope helps the club realize the goals and its mission though the profit aspect makes some members feel that their interests are not catered for. However, meets the credibility of a successful and fundamental stakeholder (Kamenetz, 2014). Question 3 Sierra club and Clorox should go ahead with the deal since it is mutually beneficial and at the same time helping the society. The Clorox Company is helping and conserving environment through production of biodegradable products that help the civilian and at the same time ensuring the environment is safe. Through the sales, the company is making profit that and that is the main goal. On the other hand, the company is donating a certain proportion to the sierra club and that money, funds different projects of the company. Therefore, urging the company to steer ahead their relationship would be for the good of all. According to utilitarian theory by Stuart Mill (1806-1873), ethical actions are measured on the parameters of consequence. If the consequence leads for the good (happiness) of all then the action is termed as ethical. However, if the action leads to the detrimental (anguish) of some people, then the action is unethical (Kamenetz, 2014). In the above case, both parties are happy since the results are good and, therefore, proving the action as ethical. The two companies are happy in their own way. Sierra club has managed to achieve the goals of supporting the companies supporting the consumers through production of green products. On the other hand, the Clorox Company has benefited from the increased sales contributed by the union. The consumers have also benefited through getting a biodegradable cleaning agent which will be friendly to the environment ultimately. Therefore, as per utilitarian approach the union is ethical and should continue (Kamenetz, 2014). Deontological approach calls for action to ethical through following the stipulated rules and regulations. If the rules (duty) are adhered to, the resultant action is ethical. From the above case, mentioned case, deontological approach advises the union to steer ahead as far as they are under rules and regulations. The signing of the deal between Clorox and sierra was based on the above mentioned policy of supporting the companies supporting the clients. Therefore, Pope followed the duty and signed the deal and, therefore, ethically he is rift. The repercussions and feelings are not important as per the approach if the rules and regulations are taken into consideration. In the same breath, care ethics asserts that the action is ethical is taking care of the vulnerable people. In this case, the vulnerable people are the civilian population since they are suffering and destroying their environments and hands due to excessive use of non-biodegradable cleaning agents (Paliwal, 42). Therefore, the action of the two companies striking a deal for the good of the civilian population is ethical and they should move with business. Works Cited Kamenetz, Anya . "Clorox Goes Green." Fast Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. . KwarciÅski, Tomasz. "Ethics of Business or Ethics for Business? Two Models for Teaching Business Ethics." Management and Business Administration. Central Europe 3(116) (2012): 42-49. Print. Paliwal, Manisha. Business ethics. New Delhi: New Age International, 2006. Print. Read More

For example, in the above mentioned case, Sumi Cate who is a research group manager asserts that they have watched technology grow and the world changing and, therefore, they have to produce the quality product that will be received warmly by the clients. She continues to affirm that she has done the task for nearly a decade and, therefore, she must produce the quality product that will be accepted by the clients. Moreover, Jessica Buttimer is another secondary stakeholder who is the executive marketing manager for Clorox.

Her research on the biodegradable product provides sufficient information to the company and that is why the CEO gives her mandate to produce new product line. Considering her actions and responsibilities, it is evident that she works as a secondary stakeholder. Her action highly influences the action of the CEO (primary stakeholder) hence branding her a secondary stakeholder (Kamenetz, 2014). Another secondary stakeholder in the case is Joel Makower who is the founder and director of the Greenbiz.com. He acts as Clorox adviser and tells them to engage in a nonprofit organization, in an attempt to build support.

He goes ahead and recommends that Sierra Club to be considered for the case. However, he ends up criticizing the company after they made the agreement and failed to open declare the financial gains. However, a critic and advisor, he acts as a secondary stakeholder in Clorox. Jessica Frohman who is a volunteer and Co-Chair of the toxic club committee affirms that her committee never took standard vote on Clorox and its products. She continues to assert that nothing much would have been done since the members of the committee are policy wonks and that is why the deal was signed.

In as much as her assertions did not affect the company significantly it affected Pope’s decision to some extent (Kamenetz, 2014). The members of Sierra club also feel that the organization has passed the limits and they even propose for a national referendum concerning the issue of Clorox. They feel that the original aim of the company of safeguarding the environment is changing to be affiliated to profits that are outside their concern. In line with that, they posit that they formulate policies aimed at maintaining their original policies.

The government and customers are the other stakeholders and their actions directly influence the companies. The government must conform to the union and must prove that whatever the companies are providing to the civilian is what inscribed. Additionally, clients must be satisfied with the product and at the same time access it easily. If the two stakeholders are not nurtured well, then it means that the entire deal will be vague (Kamenetz,2014). Question 2 In the two organizations, there are stakeholders who hold dear positions in the companies and their views and decisions are paramount.

In Clorox, Jessica Buttimer who is a marketing executive in the company plays an important role in the organization, in the sense that her advice and information are crucial in the process of decision making. Being a mother, she has managed to interact with fellow mothers and she knows the choices mothers make when it comes to buying cleaning agents. She also acknowledges the fact market is unexploited since its only 1% of the consumers are reached by the Seven Generation which also produces products which green and biodegradable.

Her survey affirmed that approximately 44% of the consumers were practically interested in buying the green cleaners, but there were some impeding causes that handfed them from purchasing the products. She went ahead and conducted interviews to the mothers and general consumers and identified three core reasons why the consumers did not want to buy the products. First, the customers doubted the effectiveness of the green cleaners and they did not want to act as the guinea pigs for testing the new product.

Second, the green cleaners were very expensive and according to her, they were twice the cost of the conventional cleaners.

Read More