Category: Business Ethics

Business ethics is the study of suitable business policies and practices that influence behaviour. Business ethics, if adhered to, ensures a certain level of trust between consumers and corporations, guaranteeing the public fair and equal treatment (see Alexandra Twin, 2019).

The concept of business ethics began in the 1960s as corporations became more aware of a rising consumer-based society that showed concerns regarding the environment, social causes, and corporate responsibility. Business ethics goes beyond just a moral code of right and wrong; it attempts to harmonise what companies must do legally while maintaining a competitive advantage over other businesses. Fordham professor Robert Hurley suggests that customers or employees may well think that certain people or companies are ethical; that is, moral, honest, and fair: but that does not mean they should trust them. Trust, says Hurley, “comes from delivering every day on what you promise, as a manager, an employee, and a company. It involves constant teamwork, communication, and collaboration.” Trust comes from asking how likely the people you’re dealing with are to serve your interests, how much they have demonstrated concern for others, how well they delivered on their promises, how much they try to keep their word, and how effectively these skills are communicated.

Firms display business ethics in several ways including; equality or discrimination at workplace, racial or sexual harassment, corporate sustainability, corporate governance, corporate citizenship, insider trading, bribery, corporate social responsibility, and fiduciary responsibility. The law often sets guidelines for business ethics, however, other times business ethics provide a basic directives that businesses can choose to follow to gain stakeholders’ approval. These major ethical perspectives are discussed below.

All businesses have basic ethical and legal responsibilities; however, the most successful businesses establish a strong foundation of corporate citizenship, showing a commitment to ethical behaviour by creating a balance between the needs of shareholders and the needs of the community and environment in the surrounding area. These practices help bring in consumers and establish brand and company loyalty. many companies around the world are voluntarily adopting and implementing a broad range of sustainability practices as a response to emerging challenges and stakeholder expectations across the environmental, social and governance (ESG) domains. In doing so, they try to integrate corporate sustainability into their strategy, business models, and organizational processes and structures (Eccles, Ioannou and Serafeim, 2014). These domains are further explained below.

Adam Hayes defines corporate citizenship as a company’s responsibilities toward society. The goal is to produce higher standards of living and quality of life for the communities that surround them and still maintain profitability for stakeholders. There is a growing demand for socially responsible corporations, encouraging investors, consumers, and employees to use their individual powers to negatively affect companies that do not share their common values. Companies go through different stages during the process of developing corporate citizenship. Companies rise to the higher stages of corporate citizenship based on their capacity and credibility when supporting community activities, a strong understanding of community needs, and their dedication to incorporate citizenship within the culture and structure of their company.

Corporate governance is the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a firm is directed and controlled so that the interests of corporate owners and other stakeholders are protected. Corporate governance essentially involves balancing the interests of a company’s many stakeholders, such as shareholders, senior management executives, customers, suppliers, financiers, the government, and the community. Since corporate governance also provides the framework for attaining a company’s objectives, it encompasses practically every sphere of management, from action plans and internal controls to performance measurement and corporate disclosure. Good corporate governance is an essential foundation for achieving a strong ethics culture within an organisation. A company’s board of directors is the primary force influencing corporate governance. Bad corporate governance can cast doubt on a company’s reliability, integrity, and transparency; all of which can have implications on its financial health.

Environmental sustainability is defined as economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Our economic system has brought prosperity, but it has also led to unsustainable business practices because it has assumed that natural resources are limitless, which they are not. At present, when the companies’ aim is creating a high market value, their management must focus on all the aspects of the company’s impacts that will, in turn, provide a comprehensive view of the company. Such impacts include the company’s environmental behaviour in the meaning of responsibility for the environment (Kocmanová, A., Dočekalová, M. 2011, pp. 203–208).

In the United States, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is supposed to represent the views of business, has been resistant to climate change legislation. However, several companies like Levi Strauss, Apple, Tiffany, Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Mohawk Fine Papers have resigned from the Chamber in protest. Perhaps, then, business can begin to take the lead. After years of being slow to address climate change, major corporations including industrial giants that make products ranging from electricity to chemicals to bulldozers have begun to call for limits on global warming emissions.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission defines diversity as “where many different types of people are included”. Workplace diversity relates to age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics identified in the UK Equality Act 2010(3). Significantly, it also includes differences in areas such as values, thinking and viewpoints, socio-economic background, experience and knowledge. Companies that are committed to diversity are making an ethical undertaking to recruit and treat employees fairly and without discrimination. Diversity in the boardroom sets a leadership example and sends a powerful signal to all employees about the company’s approach to equal opportunities.

Another factor that exerts its toll on an organizations human resource and eventually negate business ethics is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can be defined as unwanted sexual attention that creates an adverse work environment. This means obscene gestures, sex stereotyped jokes, sexually oriented posters and graffiti, suggestive remarks, unwanted dating pressure, physical nonsexual contact, unwanted touching, sexual propositions, threatening punishment unless sexual favours are given, obscene phone calls, and similar verbal or physical actions of a sexual nature (Rotundo, Nguyen, & Sackett. 2001). The harassment may be by a member of the opposite sex or a member of the same sex, by a manager, by a co-worker, or by an outsider.

Globalisation or the global economy refers to the increasing tendency of the economies of the world to interact with one another as one market instead of many national markets. The global economy has primarily been enhanced by global transportation in form of air travel and instant electronic media exchange made easy by the emergence of the internet and the world wide web. The arrival of the web quickly led to e-commerce, or electronic commerce, the buying and selling of products and services through computer networks. This has led to world economies increasingly being tied together, connected by information arriving instantaneously through currency traders’ screens, CNN news reports, twitter feeds, text messages, and other technology. Money, represented by digital blips, changes hands globally in a matter of keystrokes. The global economy refers to the increasing tendency of the economies of the world to interact with one another as one market instead of many national markets. Air travel, the internet and world wide web allows everyone to be global resulting in rapid business start-ups, company mergers etc.

Corporate sustainability is a corporate strategy whose objectives are towards long-term company growth, efficiency, performance and company competitiveness; achieved by the incorporation of economic, environmental and social aspects into corporate management (Beattie. A, 2019). Beatie urges that corporate sustainability in investment falls under the terms ESG for environment, social, and governance or the acronym SRI (chen. J. 2019) which stands for socially responsible investment. It has three main pillars: economic, environmental, and social. They are informally referred to as people, planet and profits.

The environmental pillar is most critical. Companies are focusing on reducing their carbon footprints, packaging waste, water usage and their overall effect on the environment. Companies have found that practices that are beneficial to the planet can also have a positive financial impact. Lessening packaging material usually reduces overall cost on those materials, for example Walmart’s zero-waste initiative.

A sustainable business should have the support and approval of its employees, stakeholders and the community it operates in. considerations include child labour, fair wages, racial and sexual harassment, and safety at work environment.

To be sustainable, a business must be profitable. That said, profit cannot trump the other two pillars. In fact, profit at any cost is not at all what the economic pillar is about. Activities that fit under the economic pillar include compliance, proper governance and risk management.

In conclusion, business is a growing field of concern as organizations continue to expand and economies tending to a globalized environment. A critical understanding and Adherence to the pillars of business ethics benefits the organization, environment and communities alike. However, neglecting these practices often lead to legal battles, mistrust from stakeholders and unhealthy financial returns.

References:

1. Beattie. A. (2019). Business: Business essentials. Business ethics. Corporate sustainability. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/socially-responsible-investing-4689738
2. Chen. J. (2019). Business: Business essentials. Business ethics. Corporate social responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp
3. Hayes. A. (2019). Business: Business essentials. Corporate citizenship. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporatecitizenship.asp
4. Hurley. R. (2011). The Decision to Trust: How Leaders Can Create High-Trust Companies “Trust Me,” The Wall Street Journal.
5. Kinicki. A., Williams. B. K. (2016). Management: A Practical introduction (7th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
6. Kocmanová, A., Dočekalová, M. (2011). Corporate sustainability: environmental, social, economic and corporate performance. Acta univ. agric. et silvic. Mendel. Brun.
7. Rotundo. M., Nguyen. D.-H & Sackett. P. R. (2001). “A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment,” Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 914–922.
8. Twin. A. (2019). Business: Business essentials. Business ethics. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business-ethics.asp.
9. United Kingdom. UK public general acts. (2010). Equality act 2010. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Does a moral responsibility without a legal obligation, bind a business to an appropriate response? Business modelling seems to approach moral responsibilities from a perspective of managing their public image rather than dutiful obligation to respond to community interests. In particular, morality becomes an important part of business when business product and business conduct are directly responsible for social problems. Purdue Pharma L.P. (Purdue from this point), a private drug manufacturer in the United States, faces a legal and moral battle over the effects of her drugs, notably OxyContin. The drugs are highly addictive to their users and are responsible for multiple deaths and drug dependence. An assessment of the case from the Deontological and Justice Perspectives suggest that scope of Purdue’s legal liability was responsible for the drug-use epidemic.

The deontological perspective approaches morality from a duty-bound perspective. Deontological ethicists such as Emanuel Kant proposed that the rightness of an action depends on a series of rules such as the Kant Categorical Imperative rather than using the effects of the action to vindicate the course of action (Shim & Kim, 2017). The “good will”, an intention to produce the right outcomes, is a better prediction of morality than the outcomes of the said moral action. Now, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health by the Federal Government, OxyContin and other painkillers are responsible for at least 190,000 American deaths since 1999 (Ryan, Girion & Glover, 2016). In addition, an excess of seven million Americans have abused OxyContin at one point in their lives, hence illustrating the troubling outcome of the drug to society (Ryan, Girion & Glover, 2016). Here, the outcomes of using OxyContin seem to validate corrective action from a legal perspective. In other words, American legal and legislative bodies sought to have taken corrective measures with an intention to promote the communal good will.

The ethical obligation to take the corrective action also applies to OxyContin. It is also worth noting that the justifications of introducing such a drug are questionable from the deontological perspective. The intention of Purdue when developing and marketing the drug are a topic of interest because they inform the morality of their intent and social responsiveness. For example, based on the principles against using humans as a means to an end, generate a profit regardless of the effects of the drug on the users, Purdue’s intention ought to align with promoting community health. However, according to Ryan, Girion and Glover’s article (2016) in the New York Times, Purdue’s executives were aware of the inability of their drug to produce the marketed benefits to patients. Symptoms of addiction in the trial group ought to have produced a definite response from the company. Instead, the continued marketing is a sign of adhering to the legal part of the issue (we are not guilty) as opposed to the moral effects of the drug. Regardless of the trial results (assuming that the trials showed the drug would help rather than harm), the signs of addiction and abuse ought to have stopped production and initiate research in an improved alternative.

