Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The study of proper business policies and practices regarding potentially controversial issues, such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate social responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities. Business ethics are often guided by law, while other times provide a basic framework that businesses may choose to follow in order to gain public acceptance.
Contents introduction
3.1 Finance 3.2 Other issues 3.3 Human resource management 3.4 Sales and marketing 3.5 Production 3.6 Property
11 corporate social responsibility 11.1 Social Responsibility towards Government 11.2 Social Responsibility towards Its Shareholders
(I) INTRODUCTION
Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations. Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control. The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.
(II) History
Business ethical norms reflect the norms of each historical period. As time passes norms evolve, causing accepted behaviors to become objectionable. Business ethics and the resulting behavior evolved as well. Business was involved in slavery, colonialism,and the cold war. The term 'business ethics' came into common use in the United States in the early 1970s. By the mid-1980s at least 500 courses in business ethics reached 40,000 students, using some twenty textbooks and at least ten casebooks along supported by professional societies, centers and journals of business ethics. The Society for Business Ethics was started in 1980. European business schools adopted business ethics after 1987 commencing with the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN). In 1982 the first single-authored books in the field appeared. Firms started highlighting their ethical stature in the late 1980s and early 1990s, possibly trying to distance themselves from the business scandals of the day, such as the savings and loan crisis. The idea of business ethics caught the attention of academics, media and business firms by the end of the Cold War. However, legitimate criticism of business practices was attacked for infringing the "freedom" of entrepreneurs and critics were accused of supporting communists. This scuttled the discourse of business ethics both in media and academia.
(III) Overview
Business ethics reflects the philosophy of business, one of whose aims is to determine the fundamental purposes of a company. If a company's purpose is to maximize shareholder returns, then sacrificing profits to other concerns is a violation of its fiduciary responsibility. Corporate
entities are legally considered as persons in USA and in most nations. The 'corporate persons' are legally entitled to the rights and liabilities due to citizens as persons. Economist Milton Friedman writes that corporate executives' "responsibility... generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom". Friedman also said, "the only entities who can have responsibilities are individuals ... A business cannot have responsibilities. So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no, they do not." A multi-country 2011 survey found support for this view among the "informed public" ranging from 30 to 80%. Duska views Friedman's argument as consequentialist rather than pragmatic, implying that unrestrained corporate freedom would benefit the most in long term. Similarly author business consultant Peter Drucker observed, "There is neither a separate ethics of business nor is one needed", implying that standards of personal ethics cover all business situations. However, Peter Drucker in another instance observed that the ultimate responsibility of company directors is not to harmprimum non nocere. Another view of business is that it must exhibit corporate social responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals. In the US and most other nations corporate entities are legally treated as persons in some respects. For example, they can hold title to property, sue and be sued and are subject to taxation, although their free speech rights are limited. This can be interpreted to imply that they have independent ethical responsibilities. Duska argues that stakeholders have the right to expect a business to be ethical; if business has no ethical obligations, other institutions could make the same claim which would be counterproductive to the corporation. Ethical issues include the rights and duties between a company and its employees, suppliers, customers and neighbors, its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Issues concerning relations between different companies include hostile take-overs and industrial espionage. Related issues include corporate governance;corporate social entrepreneurship; political contributions; legal issues such as the ethical debate over introducing a crime of corporate manslaughter; and the marketing of corporations' ethics policies
Other issues
Fairness in trading practices, trading conditions, financial contracting, sales practices, consultancy services, tax payments, internal audit, external audit and executive compensation also fall under the umbrella of finance and accounting. Particular corporate ethical/legal abuses include: creative accounting, earnings management, misleading financial analysis insider trading, securities fraud, bribery/kickbacks and facilitation payments. Outside of corporations, bucket shops and forex scams are criminal manipulations of financial markets. Cases include accounting scandals, Enron, WorldCom and Satyam.
marketing issues include marketing redundant or dangerous products/services[107][108][109] transparency about environmental risks, transparency about product ingredients such as genetically modified organisms[110][111][112][113] possible health risks, financial risks, security risks, etc.,[114] respect for consumer privacy and autonomy,[115] advertising truthfulness and fairness in pricing & distribution.[116] According to Borgerson, and Schroeder (2008), marketing can influence individuals' perceptions of and interactions with other people, implying an ethical responsibility to avoid distorting those perceptions and interactions.[117] Marketing ethics involves pricing practices, including illegal actions such as price fixing and legal actions including price discrimination and price skimming. Certain promotional activities have drawn fire, including greenwashing, bait and switch, shilling, viral marketing, spam (electronic), pyramid schemes and multi-level marketing. Advertising has raised objections about attack ads, subliminal messages, sex in advertising and marketing in schools.
Production
This area of business ethics usually deals with the duties of a company to ensure that products and production processes do not needlessly cause harm. Since few goods and services can be produced and consumed with zero risk, determining the ethical course can be problematic. In some case consumers demand products that harm them, such as tobacco products. Production may have environmental impacts, including pollution, habitat destruction and urban sprawl. The downstream effects of technologies nuclear power, genetically modified food and mobile phones may not be well understood. While the precautionary principle may prohibit introducing new technology whose consequences are not fully understood, that principle would have prohibited most new technology introduced since the industrial revolution. Product testing protocols have been attacked for violating the rights of both humans and animals
Property
The etymological root of property is the Latin 'proprius' which refers to 'nature', 'quality', 'one's own', 'special characteristic', 'proper', 'intrinsic', 'inherent', 'regular', 'normal', 'genuine', 'thorough,
complete, perfect' etc. The word property is value loaded and associated with the personal qualities of propriety and respectability, also implies questions relating to ownership. A 'proper' person owns and is true to herself or himself, and is thus genuine, perfect and pure.
The search for universal values as a basis for international commercial behaviour. Comparison of business ethical traditions in different countries. Also on the basis of their respective GDP and [Corruption rankings].
Comparison of business ethical traditions from various religious perspectives. Ethical issues arising out of international business transactions; e.g., bioprospecting and biopiracy in the pharmaceutical industry; the fair trade movement; transfer pricing.
Issues such as globalization and cultural imperialism. Varying global standardse.g., the use of child labor. The way in which multinationals take advantage of international differences, such as outsourcing production (e.g. clothes) and services (e.g. call centres) to low-wage countries.
The success of any business depends on its financial performance. Financial accounting helps the management to report and also control the business performance. The information regarding the financial performance of the company plays an important role in enabling people to take right decision about the company. Therefore, it becomes necessary to understand how to record based on accounting conventions and concepts ensure unambling and accurate records. Foreign countries often use dumping as a competitive threat, selling products at prices lower than their normal value. This can lead to problems in domestic markets. It becomes difficult for these markets to compete with the pricing set by foreign markets. In 2009, the International Trade
Commission has been researching anti-dumping laws. Dumping is often seen as an ethical issue, as larger companies are taking advantage of other less economically advanced companies.
(VIII) Implementation
Corporate policies
As part of more comprehensive compliance and ethics programs, many companies have formulated internal policies pertaining to the ethical conduct of employees. These policies can be simple exhortations in broad, highly generalized language (typically called a corporate ethics statement), or they can be more detailed policies, containing specific behavioural requirements (typically called corporate ethics codes). They are generally meant to identify the company's expectations of workers and to offer guidance on handling some of the more common ethical problems that might arise in the course of doing business. It is hoped that having such a policy will lead to greater ethical awareness, consistency in application, and the avoidance of ethical disasters. An increasing number of companies also require employees to attend seminars regarding business conduct, which often include discussion of the company's policies, specific case studies, and legal requirements. Some companies even require their employees to sign agreements stating that they will abide by the company's rules of conduct. Many companies are assessing the environmental factors that can lead employees to engage in unethical conduct. A competitive business environment may call for unethical behaviour. Lying has become expected in fields such as trading. An example of this are the issues surrounding the unethical actions of the Saloman Brothers. Not everyone supports corporate policies that govern ethical conduct. Some claim that ethical problems are better dealt with by depending upon employees to use their own judgment.
Others believe that corporate ethics policies are primarily rooted in utilitarian concerns, and that they are mainly to limit the company's legal liability, or to curry public favour by giving the
appearance of being a good corporate citizen. Ideally, the company will avoid a lawsuit because its employees will follow the rules. Should a lawsuit occur, the company can claim that the problem would not have arisen if the employee had only followed the code properly. Sometimes there is disconnection between the company's code of ethics and the company's actual practices. Thus, whether or not such conduct is explicitly sanctioned by management, at worst, this makes the policy duplicitous, and, at best, it is merely a marketing tool. Jones and Parker write, "Most of what we read under the name business ethics is either sentimental common sense, or a set of excuses for being unpleasant." Many manuals are procedural form filling exercises unconcerned about the real ethical dilemmas. For instance, US Department of Commerce ethics program treats business ethics as a set of instructions and procedures to be followed by 'ethics officers'., some others claim being ethical is just for the sake of being ethical. Business ethicists may trivialize the subject, offering standard answers that do not reflect the situation's complexity.