It is interesting to note that the analysis of the ethical foundations of the decision does not include the role of physicians. If Purdue were to conduct a study and comprehensively prove that her drug produced the outcomes the company said it does, it follows that the company executives had a right to market the drug as a genuine attempt to trigger community wellness. On the other hand, physicians also had a responsibility to correct their prescriptions if the patients complained about symptoms of addiction and withdrawal within the day (Hoffman, 2019). In addition, as informed and educated professionals, physicians could easily read journal articles (from reliable sources) to inform their decisions rather than depending on the biased advisory of Purdue’s marketing approach (Hoffman, 2019). In particular, if a business trip from the company (a reward for prescribing the drug) swayed the physicians, they ought to face legal and ethical action for violating their duty to their patients and abusing the trust that patients put on them. In other words, the case illustrates unfair distribution of blame (finding a scapegoat to blame for all problems) rather than a genuine effort to identify a sustainable solution for the problem of drug use and addiction.

A settlement agreement with the victims of the drug without an admission that the Purdue and the Sackler Family were guilty of wrongdoing also shows the direction of the moral consideration. With the growing volume of legal proceedings and calls for action against the company and is owners, Purdue agreed settlements with $3 billion dollars payable for seven years with the victims of abuse and promised to supply drugs and invest in methods of reversing overdose resulting from her products and help users to overcome their addictions (Hoffman, 2019). Unfortunately, the agreement is a statement of a questionable will (at best) because it also came in light of exposition that the Sackler family hid its holdings from the public, an illustration that the family was unwilling to return gains from the medicine to the community. For context, while the aforementioned deal is worth $3 billion over a cause of seven years, Ryan, Girion and Glover (2016) claimed that the value of Purdue’s revenue from the same drug exceeded $31 billion in a course of two decades.

According to Rawls’ theory of Justice, unfairness (such as visible in Purdue’s settlement agreement) of social entities and structures should benefit the “worst-off” rather than the “best-off” (Shim & Kim, 2017). Rawls was aware of natural inequalities such as physical and cognitive differences. To correct for these differences and the tendency for resources to trickle up (hence creating elite classes), Rawls’ principle proposed the difference principle to regulate inequalities (Shim & Kim, 2017). It is notable that Rawls’ theory is political in nature. It creates an impression of justice as a form of equal distribution of resources to all people.

The political aspect of Rawls’ theory create problems such as selecting qualified candidates for responsible action against the national background of free industry and enterprise (Blake, 2017). For example, without the protection of copyright laws and intellectual property, Purdue would lack the foundation to control and market her problematic drugs. In that context, the ethical issues facing members of the medical profession would not exist. In other words, the social structure creates an enabling mechanism for inequality (Blake, 2017). Given the unjust foundation of social actions, it follows that Purdue and her contemporaries are likely to act according to their best interests. In other words, the clash of perceptive between the current legal and social structures with the justice perspective trace the source of the problem to the structure of American social systems.

Wealth generation by creating social problems and contributing to close to 200,000 deaths is not justifiable from any ethical perspective (Blake, 2017). While members of the Sackler family may face an initial barrage of public outcry, they may eventually overcome the social outcry and enjoy their ill-begotten wealth. Consider the statement of such inequality to society. While millions will continue to struggle with addiction issues (including the tendency for addiction to trigger unemployment and social isolation among other indirect outcomes of the pandemic), the Sackler family is likely to lead wealthy and free lives because the case against them does not contain criminal proceedings other than the flagged cases of questionable wire transfers. The inequality in this case justifies social outcry and suggests an urgent need to revise the legislative measures underling businesses to avoid cases where businesses have to make a choice between their wellness and social wellness.

In conclusion, society has an unstable system of regulating the structure of business operations. The instability creates a situation where a business may thrive for decades provided her structure is legal, regardless of the moral implications of her conduct. From a deontological perspective, the recurrent problem is already compromising the “good will” aspect of business operations. Businesses seem to make choices from a pragmatic perspective (based on their interests to maximize profits) rather than from a moral perspective. The inequality is likely to sustain continued violations and endanger society where regulations leave wriggle room. Consider the fact that while the government has regulatory agencies to control drugs released to the public (The FDA), problematic drugs still make their way to pharmacies and cause such damage for two decades.

Description of the case: Collapse of Rana Plaza

On 24 April 2013, more than 1100 people were killed and another 2438 injured in a factory collapse in Sabhar, Bangladesh. (Disaster in Bangladesh, 2013) The cause of the collapse was quickly questioned in the media and the reason was serious: one day before the collapse, the industrial police had found cracks in the building and banned access. Unfortunately, industrial police’s crucial decision which could save thousands of lives and prevent huge tragedy was ignored. (Building Collapse in Bangladesh, 2013) The owner of Rana Plaza building (Sohel Rana) and the factory’s managers instructed the employees to enter this crumbling building and continue working. Employees were shocked, tried to express their fear but managers did not pay attention and threatened to cut the month’s salary of employees, so workers could not act against the will of their employer as wage cut would result in starvation and not being able to pay for housing. (Why Won’t We Learn, 2018)

But what was the reason for collapse? Emdadul Islam, chief engineer of the state-run Capital Development Authority, explained to journalists that local authorities gave Mr. Rana permission for a five-story building. However, the owner decided to create bigger space to increase the volume of production, so three additional stories were built. This action was illegal, of course, but no reaction of local authorities followed because Sohel Rana was influential person and had certain connection with politicians. (Reason and responsibility, 2013)

Moreover, after the collapse experts concluded that initial five-story building was made from materials of inadequate quality and building process regulations were not taken into account. So, it seems logically that this construction project should have been stopped by local authorities and state engineers from the early beginning, however, Mr. Rana gave bribes, so Rana Plaza started to function and then claimed the lives of thousands of poor workers. (Reason and responsibility, 2013)

The world was shocked by the reaction of Bangladesh ministers. Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, said: “accidents happen.” When number of victims reached 530, Finance Minister, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, claimed: “the disaster wasn’t really serious.” (Reason and responsibility, 2013) These interviews made clear that the government does not want to support its inhabitants and that employees are in the really vulnerable position.

No doubt, garment workers wanted Sohel Rana and the factory owners to be punished and to take moral responsibility on this tragedy, so many street protests were organized to express pain and ask for justice. To avoid further disorders, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina gave the order to the police to arrest Sohel Rana and the owners of those factories who based their activity into Rana Plaza. The justice came soon, after 4 days since the collapse, Mr. Rana was arrested, at that moment he was trying to migrate to India in order to escape from prosecution. (Reason and responsibility, 2013)

What are the consequences? No doubt, this tragedy made huge resonance all over the globe and brands decided to take pro-active measures. Corporations, for example, Benetton, paid 1.1 million of dollars to compensation funds but Primark – 1 million of dollars. (After two years, 2015) This money is actually nothing in comparison to the year profit of these companies. Also, Western brands became safety oriented. The Guardian writes: “About 250 companies signed two initiatives, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, and the less constraining Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety. Both were designed to improve safety dramatically in 2,300 factories supplying western brands. Both complete their terms this year.” (Rana Plaza, five years on, 2018) So, Western brands are concerned about the situation in Bangladesh and try to improve it. Workers agree that situation has become better. For example, Khatun has been working for garment industry since she was 11, in the interview she stated that now the owners of factories care about employees’ safety and take action in case of complains. The reason of such owners’ activity is the risk of being cut off by Western companies, so owners invest their money in safety measures such as making stronger foundation of building by the use of qualitative materials, making fire doors and alarm systems. However, the term of the Accord and the Alliance finishes soon, and workers are afraid that everything will be as it was before the collapse of Rana Plaza as government is corrupted and does not pay attention to workers’ conditions and their concerns are reasonable. “The government is not ready at this time to take over and regulate factories at a satisfactory level,” says Wayss, the Accord chief. The Alliance director, Moriarty, agrees: “It’s still early days for the government.” (Rana Plaza, five years on, 2018)

So, the Rana Plaza tragedy was huge and claimed lives of thousands of workers, thousands were injured. This was a tragic lesson for Bangladesh authorities, factory owners and Western companies which brought the importance of human life and employee’s safety on the new, higher level.

The main arguments for the debate

Position: Western companies and consumers did not have moral responsibility for Rana Plaza disaster.

Argument 1: Western brands made business deal with in Rana Plaza placed factories as with legally operating business agents.

To start with, it should be defined what kind of relationships bound Western companies and in Rana Plaza placed garment factories – and it was supply contract. Western brands (retailers/buyer) in this case had same rights and duties as common end-consumers on the market. It means that Rana Plaza building’s and factories’ owners are the only ones who are responsible for their employees’ working conditions, safety and environment. As long as company follows all of the state legislation/any implemented international agreement rules – it operates legally, so its products are legitim. By this way Western companies had a right to make partnership with Rana Plaza without any doubts of breaking business ethics as Rana Plaza was legally established and operating entity.

As the business entity is considered to be a sovereign subject on the liberal market, (Liberalism, pub. 1996, rev. 2018) no one has a right to influence corporate governance of it and dictate how to run company, how to treat workers, what wages to pay unless there are issues contradicting country’s legislation. In principle, it is impossible for some representative of Benneton or Walmart to interfere and ask for some changes in factories’ strategical management, organizational culture and safety compliance if government does not pay attention.

Dozens of NGO’s and journalists claimed that Inditex, H&M and others, should have done something, at least to pay compensations for the families of dead workers. (Why were Western retailers blamed, 2017) However, Western companies cannot be obliged to do this because those workers were not Western companies’ employees but employees of in Rana Plaza operating factories.

Argument 2: Western companies and consumers were not provided with the information about safety issues in Rana Plaza.