Ethics officers
Ethics officers (sometimes called "compliance" or "business conduct officers") have been appointed formally by organizations since the mid-1980s. One of the catalysts for the creation of this new role was a series of fraud, corruption, and abuse scandals that afflicted the U.S. defense industry at that time. This led to the creation of the Defense Industry Initiative (DII), a panindustry initiative to promote and ensure ethical business practices. The DII set an early benchmark for ethics management in corporations. In 1991, the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association (ECOA)originally the Ethics Officer Association (EOA)was founded at the Center for Business Ethics (at Bentley College, Waltham, MA) as a professional association for those responsible for managing organizations' efforts to achieve ethical best practices. The membership grew rapidly (the ECOA now has over 1,200 members) and was soon established as an independent organization. Another critical factor in the decisions of companies to appoint ethics/compliance officers was the passing of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations in 1991, which set standards that organizations (large or small, commercial and non-commercial) had to follow to obtain a reduction in sentence if they should be convicted of a federal offense. Although intended to assist judges with sentencing, the influence in helping to establish best practices has been far-reaching. In the wake of numerous corporate scandals between 2001 and 2004 (affecting large corporations like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco), even small and medium-sized companies have begun to appoint ethics officers. They often report to the Chief Executive Officer and are responsible for assessing the ethical implications of the company's activities, making recommendations regarding the company's ethical policies, and disseminating information to employees. They are particularly interested in uncovering or preventing unethical and illegal actions. This trend is partly due to the SarbanesOxley Act in the United States, which was enacted in reaction to the above scandals. A related trend is the introduction of risk assessment officers that monitor how shareholders' investments might be affected by the company's decisions.
The effectiveness of ethics officers is not clear. If the appointment is made primarily as a reaction to legislative requirements, one might expect little impact, at least over the short term. In part, this is because ethical business practices result from a corporate culture that consistently places value on ethical behaviour, a culture and climate that usually emanates from the top of the organization. The mere establishment of a position to oversee ethics will most likely be insufficient to inculcate ethical behaviour: a more systemic programme with consistent support from general management will be necessary. The foundation for ethical behaviour goes well beyond corporate culture and the policies of any given company, for it also depends greatly upon an individual's early moral training, the other institutions that affect an individual, the competitive business environment the company is in and, indeed, society as a whole.
Contents introduction
3.1 Finance 3.2 Other issues 3.3 Human resource management 3.4 Sales and marketing 3.5 Production 3.6 Property
8 Academic discipline 9 Religious views 10 Related disciplines 11 corporate social responsibility 11.1 Social Responsibility towards Government 11.2 Social Responsibility towards Its Shareholders
(I) INTRODUCTION
Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations. Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control. The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.
(II) History
Business ethical norms reflect the norms of each historical period. As time passes norms evolve, causing accepted behaviors to become objectionable. Business ethics and the resulting behavior evolved as well. Business was involved in slavery, colonialism,and the cold war. The term 'business ethics' came into common use in the United States in the early 1970s. By the mid-1980s at least 500 courses in business ethics reached 40,000 students, using some twenty textbooks and at least ten casebooks along supported by professional societies, centers and journals of business ethics. The Society for Business Ethics was started in 1980. European business schools adopted business ethics after 1987 commencing with the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN). In 1982 the first single-authored books in the field appeared. Firms started highlighting their ethical stature in the late 1980s and early 1990s, possibly trying to distance themselves from the business scandals of the day, such as the savings and loan crisis. The idea of business ethics caught the attention of academics, media and business firms by the end of the Cold War. However, legitimate criticism of business practices was attacked for infringing the "freedom" of entrepreneurs and critics were accused of supporting communists. This scuttled the discourse of business ethics both in media and academia.