To continue, the duty of a seller (in Rana Plaza placed garment factories) is to provide relevant information about the product they are offering to customer according to the right of a consumer “to obtain necessary and truthful information in order to make a conscious choice among the goods and services offered.” (Consumer rights and protection) Here it is clear that Western brands were not provided with information about mistreatment of factory’s workers, so they could not consider this during decision making-process. This fact is proved by words of the ex-workers of a factory: “A buyer is coming so be alert and be good. If they talk to you just answer like this – you joined at age 18, you get a lunch-break, all is good, all is fine.” (Rana Plaza: are fashion brands responsible, 2015) As Western brands (retailers) were not provided with relevant information about safety issues in Rana Plaza, so they could not inform end-consumers about the situation. As the result, consumers were buying products without any knowledge.

Argument 3: Western brands could not take responsibility due to potential moral hazard problem.

According to Transparency International, Bangladesh has high level of government corruption [rank: 149/180]. (Corruption Perception Index 2018) If Western companies take responsibility of dealing with safety issues, there will be risk of moral hazard as factory owners will continue giving bribes to government and state engineers to receive permission for buildings. Nobody will care about safety environment because factory owners and local authorities will always know that Western companies will be legally and morally responsible for every accident. (Why were Western retailers blamed, 2017) In this way no changes in state’s policies will be ever done to improve working standards, construction standards and work of controlling mechanism.

They would wait for someone coming and saving their citizens instead of taking responsibility for the possible disasters in future. It is unacceptable as according to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the government has the responsibility to protect and promote workers’ rights and the companies have the responsibility to respect these rights. (Des Jardins, McCall, 2014)

The personal viewpoints of the team

There is a certain tendency of making economic achievement bound with social value (Osorio-Vega, 2018) and popularity of corporate responsibility and business ethics is expanding with a huge speed. However, it cannot be taken as a pure benefit of nowadays business environment as there are still case when companies and other global market participants cannot find a consensus and so called codes of ethics and sustainability policies are not really implemented but just exist in a written form. Our team see that the case of Rana Plaza crash is a crucial example of such complicated business world that we have in 21st century. There was no question that someone’s wrong actions caused a huge disaster, but there according to our discussion in previous point, it is clear that Western companies cannot take the fault of this case.

For all of the team members the decision-making process is Western values driven. Our analysis is based on non-consequentialist ethical theories such as ethics of duty and ethics of rights. Considering ethics of duty, asking a question who do Western companies have obligation to in this situation, the answer is obvious: to factories’ owners whom Western brands signed contracts with. So, Western brands do not have obligations to Rana Plaza employees as there is no direct link or contract. Considering ethics of rights, asking a question whose rights do Western companies need to consider here, answer is: rights of direct stakeholders, i.e. business partners (in Rana Plaza situated factories owners), end-consumers, shareholders and employees they signed contract with.

The main reason we do not see Western brands as guilty party is based on well-known stakeholder theory. (Freeman, 2010) From the Inditex, H&M and others side their task was to create value for their supplier as in the case it was their direct stakeholder. Here it can be clearly seen that by choosing to provide employment possibilities for developing regions big corporations wanted to improve economic health of the region. Moreover, investments in human capital and living conditions of citizens of Bangladesh were made possible as there was a non-stop flow of profits that Rana Plaza were guaranteed by supply contract partnership. The problem here is wrong allocation of profits that supplier made, but it cannot be somehow impacted by Western brands as it is internal process of each enterprise.

The guilty party undoubtedly stays Supplier (Rana Plaza factory) itself as it did not comply with “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates” (Porter, Kramer, 2011, p. 66) that is a basics of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). It broke fulfillment of legal and ethical as well philanthropic responsibilities as such. (Carroll, 1991) We also need to add to previous discussion the fact that there was no local citizens (NGO) movement that could fight or was starting to fight Rana Plaza owner illegal actions. In addition, corruption levels were increasing and therefore there was no (resistance on administrative level. (Bangladesh collapsed building owner, 2014) So, the lack of Bangladeshi response during that period of time had unbearable influence on further development of illegal acts. (Islam, 2017)

Overall, we strongly believe that CSR of Western companies in this case should not be questioned, but exactly Rana Plaza owner CSR and ethical behavior should be put under consideration. In our work we tried to emphasize the complexity of the issue that for most of the observers of the case led to wrong conclusions about the guilty party.

Although, we have different backgrounds and experiences there was no disagreement about our collective viewpoint. Undoubtedly, we see ethics from various perspectives but our work process because of that was rich of discussions and opinions. We found it is easy to express our positions and there were no doubts that everyone of us would be understood. For the next time, we certainly see some potential improvements to be done to make our cooperation smoother. For instance, we could meet in different place (not university premises), so the working environment would be more motivational and inspirational, for example, we could have a discussion at open-air or similar.

List of Literature and Internet sources

Literature

1. Carroll, A. B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 1991. pp. 39-48.
2. Des Jardins, J.; McCall, J: Contemporary issues in business ethics. Cengage Learning, 2014, p. 405f.
3. Freeman, E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
4. Islam, M. Non-governmental organizations and community development in Bangladesh. International Social Work, 60(2), 2017. pp. 479-493.
5. Osorio-Vega, P. The Ethics of Entrepreneurial Shared Value. Journal of Business Ethics, 2018. p. 1.
6. Porter, M. E.; Kramer, M. R. Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 2011. p. 66

Internet sources

1. Anonymous. Disaster in Bangladesh: Rags in the ruins (published 04.05.2013, retrieved from: https://www.economist.com/asia/2013/05/04/rags-in-the-ruins , accessed 19.02.2019)
2. Consumer rights and protection. (retrieved from https://www.eesti.ee/en/consumer-protection/consumer/consumer-rights-and-protection/ , accessed 20.02.2018)
3. Courtland S., Gaus G., Schmidtz D. Liberalism. (First published 28.10.1996; substantive revision 22.01.2018, retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ , accessed 20.02.2019)
4. Gomes W. Reason and responsibility: the Rana Plaza collapse. (published 09.05.2013, retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/william-gomes/reason-and-responsibility-rana-plaza-collapse , accessed 19.20.2019)
5. Hoskin T. After two years, the Rana Plaza fund finally reaches its $30m target. (published 10.06.2015, retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/10/rana-plaza-fund-reaches-target-compensate-victims , accessed 19.02.2019)
6. Hoskin T. Rana Plaza: are fashion brands responsible for those they don’t directly employ? (published 10.04.2015, retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-fashion-blog/2015/apr/10/rana-plaza-are-fashion-brands-responsible-for-those-they-dont-directly-employ?fbclid=IwAR3JYzOe4HuxrTFQfcrbWmsx_0QA7UudbKC6RBBNkmYS0F5S3oUED4d6wZs , accessed 20.02.2018)
7. Jacobs B., Singhal V. Why were Western retailers blamed for the building collapse in Bangladesh? (published 11.07.2017, retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/83535/1/LSE%20Business%20Review%20%E2%80%93%20Why%20were%20Western%20retailers%20blamed%20for%20the%20building%20collapse%20in%20Bangladesh_.pdf , accessed 20.02.2018)
8. Jacobs B., Singhal V. Why were Western retailers blamed for the building collapse in Bangladesh? (published 11.07.2017, retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/83535/1/LSE%20Business%20Review%20%E2%80%93%20Why%20were%20Western%20retailers%20blamed%20for%20the%20building%20collapse%20in%20Bangladesh_.pdf , accessed 20.02.2018)
9. Manik J., Yardley J. Building Collapse in Bangladesh leaves Scores Dead (published 24.04.2013, retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/world/asia/bangladesh-building-collapse.html , accessed 19.02.2019)
10. Ruma P. Bangladesh collapsed building owner to be charged in construction case (published 15.07.2014, retrieved from: http://news.trust.org//item/20140715101247-8qkma/?source=fiOtherNews2 , accessed 20.02.2019)
11. Rushe D., Safi M. Rana Plaza, five years on: safety of workers hangs in balance in Bangladesh. (published 24.04.2018, retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/apr/24/bangladeshi-police-target-garment-workers-union-rana-plaza-five-years-on , accessed 19.02.2019)
12. Thomas D. Why Won’t We Learn from the Survivors of the Rana Plaza Disaster? (published 24.04.2018, retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/style/survivors-of-rana-plaza-disaster.html , accessed 19.02.2019)
13. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2018. Bangladesh. (retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/country/BGD , accessed 20.02.2019)

WHILE BUSINESS ETHICS in general education is greatly dealt with the effects of teaching business ethics to a student’s moral reasoning and his/her ability to recognize moral issues and moral dilemmas and based on these how his behavior is in effect to given circumsatnces, Douglas May, Matthew Luth, Catherine Schwoerer, S White, R Walls, D. Mohr, G Wolcott, mentions in their respective papers the need for outcome-oriented research would be the need of the hour. Specifically, they are concerned with “factors that facilitate ethical decision- making” (2014: 68, emphasis in the original). They justifiably theorize the factors that facilitate ethical conduct in business and explains the reasons why they should be studied empirically, because these factors have the potential to promote positive ethical organizational cultures and positive organizational reputations. Their work identifies, describes, and applies a hypothesis to three such factors, or variables, which are the focus of their study: moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage (2014: 68). Ultimately, their analysis reveals that a behavior course in business ethics “influenced each of the positive psychology variables” with the most notable change occurring in the moral efficacy outcome (2014: 75). As a secondary effect, their study demonstrates the ongoing “potential value of positive psychology and positive organizational scholarship (POS) literature to business ethics researchers”. I share the authors’ enthusiasm, and I applaud their innovative steps into a new field of research, but it is the “potential value” of their statement that gives me to pause and analytically question the dependability and usefulness of their results and conclusions in the absence of further research on this subject.

The Authors’ Purpose

Teaching ethics has most often followed a “traditional negative approach to ethics” which “generally focuses on prohibited behaviors, enforceable rules, and sanctions for misconduct” (2014: 68). However, a growing trend toward a “positive approach to ethics,” promoting “morally praiseworthy ideals and behaviors,” has created a need for exploring and examining effective methods of teaching and learning ethics “in order to enhance the ethical culture and reputation of corporations”

The subject expert propose the joining of the body of literature concerning business ethics education, and the body of literature concerning POS, in order to better understand the influence ethics education may have on a person’s ability to successfully address ethical challenges in the workplace. They begin their study by defining each of the three variables. Moral efficacy consists of an individual’s belief in his ability “to deal positively with ethical issues . . . and to overcome obstacles to developing . . . solutions” in a workplace environment. Moral meaningfulness consists of the value an individual places on ethics in the individual’s work life. Moral courage consists of an individual’s willingness to “stand up for what is right even in the face of adverse personal outcomes” (2014: 68). The authors puts forward three hypotheses, which drive their study; the hypotheses are that moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage increase for individuals who take a business ethics treatment course (2014: 70–71).

The Authors’ Study and Outcomes

The authors use a “experimental pretest and posttest control group design” The pretest-posttest design group – ended an 8-week, required MBA course. The ethics treatment group was enrolled in a course dedicated to the topic of business ethics, while the control group was enrolled in a human resource management class. In addition to the measurements for moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage, three va*riables were also control- led for:

• (1) An individual’s ability to assimilate educational materials;
• (2) An individual’s impression management (the tendency to present a positive social image); and
• (3) Whether participants had previously taken a stand-alone ethics course (2014: 72–73).

The authors provide evidence of the validity of the studies as three outcome measures what they were supposed to measure, and they also tested for selection effects and a one-way analysis of any variance. The breakdown of the study’s results supports all three of the authors’ hypotheses with the largest, positive change occurring in the moral efficacy outcome.

Evaluation

This study spearheads a new area of research based on a changing perception of, and pedagogical approach to, business ethics ushering in new areas of future research on similar subjects. Perhaps the most significant effect of their study is described in the opening sentence of their “Discussion” section of the research paper:

The results of this study demonstrate the potential value of positive psychology and POS literatures to business ethics researchers as a source of psychological constructs that ethics education may influence.

While the authors’ study appears valid and reliable on its face, I would still not look more upon this area by overestimating the implications of the study’s goals and its results unless further on the subject are done. Too many variables require further research, and are likely to have a significant and measurable impact on this topic, before the authors’ premises and conclusions can be said to be generally, and consistently, reliable. The authors identify seven areas for future research, and their discussion of their study’s strengths and limitations fairly address several of its shortcomings. However, while some of the limitations identified by the authors may be more significant than others, there is at least one in particular that should be considered a fundamental limitation according to my own knowledge and study of other literatures on this subject by Sims, R. and J. Brinkmann, , potentially compromising the entirety of the study’s reliability, is the underlying instructional medium and methods adopted to impart the courses for design group that constituted the experimental and control arms of their study. Another limitation has the potential to challenge the study’s reliability: the subjectivity of the definitions of moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage.

The first such limitation, regarding underlying instructional methodologies used in the classroom, is raised by the authors themselves, but because of its notable impact on influencing the “learning that students [can] achieve” (Bulger, et al. 2002), I do not think the parameters of the authors’ study properly take into account the influence of instructional methodologies as a variable for determining the effectiveness of teaching business ethics.

Their first suggestion for future research is to “explore the influence of specific instructional methods. The authors disclose that the instructional methods in their treatment group were “varied”. If students are given hands-on-style teaching and/or intervention methodologies to practice their skills, and to analyze, develop, and recommend solutions for ethical dilemmas (Penn 1990), it is very likely their moral efficacy will increase to a greater extent than if students merely learn about these competencies through a lecture-style methodology (Laurillard 2002). The authors rightly point out that “more research needs to be conducted to determine what [teaching] method may be most influential in producing such fundamental changes in students” Indeed I believe, future studies based on ethics courses largely taught by lecture may not reflect the same positive results as did the courses in the authors’ study. Another significant question worth asking is whether the subject matter of an ethics course is the primary factor that leads to increased moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage (Sims and Brinkmann, 2002). 2002), versus the teaching style by which ethics is taught. Perhaps an ethics curriculum might mean very little without the use of an interactive and “applied” teaching method in the classroom .The students would feel it is just another subject matter part of your curriculum .The authors’ second research suggestion is to “focus on instructional methods that enable individuals to tie the discussion of ethics and values more directly to [students’] own experiences or future chosen profession”) – begs the same question as the first:

Whether instructional methods that draw associations between ethics and specific industries or companies and the personal experiences of people in these companies are the major driving forces behind positive increases in moral activity and moral meaning in the workplace in Indian scenario it can be related to people associating good moral behavior with TATA’s or Bosch. I would propose further new studies should be performed which seek to identify specific connections between instructional methodologies and increase in moral activity in the workplace.

The second area that should be explored as part of future research – the definitional bias of each of the three variables – is harder to locate in the authors’ own assessment of their study or in their recommendations for future work. While the authors’ study relied on a set of “treatment” students, who took the same MBA course dedicated to the topic of business ethics, another ethics course might have taught these same students a different viewpoint of morality, subsequently altering their understanding and subjective interpretation of what constitutes moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage (Taft and White 2007). For example, when we were taught the business ethics courses in fourth trimester, our faculty typically began each course by individually building the course from the students’ own personal ethical principles in order to create a connection about how they should behave in terms of at workplace or organizational level. This approach can identify diverse, but legitimate, definitional biases related to subjects like moral meaningfulness and moral courage. When a study attempts to evaluate an individual’s subjective assessment of his or her own actions based upon specifically defined factors, it is necessary to make sure the definitions and meanings of those factors are as widely agreed-upon as possible; if a widespread definition is not possible, then the subjectivity of those factors must be taken into account. If not, results that appear to have meaning may have dormant, and significant, inaccuracies. For instance, a person’s understanding of the word “moral” depends on that person’s perception, understanding, and application of other words, such as “right,” “wrong,” “goodness,” “badness,” “proper,” “improper,” “religion,” “belief,” and “faith.” Likewise, a person’s understanding of the word “moral” may also depend on a collection of sociological and historical factors. This concern about definitional bias may point to a casual misconception of which to be wary: what constitutes a “well-taught ethics curriculum” is not a concept or curriculum which is well-defined, fixed and frequently existent throughout academic world.

Result-oriented research based on the efficacy of an ethics curriculum, such as the authors’, needs to be understood in wake of the horde of ways in which business ethics can be taught and may be learned in any given university setting.

In conclusion, the article focusing on the influence of business ethics on an individual moral and values has done a fine job of introducing research that attempts to examine the factors that facilitate a person’s ethical decision-making abilities. Their study lays the groundwork for the proposition that business ethics instructors are able to not only build students’ skills in moral acknowledgment and reasoning, but also increase individuals’ beliefs in their abilities to use these skills to deal with complex moral issues and to derive and recommend solutions. While there are important limitations to the authors’ study, overall, but I am encouraged by their results and by the promise of business ethics education producing notable, positive, ethical results in the workplace by individuals and organization as a whole.

Executive Summary

This is qualitative research that possesses the capacity to introduce the standard of Utilitarianism as a standout amongst the most effective and enticing ways to deal with regulating morals. John Stuart Mill is an early established supporter of Bentham, who concocted this philosophical hypothesis. John Stuart Mills by one means or another did share some unique perspectives with respect to some part of this hypothesis in light of the feeling of bliss. In later circumstances, Philosopher Karl Marx censured Bentham’s utilization of ‘yard measure’ of now to the past, present, and future. What’s more, as a moral glutton, Jeremy Bentham, trusted that good and bad could be controlled by measuring the ‘pain’ and ‘pleasure’ of any given activity, with an activity that delivered more pleasure than the pain being ethically right. At last, the utilitarian rule conveys various confinements. It organizes results neglecting the method for the activity and overlooking the way that there is some instability of results. The cost-benefit analysis overlooks the bargains that research makes to provide certain incentives to businesses.

Introduction

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and convincing approaches in the history of philosophy to normative ethics. Although distinct types of opinions are discussed, in particular, utilitarianism is said to be the opinion that the action that generates the best is the morally correct action. If the end outcome is positive and useful, then it is justified to take action to achieve the end. It says that the end consequences define the action so it is a form of consequentialism. This implies that the right action is understood entirely in terms of the consequences produced. Utilitarianism differs from egoism in terms of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view, one tends to maximize the overall good and not only one’s own good but consider the good of others as well. Utilitarianism has no bias, which means the happiness of all counts the same.

The early leader of Utilitarianism is Jeremy Bentham and in 1780 he printed his book ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham presented a method of calculating they value of pleasures and pains, which has come to be known as the hedonic calculus. Bentham says that the value of a pleasure or pain, considered by itself, can be measured according to its intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, propinquity/remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. Bentham emphasizes that his method is not unwarranted because he believes that an action is deemed good if it produces more pleasure than pain. In order to assess the advantages of the action, the value of pleasure and suffering in one’s life must be measured.

Views similar or contrary to Bentham’s classical theory:

John Stuart Mill was a follower of Bentham and admired Bentham’s work even though he had disagreed with some of Bentham’s claims primarily on the nature of happiness. Bentham claimed that there were no qualitative differences between pleasures they were only quantitative. This aspect of his theory exposed him to different criticisms. Firstly, many claimed that Bentham’s Hedonism was egoistic. Simple-minded pleasures, sensual pleasures, were just as good, at least intrinsically, then more sophisticated and complex pleasures. Secondly, there was no qualitative difference between human pleasures and animal pleasures in Bentham’s view. And the third element of his theory that was criticized was his view that harming an animal and a human being is both bad, while most individuals believed that harming the human being was worse. Mills made some changes to the theory so that it could cancel out the criticism.

Mills believed that some pleasures more important than others. According to Mills, Intellectual pleasures are more important than just sensual and body-only pleasures. While Mill’s view of the good differs greatly from the view of Bentham, but like Bentham, the good is still in pleasure. If you have pleasure, the action is preferable and good. In addition, the theory’s basic structures are the same. Mill’s proof of the claim that intellectual pleasures are better than other pleasures, is highly suspected. He doesn’t attempt a mere appeal to raw intuition. Instead, he guesses that those persons who have experienced both views the higher as better than the lower. Or, we can explain by using his most famous example — it is better to be Socrates ‘dissatisfied’ than a fool ‘satisfied’. Mill was thus able to solve a utilitarian issue.