(III) Overview
Business ethics reflects the philosophy of business, one of whose aims is to determine the fundamental purposes of a company. If a company's purpose is to maximize shareholder returns, then sacrificing profits to other concerns is a violation of its fiduciary responsibility. Corporate
entities are legally considered as persons in USA and in most nations. The 'corporate persons' are legally entitled to the rights and liabilities due to citizens as persons. Economist Milton Friedman writes that corporate executives' "responsibility... generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom". Friedman also said, "the only entities who can have responsibilities are individuals ... A business cannot have responsibilities. So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no, they do not." A multi-country 2011 survey found support for this view among the "informed public" ranging from 30 to 80%. Duska views Friedman's argument as consequentialist rather than pragmatic, implying that unrestrained corporate freedom would benefit the most in long term. Similarly author business consultant Peter Drucker observed, "There is neither a separate ethics of business nor is one needed", implying that standards of personal ethics cover all business situations. However, Peter Drucker in another instance observed that the ultimate responsibility of company directors is not to harmprimum non nocere. Another view of business is that it must exhibit corporate social responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals. In the US and most other nations corporate entities are legally treated as persons in some respects. For example, they can hold title to property, sue and be sued and are subject to taxation, although their free speech rights are limited. This can be interpreted to imply that they have independent ethical responsibilities. Duska argues that stakeholders have the right to expect a business to be ethical; if business has no ethical obligations, other institutions could make the same claim which would be counterproductive to the corporation. Ethical issues include the rights and duties between a company and its employees, suppliers, customers and neighbors, its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Issues concerning relations between different companies include hostile take-overs and industrial espionage. Related issues include corporate governance;corporate social entrepreneurship; political contributions; legal issues such as the ethical debate over introducing a crime of corporate manslaughter; and the marketing of corporations' ethics policies
Other issues
Fairness in trading practices, trading conditions, financial contracting, sales practices, consultancy services, tax payments, internal audit, external audit and executive compensation also fall under the umbrella of finance and accounting. Particular corporate ethical/legal abuses include: creative accounting, earnings management, misleading financial analysis insider trading, securities fraud, bribery/kickbacks and facilitation payments. Outside of corporations, bucket shops and forex scams are criminal manipulations of financial markets. Cases include accounting scandals, Enron, WorldCom and Satyam.
marketing issues include marketing redundant or dangerous products/services[107][108][109] transparency about environmental risks, transparency about product ingredients such as genetically modified organisms[110][111][112][113] possible health risks, financial risks, security risks, etc.,[114] respect for consumer privacy and autonomy,[115] advertising truthfulness and fairness in pricing & distribution.[116] According to Borgerson, and Schroeder (2008), marketing can influence individuals' perceptions of and interactions with other people, implying an ethical responsibility to avoid distorting those perceptions and interactions.[117] Marketing ethics involves pricing practices, including illegal actions such as price fixing and legal actions including price discrimination and price skimming. Certain promotional activities have drawn fire, including greenwashing, bait and switch, shilling, viral marketing, spam (electronic), pyramid schemes and multi-level marketing. Advertising has raised objections about attack ads, subliminal messages, sex in advertising and marketing in schools.
Production
This area of business ethics usually deals with the duties of a company to ensure that products and production processes do not needlessly cause harm. Since few goods and services can be produced and consumed with zero risk, determining the ethical course can be problematic. In some case consumers demand products that harm them, such as tobacco products. Production may have environmental impacts, including pollution, habitat destruction and urban sprawl. The downstream effects of technologies nuclear power, genetically modified food and mobile phones may not be well understood. While the precautionary principle may prohibit introducing new technology whose consequences are not fully understood, that principle would have prohibited most new technology introduced since the industrial revolution. Product testing protocols have been attacked for violating the rights of both humans and animals
Property
The etymological root of property is the Latin 'proprius' which refers to 'nature', 'quality', 'one's own', 'special characteristic', 'proper', 'intrinsic', 'inherent', 'regular', 'normal', 'genuine', 'thorough,
complete, perfect' etc. The word property is value loaded and associated with the personal qualities of propriety and respectability, also implies questions relating to ownership. A 'proper' person owns and is true to herself or himself, and is thus genuine, perfect and pure.
The search for universal values as a basis for international commercial behaviour. Comparison of business ethical traditions in different countries. Also on the basis of their respective GDP and [Corruption rankings].
Comparison of business ethical traditions from various religious perspectives. Ethical issues arising out of international business transactions; e.g., bioprospecting and biopiracy in the pharmaceutical industry; the fair trade movement; transfer pricing.
Issues such as globalization and cultural imperialism. Varying global standardse.g., the use of child labor. The way in which multinationals take advantage of international differences, such as outsourcing production (e.g. clothes) and services (e.g. call centres) to low-wage countries.