Criticisms

Karl Marx’s criticisms

According to Karl Marx, human nature is dynamic. The concept of a single utility for all humans is one-dimensional which is not useful. When he criticized Bentham‘s application of ‘yard measure ‘of now to the past, present, and future, he criticizes the implication that society and people have always been and always will be, as they are now, thus he criticizes essentialism’.

Karl Marx’s also said that the principle of utility was not the discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his boring way. Karl Marx’s also said that the utility principle was not Bentham’s discovery. He reproduced merely in his boring manner. He levitant French men had said with spiriting the century of 18th. For the purpose of utilitarianism, Karl Marx had provided a clarification. Karl Marx’s related it to a dog. He said to recognize what is helpful for a dog. The answer is that; a person must study the nature of the dog. Karl Marx also said that from the principle of utility this nature itself is not to be expected. This matter applies to this person who, by the principle of utility, would soon disregard all human acts, movements, and connections. However, this issue as a whole has to cope with human nature and then with human nature as altered in every ancient period. Bentham does little of this theory’s job.

Marx’s indictment is in two ways. He claims utility theory is true by definition and therefore adds nothing expressive in fact. Marx also outlined the need for a productive evaluation to examine what kind of effects are good for individuals. Such as: what is our nature, isolated under capitalism. Second, he also tells that Bentham does not take into consideration people’s changing character and therefore the changing character of what is good for them. For Marx, this criticism is particularly crucial because he thought that all significant statements depended on specific historical circumstances.

John Taurek’s criticism

John Tarurek has argued that the idea of happiness or pleasure across persons is quite meaningless. Those individuals are morally meaningless in the situation. He questioned if our course of action should be taken into consideration in the trade-off situation. Taurek also said that “The conclusion I reach is that we should not”. His argument basically looks at a trade-off situation”. He explained, “The situation is that he has a supply of some life-saving drug”. He cannot give a satisfactory account of the meaning of judgments of the kind.

Discussion on the Utilitarian Theory and Literature

The theory of utilitarianism has several applications in the real world. The case ‘Airbag and the automobile manufacturers’ is an application of the utilitarianism theory in real life. As stated previously, the nineteenth-century thinkers Jeremy Bentham developed this theory (1784- 1832), James Mill (1773-1836), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). It states that the moral worth of an action is evaluated by the consequence that is the yield from that action. It is a hardline consequentialist view. At the same time, the theory emphasizes the overall society’s good, not the people or group of individuals benefit. In this case, the notice of ‘Inflatable Occupant Restraint Systems’ and emphasized the use of controversial ‘air bag’ was a measure taken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to ensure the safety of the general mass. However, this measure was opposed by the automobile industry. If the automobile industry is considered to be a group of individuals, then according to the theory of utilitarianism this group has to be overlooked as utilitarianism emphasizes on the benefit of the majority not the minority. The new law affects automobile manufacturers in a number of respects. Using the airbag will increase their manufacturing costs and they will be forced to charge greater prices for the cars. If they charge greater prices for cars, customers will no longer purchase cars produced by US automobile manufacturers, but move to vehicles produced by overseas manufacturers, creating US automobile companies non-competitive on the market. Their problem is of great concern but still, they are in the minority so, utilitarianism theory overlooks their concern. As articulated by Mill and Bentham, Utilitarianism aims for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not for the pleasure of the individuals.

Utilitarianism critics have charged that it is not a complete approach to ethical decision-making because it ignores intentions and motives, which are also essential in moral decision-making, by focusing on the consequences of actions. In this situation, the consequence of the technical execution is still unsure. Repeatedly questions were raised against the research made, the engineering design, etc. The intentions or motives for the action, however, are people’s safety, but they involve numerous expenses. It was a major problem when opponents of the ‘ airbag ‘ installation technology discovered that increased use of the seat belt could serve the safety objective of the airbag installation. More importantly, the use of seat belts has increased in recent years in the US through increasing public education. This can be a good solution to the issue that serves the purpose of both groups.

The application of utilitarianism in today’s business world is the cost-benefit analysis. This analysis is executed by every business before undertaking any major decision. Under this will be considered all the costs and benefits of an action being proposed. Then the task of comparison is carried out. If the value of the benefit exceeds the cost of the proposed action it is decided to be executed. If vice versa happens, however, the suggestion will be dismissed. This is a decision-making extreme quantitative approach. Now let’s see how an actual-life example of this assessment works in real life.

Custom Graphic Works has been operating for just over a year, and sales are exceeding targets. Currently, two designers are working full-time, and the owner is considering the increasing capacity to meet demand. (This would involve leasing more space and hiring two new designers.)

He decides to complete a Cost-Benefit Analysis to explore his choices.

Assumptions

Currently, the owner of the company has more work than he can cope with, and he is outsourcing to another design firm sate cost of $50 an hour. The company outsources an average of 100 hours of work each month.

He estimates that with increased capacity, revenue will increase by 50%.

With more workspace, manufacturing per person will boost by 10 percent.

The horizon of analysis is one year: that is, he expects benefits to accrue in the year.

• Cost
• Types
• Details
• Comes in the First Year
• Lease
• 1250 square feet available next door at $20 per square foot

1. $25,000

• Leasehold
• Improvements
• Wall decoration and reconfiguring office physical space

1. $20,000

• Hire four more designers and technicians
• Salary, including benefits
• Recruitment costs
• Orientation and training

1. $100.000

• Two additional service center
• Furniture, Hardware
• Buy needed software

1. $10,000
2. $1,000

• Construction downtime
• 2 Months at approximate revenue per month

1. $15000
2. $30000

• Total

1. $1,86,000

• Benefits
• Benefit
• Benefit Within 12 Months
• 50 percent revenue increase

1. $19,500

• Paying in-house designers $15 an hour, versus $50 an hour outsourcing (100 hours per month, on average: savings equals $3,500 a month)

1. $42,000

• 10 percent improved productivity per designer ($7,500 + $3,750 = $11,250 revenue per week with a 10 percent increase = $1,125/week)

1. $58,500

• Improved customer service and retention as a result of 100 percent in-house design

1. $10,000

• Total

1. $305,500

• He calculates the payback time as shown below:

1. $139,750 / $305,500 = 0.46 of a year, or approximately 5.5 months

However, this cost-benefit analysis is not without any limitations. It does not consider the qualitative aspect of a decision and it is an application of Bentham’s principle of utility.

As an ethical hedonist, the 18th-19th-century English utilitarian philosopher and proto-bleeding- heart-liberal Jeremy Bentham, believed that right and wrong could be determined by weighing the “pleasures” and “pains” of any given action, with an action that produced more pleasure than the pain being morally right.

While this would be great by itself (in a geeky kind of way), what makes it truly spectacular is the fact that Bentham actually created an algorithm to define exactly how much pleasure and pain an action would cause. (His application of algebra to life decisions is echoed by at least one complete whack-job modern author…)

To determine an individual’s pleasure or pain from an action, Bentham suggested weighing Intensity(pleasure‘s strength), Duration (how long pleasure would last), Certainty (the probability action will result in pleasure), Propinquity (how soon the pleasure might occur), Fecundity (the chance the pleasure would result in further actions), and Purity (the probability these further actions would be pleasures and not pains). He also added Extent, taking the impacts of that choice on other individuals into consideration.

We can only guess at the specific algebra Bentham used to compare these variables and he left no note of how to quantify, for example, the intensity of pleasure, but in Bentham’s day, he envisioned his hedonistic calculus used for many decisions, including calculating jail sentences: given a certain crime, Bentham thought it possible to determine the punishment that would outweigh the crime‘s pleasure and thus prevent future crimes.

Interestingly, Bentham’s thinking about prisons didn’t stop at sentencing length. He also designed the prison known as the Panoptic on, in which prisoners in open cells tall times feel as if they are being watched by guards in a central tower. To Bentham, the Panoptic on allowed guards to gain ‘power of mind’ over the prisoners.

Bentham in his theory ignored the significance of the pleasure of the mind while prioritizing the pleasure of the body. John Stuart Mill has corrected this flaw by establishing his theory of the principle of happiness. Mills argued that happiness is more important and it is different from pleasure. This is because pleasure in quantitative and happiness is qualitative; happiness requires cognitive judgment and sometimes pain of the body can yield happiness. So, pleasure is not necessary for happiness.

Therefore, there are a number of limitations to the utilitarian principle. It prioritizes consequences overlooking the means of action and overlooks the fact that results are somewhat uncertain. It prioritizes consequence overlooking the means of the action and ignoring the fact that there is some uncertainty of outcomes. The analysis of cost-benefit ignores the compromises that the study makes in providing the company with certain incentives. It ignores the right of the individual and does not take into account the benefit of the minority. Still, the concept of the free market economy is based on the utilitarian principle of utility and it is very successful. But for this the limitations it carries cannot be overlooked. That is why the philosopher Kant established the theory of rights and duties to let the world get rid of the dilemma.

Conclusion

From the discussion throughout the research, Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. John Stuart Mill is an early classical follower of the philosopher Bentham, who discovered with this philosophical theory. John Stuart Mills did somehow share some different views regarding some aspects of this theory in the light of the sense of happiness. In later times, Philosopher Karl Marx criticized Bentham’s application of the “yard measure” of now to the past, present and future. And as an ethical hedonist, Jeremy Bentham believed that right and wrong could be determined by weighing the “pleasure” and “pains” of any given action, with an action that produced more pleasure than the pain being morally right. Finally, there are a number of constraints to the utilitarian principle. It prioritizes consequences that overlook the means of action and ignore the fact that results are somewhat uncertain. The cost-benefit analysis ignores the compromises made by research to provide the company with certain incentives.

Reference

1. Anthony Quinton, Utilitarian Ethics (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1988), especially pp. 47 – 49, Quinton Case Study in Business Ethics, 2nd ed., eds. Thomas Donaldson and A.R. Gini (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984), p. 181
2. G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903
3. General Motors Study, About Air Bags, (Washington DC: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1987)
4. Dave Zoia, “Some Wait to Decide on Passive Restraints”, Automotive News (September 15, 1986), p1
5. Driver, Julia, ‘The History of Utilitarianism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from.
6. ‘Utilitarianism’. Wikipedia. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
7. ‘Marx’s Criticism Against Utilitarianism • Philosophy Discussion Forums.
8. Onlinephilosophyclub.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
9. ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: Deciding, Quantitatively, Whether To Go Ahead’. Mindtools.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
10. If It Feels Good, Do It: Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus. ‘If It Feels Good, Do It: Jeremy Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus’. Science 2.0. N.p., 2016. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.
11. Driver, Julia. ‘The History Of Utilitarianism’. Plato.stanford.edu. N.p., 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.

Introduction

Ethics alludes to a set of accepted rules that aides a person in managing others. Business ethics analyze moral issues that emerge in a business situation. Ethics is connected to all controls of the executives, for example, human asset the board, creation, deals, advertising, and worldwide business. Moral conduct is significant when managing any partners who have a case on and a stake in an organization. The primary partner gatherings are investors, supervisors, representatives, providers and wholesalers, clients, network, society, and country. Partners can legitimately profit or endure misfortune by the organization’s activities.

In my view, one of the real organization’s partners are supervisors. Supervisors ought to make a working environment where colleagues certain and ready to raise ethical issues. Additionally, they should realize how to impact workers’ conduct in a ethical heading. I accept that supervisors have a genuine obligation to show representatives what they need to know to perceive and manage moral issues, which they are probably going to look at work. What’s more, administrators’ choices ought to mirror their own ethical guidelines of lead. Besides, their code of ethics should set up moral lead between not just the executives and workers, yet in addition the organization and its different partners. Directors settling on choices in universal business face various explicit moral issues, which are because of certain components, for example, the decent variety of political and legitimate guideline frameworks, the decent variety in types of efficient association and levels of financial advancement and inadequate guidelines or debasement in certain regions of the world.

Business ethics is basic in structure an organization’s picture which intensely influences the business itself and the general public encompass it. While numerous organizations have synonymized it with simply standing the laws, others are endeavoring to work morally and build up codes of behaviors for representatives to pursue. Acting morally doesn’t guarantee a productive result while untrustworthy business act doesn’t mean the business will be rebuffed. Notwithstanding, in the 21st century, organizations are being administered all the more cautiously and ethical business acts are normal from the open. Over the long haul, acting ethically additionally acquires the organization a bigger number of favorable circumstances than organizations that work unethically.

Business ethics thinks about what is good and bad (Velasquez 2006); it is the consolidated comprehension of the ethical standard, theory, legislative issues and law (Velentzas & Broni 2010). It gives a rule to company to work morally and an ethical standard to administer corporate conduct.

Importance of business ethics

The impact of business in the public eye is more noteworthy than at any other time. Numerous individuals from the network are uneasy with such advancements. Business ethics encourages us to get it why this is going on, what its suggestions may be, and how we may address this circumstance. Likewise, business acts of neglect can possibly deliver huge damage on people, on networks and on the earth. Through helping us to get it progressively about the causes and results of these acts of neglect, business ethics looks for, ‘to improve the human condition’. Besides, the requests being set on organizations to be moral by their different partners are always winding up progressively unpredictable and all the more testing. Business ethics gives the way to acknowledge and comprehend these difficulties all the more obviously, so firms can meet these moral desires all the more adequately. At last, business ethics is additionally incredibly intriguing in that it furnishes us with learning that rises above the conventional system of business examines and faces us with probably the most significant inquiries looked by society. The subject can accordingly be luxuriously compensating to consider in light of the fact that it furnishes us with information what’s more, aptitudes, which are not just accommodating for working together, but instead, by helping us to comprehend current social orders in a progressively deliberate manner, can propel our capacity to address life circumstances a long way past the study hall or the workplace work area (Part A. Understanding 2006).

Stakeholders and Ethics

The individuals and gatherings that have an immediate or backhanded stake in an association are called its partners. The fundamental partner gatherings are: investors, supervisors, representatives, providers and wholesalers, clients, network, society and country state (chapter 5 business ethics.) stakeholders. An investor (or investor) is a foundation or person that lawfully possesses any piece of a portion of stock in an open or private enterprise. This stock awards them the privilege to acquire a portion of the organization’s benefits as profits. Investors consistently need to accomplish greatest benefits. Along these lines, they focus on the organization and its directors so as to make sure that they are working viably to expand the organization’s gainfulness. In addition, investors need to guarantee that administrators carry on morally and that they care about organization’s notoriety.

Administrators are a critical partner bunch since they are in charge of utilizing an organization’s monetary capital and HR to build its gainfulness (Chapter 5. Business ethics). They should not carry on wrongfully or dishonestly or to seek after objectives that compromise investors’ or workers’ interests. They need to act morally as to the necessities of individuals in the association and the network. They ought to likewise give a working condition that ensures the wellbeing and security of representatives and limits worry at work.

Then again, chiefs are all the time gone up against with ethical issues in the work environment including representative burglary, deceiving or lying. There are numerous ways, wherein directors can impact the individuals in their organizations to carry on ethically. Initially, they can advance virtues that representatives use to decide. They can exhibit those values by carrying on with a particular goal in mind –, for example, by being straightforward. Supervisors have a genuine obligation to train workers what they have to know to perceive and manage ethical issues they face at work. Direction with respect to ethical lead is a fundamental part of controlling their activities. It can give significant data about hierarchical principles and approaches, and direction about conduct that is viewed as proper or wrong in various circumstances. As per Manning and Haddock (1990) there are five stages that must be taken by supervisors to build up a moral working environment:

1. Express your corporate qualities and ensure every one of your workers understand them.
2. Ensure your promises are never broken. Act with trustworthiness and anticipate workers also, partners to do as such too.
3. Express your appreciation. Exhibits of appreciation reinforce the ethical establishment of your office and support moral conduct from others.
4. Make others effective.
5. Settle on sure the entirety of your choices mirrors your ethical guidelines and qualities.

Employees.

Employees are likewise an essential partner bunch in light of the fact that the organization can’t exist without them. They work for that organization for monetary benefit. Chiefs frequently set various conditions to business, for example, a clothing regulation and conscious conduct. Representatives must be faithful to the organization they work for. Ethical direct empowers them to incorporate their own objectives with the organization’s points. Organizations with a ethical methodology accept that their workers are progressively dedicated to their prosperity thus. Furthermore, in that sort of organization representatives work more earnestly so as to accomplish hierarchical points. Moral associations additionally accept that they will be better ready to enlist well-qualified and propelled workers.

Providers and wholesalers.

Associations cooperate with their providers and merchants. A provider is an organization, which supplies parts or administrations to another organization. Ethical providers supply astounding items and look for long haul productivity. A wholesaler is an organization, which sells and conveys product to retail locations or goes about as a go-between in business. Providers hope to be paid reasonably and immediately for their sources of info while merchants hope to get astounding items at settled upon costs. The most significant issues associated with the installments or the characteristics of items are represented by the terms of the legitimate contracts, though numerous different issues are reliant on business ethics. The organization should treat the providers with reasonableness and respectability and assemble commonly useful connections, paying little heed to the estimation of the exchange or the length of the affiliation.

Clients.

Business ethics is particularly significant in managing clients. It is said that clients are the most basic partners. In this way, the organization’s primary goal ought to be consumer loyalty. At the point when clients are fulfilled, they will be faithful to the organization and return for re-obtaining. On the off chance that the shoppers are not fulfilled, at that point there will be no deals and no benefits either. Buyers will be fulfilled just if the organization pursues all the moral standards and qualities. Clients have more trust and trust in the businesspersons who pursue moral standards. In this manner, the best way to get by in business is to be completely forthright and reasonable. The organization’s essential obligation is to give customers great worth furthermore, top notch items that are dependable and safe.

Conclusion

Taking everything into account, business ethics is basic in working a business. It a major factor that business chiefs consider before settling on any choice. Deceptive organizations will undoubtedly have less preferences contrasting with ethical organizations when searching for coordinated effort, association also, even clients. Business ethics not just make work fulfillment, propel representatives and energize working morally inside, additionally influences how one’s business is seen by others. Keeping the moral business soul is significant, since exploitative business probably won’t be rebuffed by law, it contaminates the business culture, structure negative response inside and remotely. Despite the fact that how one perspectives ethics is extraordinary, business ethics will undoubtedly affect emphatically to the business adventure and the general public encompass it.

What is Ethic?

“Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.” (1) They influence how individuals settle on choices and lead their lives. Morals is worried about what is useful for people and society and is likewise depicted as good way of thinking. Morals thinks about people and their connection with nature and with different people, on opportunity, on duty and on equity. Its subject comprises of the key issues of commonsense basic leadership, and its significant concerns incorporate the idea of extreme worth and the models by which human activities can be made a decision about set in stone.

What is business ethics?

“Business ethics is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics, that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment.” (2) Business ethics is the examination of appropriate business courses of action and chips away at with respect to possibly questionable subjects including corporate organization, insider trading, gift, separation, corporate social obligation, and watchman obligations.

Business ethics in company in home country

“Carry out their responsibilities honestly and with integrity, exercising at all times their best independent judgment.” (3) Sobeys is working very honestly and with integrity in the Canada. As i mentioned their ethics in Canada in lower paragraphs:

• Working Environment: As Sobeys “Promotes a safe workplace.” (3) We endeavor to make a workplace described by trust and regard for everybody we manage – clients, individual representatives, providers and different partners in our business. The Company is focused on making a workplace which empowers all representatives to contribute dependent on their presentation and capacity. It perceives the pride and worth everything being equal and it empowers everybody to work without being hassled, threatened or confronting segregation.
• Insurance from Harassment and Discrimination: “Harassment means a course of conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be offensive or unwelcome to the recipient.” (3) Each representative has a privilege to a work environment free from segregation and badgering. The Company restricts a wide range of unlawful segregation and provocation in the work environment, regardless of whether coordinated at an individual or a gathering. This incorporates segregation dependent on race, ethnic starting point, spot of inception, shading, religion, age, sex, sexual direction, conjugal status, family status and handicap. It can likewise be a course of lead or conduct that incorporates verbal, physical and psychological mistreatment which makes a scary or hostile workplace for the beneficiary.
• Confidential: “Confidential Information means commercially or competitively sensitive, proprietary or private information concerning the business and affairs of the company or suppliers.” (3) Unapproved exposure of Confidential Information can seriously harm the Company. The chiefs, officials and representatives of the company are denied from unveiling or utilizing Confidential Information aside from in the normal course of business. Workers who are not approved spokespersons must not react to request from the venture network, the budgetary media or different people, except if explicitly requested to do as such by an approved representative. Confidential Information must not be unveiled to anybody, inside or outside the organization, aside from in the essential course of business.