The success of any business depends on its financial performance. Financial accounting helps the management to report and also control the business performance. The information regarding the financial performance of the company plays an important role in enabling people to take right decision about the company. Therefore, it becomes necessary to understand how to record based on accounting conventions and concepts ensure unambling and accurate records. Foreign countries often use dumping as a competitive threat, selling products at prices lower than their normal value. This can lead to problems in domestic markets. It becomes difficult for these markets to compete with the pricing set by foreign markets. In 2009, the International Trade
Commission has been researching anti-dumping laws. Dumping is often seen as an ethical issue, as larger companies are taking advantage of other less economically advanced companies.
(VIII) Implementation
Corporate policies
As part of more comprehensive compliance and ethics programs, many companies have formulated internal policies pertaining to the ethical conduct of employees. These policies can be simple exhortations in broad, highly generalized language (typically called a corporate ethics statement), or they can be more detailed policies, containing specific behavioural requirements (typically called corporate ethics codes). They are generally meant to identify the company's expectations of workers and to offer guidance on handling some of the more common ethical problems that might arise in the course of doing business. It is hoped that having such a policy will lead to greater ethical awareness, consistency in application, and the avoidance of ethical disasters. An increasing number of companies also require employees to attend seminars regarding business conduct, which often include discussion of the company's policies, specific case studies, and legal requirements. Some companies even require their employees to sign agreements stating that they will abide by the company's rules of conduct. Many companies are assessing the environmental factors that can lead employees to engage in unethical conduct. A competitive business environment may call for unethical behaviour. Lying has become expected in fields such as trading. An example of this are the issues surrounding the unethical actions of the Saloman Brothers. Not everyone supports corporate policies that govern ethical conduct. Some claim that ethical problems are better dealt with by depending upon employees to use their own judgment.
Others believe that corporate ethics policies are primarily rooted in utilitarian concerns, and that they are mainly to limit the company's legal liability, or to curry public favour by giving the
appearance of being a good corporate citizen. Ideally, the company will avoid a lawsuit because its employees will follow the rules. Should a lawsuit occur, the company can claim that the problem would not have arisen if the employee had only followed the code properly. Sometimes there is disconnection between the company's code of ethics and the company's actual practices. Thus, whether or not such conduct is explicitly sanctioned by management, at worst, this makes the policy duplicitous, and, at best, it is merely a marketing tool. Jones and Parker write, "Most of what we read under the name business ethics is either sentimental common sense, or a set of excuses for being unpleasant." Many manuals are procedural form filling exercises unconcerned about the real ethical dilemmas. For instance, US Department of Commerce ethics program treats business ethics as a set of instructions and procedures to be followed by 'ethics officers'., some others claim being ethical is just for the sake of being ethical. Business ethicists may trivialize the subject, offering standard answers that do not reflect the situation's complexity.
Ethics officers
Ethics officers (sometimes called "compliance" or "business conduct officers") have been appointed formally by organizations since the mid-1980s. One of the catalysts for the creation of this new role was a series of fraud, corruption, and abuse scandals that afflicted the U.S. defense industry at that time. This led to the creation of the Defense Industry Initiative (DII), a panindustry initiative to promote and ensure ethical business practices. The DII set an early benchmark for ethics management in corporations. In 1991, the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association (ECOA)originally the Ethics Officer Association (EOA)was founded at the Center for Business Ethics (at Bentley College, Waltham, MA) as a professional association for those responsible for managing organizations' efforts to achieve ethical best practices. The membership grew rapidly (the ECOA now has over 1,200 members) and was soon established as an independent organization. Another critical factor in the decisions of companies to appoint ethics/compliance officers was the passing of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations in 1991, which set standards that organizations (large or small, commercial and non-commercial) had to follow to obtain a reduction in sentence if they should be convicted of a federal offense. Although intended to assist judges with sentencing, the influence in helping to establish best practices has been far-reaching. In the wake of numerous corporate scandals between 2001 and 2004 (affecting large corporations like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco), even small and medium-sized companies have begun to appoint ethics officers. They often report to the Chief Executive Officer and are responsible for assessing the ethical implications of the company's activities, making recommendations regarding the company's ethical policies, and disseminating information to employees. They are particularly interested in uncovering or preventing unethical and illegal actions. This trend is partly due to the SarbanesOxley Act in the United States, which was enacted in reaction to the above scandals. A related trend is the introduction of risk assessment officers that monitor how shareholders' investments might be affected by the company's decisions.