Business ethic plan for target country

• Worker Privacy: The Company regards all employees‟ protection and just gathers data about workers for legal reasons significant to the business. Data in work force documents and medicinal records is carefully secret. Access is accessible just to approved people. Accordingly, all solicitations for references or work data must be alluded to the Human Resources Department.
• Work environment Health and Safety: The Sobeys is focused on giving a sound, protected and secure work environment. To maintain this objective, we should all:
• Comply with all pertinent well-being and security enactment and guidelines.
• Comply with all ecological well-being guidelines.
• Comply with all Company well-being and security approaches.
• Wear or potentially utilize the well-being gear, materials and gadgets required by enactment and additionally Company arrangements.
• Take fitting activities to take out, control or report unsafe conditions when watched; we should never put our own well-being in danger in endeavoring to address a dangerous condition.
• Follow safe work strategies in doing our activity obligations.
• Keep personal life away from professional life: Now and then our own and business lives cover and we may discover ourselves in a place of considering a business association with a relative, life partner or dear companion or their boss. On the off chance that an issue settles, or on the other hand makes the appearance or impression of bargaining, our capacity to act in the Company’s best advantages, we should talk about the issue with our HR team. Issues that require dialog include:
• Hiring of a relative or close companion
• A relative is utilized by a contender at a senior level
• An individual with whom we have a nearby close to home relationship is a noteworthy investor or an official with a contender
• Purchasing merchandise or administrations for Company use from a relative or on the other hand dear companion
• Honesty: Ethics officials are straightforward and honest in the entirety of their dealings and they don’t intentionally delude or bamboozle others by distortions, exaggerations, incomplete facts, specific exclusions, or some other methods. Sobeys will always stay honest about price and qualities to customers and will never play a game with supplier about payments.
• Law abiding: Ethic officials keep laws, principles and guidelines identifying with their business exercises. As Sobeys are going to deal with medicines too on our store. We will always keep take care that our employees sell the powerful medicine to customer after checking the age of the customers and make a proper record of the customers.

Steps to build and implement ethic plan

• Define code of conduct.
• Hire ethics leader.
• Hire ethics committee.
• Ethics training and development to employees
• Ethics helpline to discuss issues and complaints.
• Time to time monitoring.
• Periodic Evaluation.
• Rewards to employees for excellent performance

Conclusion

The nature and objectives of business ethics should be comprehended with the end goal for people to comprehend their rights in the present society. Business ethics is an investigation that goes a lot further than the idea of deceiving or unscrupulousness. Themes including dependability, desires, and pessimism have an incredible influence in the investigation of business ethics. Along these lines, ethics may likewise be characterized as a lot of good standards. Our company will take care that every employee follows rules and regulations of the company. As smoking is prohibited in the stores.

Reference

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ethics
3. https://corporate.sobeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Business_Code_of_Conduct.pdf
4. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/values-ethics/code/what-is-ethics.html
5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml
6. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy
7. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business-ethics.asp
8. https://corporate.sobeys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Business_Code_of_Conduct.pdf
9. https://josephsononbusinessethics.com/2010/12/12-ethical-principles-for-business-executives/
10. https://www.workforce.com/1997/09/01/12-steps-to-building-a-best-practices-ethics-program/

Introduction

Nike is an American-born company that is heavily involved in the designing and making of footwear, clothing, sporting-equipment and services. Its primary headquarters is located near Beaverton, Oregon and it is the world’s largest corporation in terms of sports related sales. The company was founded in 1964 and initially named ‘ Blue Ribbon Sports’ collaboratively by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight however it was later renamed ‘Nike’. The company is globally renowned for sponsoring celebrity athletes such as Serena Williams, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, with its very recognisable slogan, ‘Just Do it’. Whilst Nike is perceived as a highly reputable and innovative corporation, their reputation has not always been maintained to the highest standard.

Nike’s success in sales and marketing

As a small and amateur company that started with 1200 dollars, no one could foresee Nike’s growth and success. So how is this growth “good” or beneficial? More than many other companies, Nike has developed a powerful and universally recognisable brand, thanks not only to its product offerings but also to a rich history of partnerships and sponsorships involving many of the world’s greatest athletes. While Nike is responsible for designing, developing, and marketing many different types of sports apparel and equipment, the vast majority of the company’s manufacturing is outsourced to independent contractors. This strategy has not only benefitted Nike financially ( as it is cheaper to manufacturer goods overseas, in countries such as Vietnam or China), it has also promoted the company’s products to many other countries in the world. These strategies conserve finances for Nike and increases sales significantly. According to Nike’s 2018 annual report, the company generated 36.4 billion American dollars in revenues or just under 16 billion dollars in gross profit. This record revenue for the company marks a 6% increase over 2017 figures. However, Nike’s success is not purely beneficial for the company itself, it has also helped innovate the shoes, apparel and sporting equipment industry significantly, which in turn benefits costumers.

Nike creates more jobs

Without question, a large-scale company like Nike would bring substantial numbers of jobs in all locations in the world however, what Nike has done in terms of increasing job opportunities is incredible. In the United States only, Nike has 76,700 retail employees alone. This does not include the designers, office-workers, delivery staff and so on. It is estimated that in the whole of Asia, Nike employs more than 80,000 workers, whether that’d be factory-workers, retail-staff, delivery-staff and office-workers. You can imagine how many Nike staff there are in the world. From the above statistics, it is proven that Nike has created many job opportunities in all locations of the world, and even helps out the disadvantaged ( by assigning them to factories).

Nike isn’t ethical

Although Nike have recently improved its reputation and dominated the shoes and sportswear industry, some of its practices are still questioned and completely not transparent. ‘The International Labour Rights Forum’ has stated that Nike has ‘turned its back on its commitment to the Worker Rights Consortium ( WRC)’, which effectively blocks labour rights experts from independently monitoring Nike’s supplier factories.’ ( Quoted from TILRF Website) Nike only managed to score 36 out of 100 in the ‘Fashion Revolution’s 2017 Fashion Transparency Index’, showing that the company is nowhere close to being transparent with its consumers. However, recently, Nike has made some positive alterations to its environmental practices by using sustainable and recyclable materials, including organic and recycled cotton and polyester whilst cutting down on water wastage. It has also made a public commitment and statement to decrease its carbon emissions by over 50% by 2025. Nike has joined ‘The Sustainable Apparel Coalition’, however, the corporation has not done much in terms of making their factory conditions healthier for their workers, which creates an immense problem for workers who are exposed to them and for those who choose to purchase Nike products. Greenspace, a credible organisation that deals with environmental issues, have voiced their concerns and disappointment in regard to Nike’s waste-release into water bodies. However, the company is ‘Fair Labour Association (FLA) Workplace Code of Conduct certified’ and managed to get the top score in the ‘2017 Ethical Fashion Report for its Supplier Code of Conduct’. ( However, this was questioned by many) Nike seems to give their factory workers very little power to speak up about their concerns in their personal safety and wellbeing, which should be a basic human right; especially in a corporation as large-scale and recognisable as Nike.

Conclusion

The discussion above may seem too balanced to ultimately decide whether Nike is ‘Good or Evil’ however, it seems to me that it is more good than evil. Even though currently, Nike may subject its factory employees to some hazardous materials, or their wages may not be high enough, they are working to improve this. However, Nike’s impact on the global economy and its innovative designs and products have not only benefitted themselves financially but has also satisfied their customers whilst improving the apparel and sportswear industry. Therefore, I believe that Nike is ultimately more good than evil.

Enron, at its zenith, was the largest energy trading company worldwide and the seventh largest corporation in the United States of America. Kenneth Lay founded the company during the 1980’s in Houston, Texas, and he, alongside Jeffrey Skilling, are recognized as the figures behind the company’s growth and success. From 1996 to 2000, company sales increased nearly eight-fold from $13.3 billion to a whopping $100.8 billion. In August 2000, Enron shares reached its peak with a value of $90.56, and the company had a market value of $70 Billion.

The company was unprecedented in terms of rapid growth and, as it was, all they had achieved was truly too good to be true. Within a year from accomplishing this impressive feat, the company was in shambles. Their CEO resigned, misleading reports were published, incriminating documents were destroyed, share value fell to $1.00, a desperate buy-out failed, and the company filed for bankruptcy.

The downfall of the Enron executives was rooted in their insatiable greed. They could have grown their company slowly and organically, but instead, they chose a hasty but unethical expansion. Enron had a proclivity for practicing a myriad of unethical practices which include embezzlement, unfair wages, exploitation of a deregulated market, and obstruction of justice. The chief issue that led to their downfall was their questionable accounting practices that massively overstated company revenue to lure investors under the guise of profitability.

First and foremost, Enron executives were involved in embezzlement. Embezzlement is a white-collar crime wherein funds entrusted to an employee are misappropriated. The two CEOs took advantage of Enron’s profits, when it was still in its heyday, and pocketed a substantial amount of company earnings. Company CEOs Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay were both charged with embezzlement due to fraudulent transactions. Skilling’s accounts showed multiple fund wire transfers to Raptor, a financial structure backed by Enron stock. Lay, in addition to also being found guilty of wire fraud, was charged with making false statements to banks that netted him a hefty cut of $75 million.

In terms of unfair wages, Enron utilized a flawed compensation and performance management system wherein the most valuable employees earned an unreasonable amount more in salaries and bonuses than average performing employees. This prompted the establishment of a dysfunctional corporate culture that prioritized short-term earnings since it maximized bonuses. Enron employees would close whatever deals they could, regardless of quality, in order to attain better performance ratings and qualify for large cash bonuses and stock options. Enron awarded these top employees with unreasonable salaries. Their wages were as much as twice of those with the same position in rival companies. In the year 2000, the two hundred top employees of Enron were awarded a collective $1.4 billion in the form of salaries, bonuses, and stock.

The obstruction of justice case in question was not against Enron; it was directed towards Arthur Andersen whose firm was in charge of auditing Enron. Andersen was found guilty of obstruction of justice because he deleted thousands of emails, documents, and company files related to the auditing of Enron. This felony resulted in the loss of the company’s CPA license which in turn, caused 85,000 people their jobs.