The effectiveness of ethics officers is not clear. If the appointment is made primarily as a reaction to legislative requirements, one might expect little impact, at least over the short term. In part, this is because ethical business practices result from a corporate culture that consistently places value on ethical behaviour, a culture and climate that usually emanates from the top of the organization. The mere establishment of a position to oversee ethics will most likely be insufficient to inculcate ethical behaviour: a more systemic programme with consistent support from general management will be necessary. The foundation for ethical behaviour goes well beyond corporate culture and the policies of any given company, for it also depends greatly upon an individual's early moral training, the other institutions that affect an individual, the competitive business environment the company is in and, indeed, society as a whole.
When business people speak about business ethics they usually mean one of three things: (1) avoid breaking the criminal law in ones work-related activity; (2) avoid action that may result in civil law suits against the company; and (3) avoid actions that are bad for the company image. Businesses are especially concerned with these three things since they involve loss of money and company reputation. In theory, a business
could address these three concerns by assigning corporate attorneys and public relations experts to escort employees on their daily activities. Anytime an employee might stray from the straight and narrow path of acceptable conduct, the experts would guide him back. Obviously this solution would be a financial disaster if carried out in practice since it would cost a business more in attorney and public relations fees than they would save from proper employee conduct. Perhaps reluctantly, businesses turn to philosophers to instruct employees on becoming moral. For over 2,000 years philosophers have systematically addressed the issue of right and wrong conduct. Presumably, then, philosophers can teach employees a basic understanding of morality will keep them out of trouble.
However, it is not likely that philosophers can teach anyone to be ethical. The job of teaching morality rests squarely on the shoulders of parents and ones early social environment. By the time philosophers enter the picture, it is too late to change the moral predispositions of an adult. Also, even if philosophers could teach morality, their recommendations are not always the most financially efficient. Although being moral may save a company from some legal and public relations nightmares, morality in business is also costly. A morally responsible company must pay special attention to product safety, environmental impact, truthful advertising, scrupulous marketing, and humane working conditions. This may be more than a tight-budgeted business bargained for.
We cannot easily resolve this tension between the ethical interests of the moneyminded businessperson and the ideal-minded philosopher. In most issues of business ethics, ideal moral principles will be checked by economic viability. To understand what is at stake, we will look at three different ways of deriving standards of business ethics.
Deriving Business Ethics from the Profit Motive. Some businesspeople argue that there is a symbiotic relation between ethics and business in which ethics naturally emerges from a profit-oriented business. There are both weak and strong versions of this approach. The weak version is often expressed in the dictum that good ethics results in good business, which simply means that moral businesses practices are profitable. For example, it is profitable to make safe products since this will reduce product liability
lawsuits. Similarly, it may be in the best financial interests of businesses to respect employee privacy, since this will improve morale and thus improve work efficiency. Robert F. Hartley's book, Business Ethics, takes this approach. Using 20 case studies as illustrations, Hartley argues that the long-term best interests of businesses are served by seeking a trusting relation with the public (Hartley, 1993). This weak version, however, has problems. First, many moral business practices will have an economic advantage only in the long run. This provides little incentive for businesses that are designed to exclusively to seek short-term profits. As more and more businesses compete for the same market, short-term profits will dictate the decisions of many companies simply as a matter of survival. Second, some moral business practices may not be economically viable even in the long run. For example, this might be the case with retaining older workers who are inefficient, as opposed to replacing them with younger and more efficient workers. Third, and most importantly, those moral business practices that are good for business depend upon what at that time will produce a profit. In a different market, the same practices might not be economically viable. Thus, any overlap that exists between morality and profit is both limited and incidental.
The strong version of this profit approach takes a reverse strategy and maintains that, in a competitive and free market, the profit motive will in fact bring about a morally proper environment. That is, if customers demand safe products, or workers demand privacy, then they will buy from or work for only those businesses that meet their demands. Businesses that do not heed these demands will not survive. Since this view maintains that the drive for profit will create morality, the strong version can be expressed in the dictum that good business results in good ethics, which is the converse of the above dictum. Proponents of this view, such as Milton Friedman, argue that this would happen in the United States if the government would allow a truly competitive and free market. But this strong view also has problems, since it assumes that consumers or workers will demand the morally proper thing. In fact, consumers may opt for less safe products if they know they will be saving money. For example, consumers might prefer a cheaper car without air bags, even though doing so places their own lives and the lives of their passengers at greater risk, which is morally irresponsible. Similarly, workers may forego demands of privacy at work if they are compensated with high enough wages. In
short, not every moral business practice will simply emerge from the profit principle as suggested by either the weak or strong views.
Business Ethics Restricted to Following the Law. A second approach to business ethics is that moral obligations in business are restricted to what the law requires. The most universal aspects of Western morality have already been put into our legal system, such as with laws against killing, stealing, fraud, harassment, or reckless endangerment. Moral principles beyond what the law requires or supra-legal principles -- appear to be optional since philosophers dispute about their validity and society wavers about its acceptance. For any specific issue under consideration, such as determining what counts as responsible marketing or adequate privacy in the workplace, we will find opposing positions on our supra-legal moral obligations. It is, therefore, unreasonable to expect businesses to perform duties about which there is so much disagreement and which appear to be optional.
The unreasonableness of such a moral requirement in our society becomes all the more evident when we consider societies that do have a strong external source of morality. Islam, for example, contains a broad range of moral requirements such as an alms mandate, prohibitions against sleeping partners that collect unearned money, and restrictions on charging interest for certain types of loans, particularly for relief aid. Thus, in Muslim countries that are not necessarily ruled by Islamic law, there is a strong source of external morality that would be binding on Muslim businesses apart from what their laws would require. Similarly, Confucianism has a strong emphasis on filial piety; thus, in Chinese and other Confucian societies, it is reasonable to expect their businesses to maintain a respect for elders even if it is not part of the legal system. In Western culture, or at least in the United States, we lack a counterpart to an external source of morality as is present in Muslim or Confucian societies. One reason is because of our cultural pluralism and the presence of a wide range of belief systems. Even within Christianity, the diversity of denominations and beliefs prevents it from being a homogeneous source of Christian values. In short, without a widely recognized system of ethics that is external to the law, supra-legal moral obligations in our society appear to be optional; and, it is
In our culturally pluralistic society, the only business-related moral obligations that are majority-endorsed by our national social group are those obligations that are already contained in the law. These include a range of guidelines for honesty in advertising, product safety, safe working conditions, and fair hiring and firing practices. In fact, the unifying moral force of businesses within our diverse society is the law itself. Beyond the law we find that the moral obligations of businesses are contextually bound by subgroups, such as with a business that is operated by traditional Muslims or environmental activists. In these cases, the individual businesses may be bound by the obligations of their subgroups, but such obligations are contingent upon one's association with these social subgroups. And, clearly, the obligations within those subgroups are not binding on those outside the subgroups. If a business does not belong to any subgroup, then its only moral obligations will be those within the context of society at large, and these obligations are in the law.
Corporations that assume an obligation beyond the law, either in their corporate codes or in practice, take on responsibilities that most outsiders would designate as optional. A good example is found in the mission statement of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, which includes the following:
Social Mission -- To operate the company in a way that actively recognizes the central role that business plays in the structure of society by initiating innovative ways to improve the quality of life of a broad community -- local, national, and international.
Consistent with this mission, the highest paid employees of Ben & Jerry's would not earn more than seven times more than the lowest paid full-time employees. "We do this," they explain, "because we believe that most American corporations overpay top management, and underpay entry-level employees -- and because everyone who works at Ben & Jerry's is a major contributor to our success." In spite of the merits of this pay scale policy, it clearly lacks majority endorsement in our national social group, and would not be a binding obligation. In fact, it is not even binding on Ben & Jerrys itself since, in recent
years, Ben & Jerrys had to abandon its own ideal pay scale in an effort to attract a CEO with the right skills to expand their company.
Strictly following this legal approach to business ethics may indeed prompt businesses to do the right thing, as prescribed by law. Nevertheless, there are two key problems with restricting morality solely to what the law requires. First, even in the best legal context, the law will lag behind our moral condemnation of certain unscrupulous, yet legal business practices. For example, in the past, drug companies could make exaggerated claims about the miraculous curative properties of their products. Now government regulations prohibit any exaggerated claims. Thus, prior to the enactment of a law, there will be a period of time when a business practice will be deemed immoral, yet the practice will be legal. This would be a continuing problem since changes in products, technology, and marketing strategies would soon present new questionable practices that would not be addressed by existing legislation. A second problem with the law-based approach is that, at best, it applies only to countries such as our own whose business-related laws are morally conscientious. The situation may be different for some developing countries with less sophisticated laws and regulatory agencies.
Deriving Business Ethics from General Moral Obligations. The third approach to business ethics is that morality must be introduced as a factor that is external from both the profit motive and the law. This is the approach taken by most philosophers who write on business ethics, and is expressed most clearly in the following from a well known business ethics essay:
Proper ethical behavior exists on a plane above the law. The law merely specifies the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior. (Gene Laczniak, "Business Ethics: A Manager's Primer," 1983)
The most convenient way to explore this approach is to consider the supra-legal moral principles that philosophers commonly offer. Five fairly broad moral principles suggested by philosophers are as follows:
Harm principle: businesses should avoid causing unwarranted harm. Fairness principle: business should be fair in all of their practices. Human rights principle: businesses should respect human rights. Autonomy principle: businesses should not infringe on the rationally reflective choices of people.
The attraction of these principles is that they appeal to universal moral notions that no one would reasonably reject. But, the problem with these principles is that they are too general. These principles do not tell us specifically what counts as harm, unfairness, or a violation of human rights. Does all damage to the environment constitute harm? Does it violate an employee's right to privacy if an employer places hidden surveillance cameras in an employee lounge area? Does child-oriented advertising mislead children and thus violate the principle of veracity?
The above principles are abstract in nature. That is, they broadly mandate against harm, and broadly endorse autonomy. Because they are abstract, they will be difficult to apply to concrete situations and consequently not give clear guidance in complex situations. An alternative approach is to forget the abstract, and focus instead on concrete situations that affect the particular interests of consumers, workers, stockholders, or the community. The recent stakeholder approach to business ethics attempts to do this systematically. It may be expressed in the following:
Stakeholder principle: businesses should consider all stakeholders' interests that are affected by a business practice.
A stakeholder is any party affected by a business practice, including employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, competitors, governments, and communities. Accordingly, the stakeholder approach to business ethics emphasizes that we should map out of the various parties affected by a business practice. But this approach is limited since proponents of this view give us no clear formula for how to prioritize the various interests once we map them out. Should all stakeholders' interests be treated equally
from the largest stockholder down to the garbage man who empties the factory dumpster? Probably no defenders of the stakeholder approach would advocate treating all interests equally. Alternatively, should the stockholders' interests have special priority? If we take this route, then the stakeholder principle is merely a revision of the profit principle.
Another way of looking at concrete moral obligations in business is to list them issue by issue. This is the strategy behind corporate codes of ethics that address specific topics such as confidentiality of corporate information, conflicts of interest, bribes, and political contributions. Consider the following issues from Johnson and Johnson's Credo:
We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world. Everyone must be considered as an individual. We must respect their dignity and recognize their merit. They must have a sense of security in their jobs. Compensation must be fair and adequate, and working conditions clean, orderly and safe. We must be mindful of ways to help our employees fulfill their family responsibilities.
Although corporate codes of ethics are often viewed cynically as attempts to foster good public relations or to reduce legal liability, a corporate code of ethics is a reasonable model for understanding how we should articulate moral principles and introduce them into business practice. The practical advantage of this approach is that it directly stipulates the morality of certain action types, without becoming ensnared in the problem of deriving particular actions from more abstract principles, such as the harm principle. But, the limitation of the corporate code model is that the principles offered will appear to be merely rules of prudence or good manners unless we can establish their distinctly moral character. And this requires relying on more general principles of ethic described above, which, weve seen, comes with its own set of problems.
Conclusion. Weve looked at three approaches to business ethics, and weve seen that all three have limitations. If we hope to find an approach to business ethics that is free from conceptual problems, we will not likely find any. Ethics is a complex subject and its history is filled with diverse theories that are systematically refuted by rival theories. So, we should expect to find controversies when applying ethics to the specific
practices of business. However, following any of the above three approaches to business ethics will bring us closer to acceptable moral behavior than we might otherwise be. Close attention to ones profit motive and the moral interests of consumers might in fact generate some morally responsible business decisions. We can indeed find additional moral guidance by looking at the laws that apply specifically to businesses. In gray areas of moral controversy that are not adequately addressed profit motives and the law, we can turn for guidance to a variety of general and specific moral principles.
In addition to the above three approaches to business ethics, it also helps to examine stories of businesses that have been morally irresponsible. By citing specific cases deceptive advertising, environmental irresponsibility, or unsafe products, we can learn by example what we should not do. Such cases often reveal blatantly crude, insensitive, or reckless attitudes of businesses, which we can view as warning signs of unethical conduct.