In 1999, California deregulated its energy market. Tim Belden, head of Enron’s West Coast Trading Desk in Portland Oregon, exploited this deregulation by congesting California power lines which caused an energy crisis in the state. This raised electricity prices which put more in the pockets of Enron executives, but at the same time, it caused California a loss of $ 7 million. Moreover, due to Enron executives having strong connections with powerful people in the White House, Enron as a whole was deregulated. The implication of this was that Enron was free to operate without scrutiny from the government. This is largely how the company escaped incarceration for any of its countless illegal acts.

Another questionable practice that further cements the lack of ethicalness of Enron CEOs is when in 1988, a group of stock analysts were invited to tour the Enron Energy Services office. They were deceived into believing Enron was a much larger company than it actually was because Skilling instructed employees from other offices to act as if they were workers in that office. This was done to convince the analysts that the company was much larger and successful than it actually was which would help improve stock prices.

Lastly, the most well-known and documented of Enron’s unethical acts was its questionable accounting practices.

Technically, the accounting method they utilized, mark-to-market accounting, is legal, but it is practiced mostly by Finance companies. Enron was the first energy company to adopt this method which was entirely unsuitable for a company in that industry. Their rationale for utilizing this method was unethical and greedy. They exploited this method as a loophole to misrepresent company revenue. Mark-to-market accounting involves automatically listing income from long-term contracts at present value. In other words, income expected in the far future can be recorded at present instead of when it is actually earned. This resulted in a misrepresentation of revenue since large sums of money the company has not earned were already listed as present profit. Moreover, since the profit was already recorded in the present, it could no longer be counted when it is actually earned; therefore, Enron needed to continuously sign for new projects and close deals to include in their reports for the appeasement of their investors. Furthermore, this method is also known for having large discrepancies since much guesswork is done to estimate profits and cash. Consequently, reports given to investors were often misleading or entirely false.

Another unethical habit Enron practiced was declaring cancelled projects as assets. This was a method known as “the snowball” which legally allowed booking costs of cancelled projects worth up to $200 million to be considered assets, as long as there is no official letter marking the project as cancelled. Enron exploited this loophole to an unreasonable extent. For instance, in July 2000, Enron closed a deal with Blockbuster Video to bring on-demand entertainment to US Cities. This agreement was set for 20 years and Enron recognized an estimated $110 million from the first projects of the deal; however, the network soon failed and Blockbuster withdrew. Overall, this resulted in negative profits for Enron, but they continued to recognize future profits from the failed deal.

Another case of questionable accounting was Enron’s creation of “special purpose entities”. These were limited partnerships or companies that existed to fund or manage risks of certain assets. Enron used hundreds of these shell companies to conceal their debt and circumvent accounting conventions, resulting in lowered liabilities and overstated income. An example of this was Whitewing. Enron contributed $579 million for its creation in December 1997. Whitewing was then used to purchase $2 billion worth of Enron assets with Enron stock as its collateral. This transaction was recorded as sales for Enron when, in fact, it was an asset transfer that should have been considered a loan.

Filipino values at work in the Enron scandal are corruption, poorly distributed wealth, delikadesa, exploiting connections, and primacy on the name.

Corruption is evident in the actions of the Enron executives. Skilling and Lay were found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. They practiced corruption by taking cuts from company profits and awarding themselves excessive and large sums of bonuses.

The poor distribution of wealth was clear in the compensation system of the company. There was a large discrepancy between the salaries of the few top performing employees and the rest of the employees. The distribution of salaries was unfair and heavily favored the few who were on top much like the colossal gap of wealth between the tens of millions of poverty-stricken Filipinos and the small population of rich Filipinos.

Another Filipino value at work is delikadesa. There was a complete lack of this on the side of Enron who thrived on misrepresentation. Delikadesa was exhibited by Sherron Watkins, the whistleblower who exposed Enron for its unethical actions. Watkins was an Enron executive who had the propriety and hiya to reveal Enron’s shameful sins. She braved the backlash from her co-workers because she had the decency and bravery to be the whistleblower.

Exploiting connections is another trademark of Filipinos. Most often seen in politics, exploiting connections is a common practice powerful Filipinos use to further their own agendas. In this case, the Enron executives exploited connections by using their close ties to the White House to conceal their actions. Being closely connected to powerful officials swayed the government into turning a blind eye towards Enron’s questionable acts.

Primacy on the name was most evident on the part of Arthur Andersen, the auditing firm affiliated with Enron. Arthur Andersen himself was guilty of obstruction of justice because he erased emails, documents, and files that tied their accounting firm to Enron. Andersen’s name and honor was on the line because of their connection to the disgraced Enron and in attempt to rectify this, he obliterated any evidence of his firm’s role in Enron’s misleading reports.

The primary ethical dilemma in the Enron narrative is the executives choosing between running a business with lower revenues but honestly or with high profit margins but dishonestly.

From a subjectivism standpoint, one can argue that the Enron executives personally believed they were in the right. In subjectivism, determining whether an act is moral or not depends solely on the one making the decision. If Lay and Skilling feel that their actions are justified, then from their views it is acceptable. In the view of objectivism, one would need to examine the culture wherein Enron is immersed. As one of the top Fortune 500 companies, Enron thrived in the cutthroat Wall Street environment where morals and values can be slim to none. Other business cultures may be less forgiving in regards to ignoble acts, but in a place like Wall Street, questionable practices are commonplace and acceptable to a certain extent. In relativism, one could argue that the actions of Enron will always be wrong. In this theory, there is only one right or wrong and fraud and dishonesty should always be unacceptable regardless of the situation at the time.

From the view of utilitarianism, the decisions made by Enron can be considered a failure. This is because regardless of the means, the end result was failure. The actions of Enron resulted in their bankruptcy, the loss of employment of tens of thousands, and jail time for a number of Enron executives. Furthermore, their decisions are wrong because they caused substantial harm to other parties as well. Investors and stockholders lost billions in value and California residents suffered immensely from the energy crisis caused by the greedy and intentional congesting of power lines.

In Kantian Ethics, Enron was also still wrong. In Kantian Ethics, the most important factor when identifying if an action is ethical or unethical is goodwill. Enron demonstrated a complete lack of this. As evinced by their greedy actions towards investors, their company had no care for the welfare of others, only themselves.

In considering Ethics of care, it is evident that Enron did in fact, not care. They took no actions to fulfill their corporate social responsibility. They showed no empathy for the hundreds of thousands affected by their actions. They indicated no remorse for all the sins and atrocities they committed against humanity. The executive especially only cared about pocketing more money.

In virtue ethics, the unethicalness of their actions can be attributed to poor character and failure to observe the mean. Their business model was immoral because it was too greedy. It focused too much on profit and did not balance with goodwill and charity. The character of the executive, and the subsequent decisions they made, wrote Enron off as another selfish company with no regard for its employees or the masses.

One of the major ways Enron erred was in their impatience. The Enron CEOs, Skilling especially, were unsatisfied with the regular pace of company growth. Hence, they resorted to misleading the market and investors into believing their profits were much more than they actually were. Through exercising patience and growing their company organically, Enron could have stayed a viable business.

To rectify the issue of public mistrust, Enron should have been less deceitful. Enron misled the public and the business community into believing a number of their lies. For instance, they fooled analysts into believing the company had much more employees than there actually were. They also released many misleading financial reports which massively overstated their revenues. Lies of any sort ruin the credibility of a company, and as such must always be avoided to preserve a business’ reputation. The correct course of action of a business in any industry should be transparency. Enron was labeled the darling of Wall Street for a time but it was built on lies so it did not last. Truly, fake reputations are only temporary and the truth is bound to reveal itself at some point. Consequently, the safest choice for sustainable growth is to be transparent. After all, it is better to build a company slowly but surely than have one grow quickly but crash and burn just as fast.

The Enron scandal is the proverbial tale of how unethical business practices such as fraud, unfair wages, exploitation, obstruction of justice, and misleading reports can lead to the complete and abrupt decimation of a company that in its prime was even once named the most innovative large company in America in Fortune magazine’s survey of Most Admired Companies. In the Enron narrative the Filipino qualities of corruption, poorly distributed wealth, delikadesa, exploiting connections, and primacy on the name shined through. From the standpoint of nearly every ethical theory, the actions of Enron were wrong. Their means was questionable, and their end was a failure. They showed no remorse, and their character was poor. In the end, they failed due to their greed and penchant for misleading the public. Enron should have been more patient and grown their company in a sustainable fashion. They should have been less deceitful with their decision-making because in the end, their lies only brought them temporary success. True success cannot be cheated; it is earned through years of tireless honest work.

References

1. Alchin, L. (2018, January 09). Enron Scandal. Retrieved from http://www.american-historama.org/1990-present-modern-era/enron-scandal.htm
2. Hays, K. (2005, April 17). Next Enron trial focuses on broadband unit. Retrieved from https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2005-04-17-new-enron-trial_x.htm
3. Healy, Paul M.; Krishna G. Palepu (2003). ‘The Fall of Enron’ (PDF). Journal of Economic Perspectives. 17 (2): 9. doi:10.1257/089533003765888403.
4. Lambert, Jeremiah D. (2006). Energy Companies and Market Reform. Tulsa: PennWell Corporation. p. 35.
5. New York Times. (2006, January 18). Breakdown of the charges against Enron’s top officers. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/business/worldbusiness/breakdown-of-the-charges-against-enrons-top-officers.html?search-input-2=charges against enrons top officers
6. New York Times. (2007, May 10). Enron shareholders look to SEC for support in court. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/worldbusiness/10iht-enron.1.5648578.html?search-input-2=enron
7. Segal, T. (2019, February 09). Enron Scandal: The Fall of a Wall Street Darling. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/
8. Thomas, C. B. (2002, June 18). Called to Account. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,263006,00.html
9. Willmott, H. (n.d.). Enron Narrative. In Continental Philosophy and Business Ethics(pp. 96-116). 2011: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013338.006

What is business ethics?

Ethics is the part of reasoning worried about the importance of all parts of human behavior. theoretical ethics, sometimes called normative ethics, is about delineating right from wrong. It is supremely intellectual and, as a part of the reasoning, rational. It is the reflection on and meaning of what is correct, what’s up, what is simply, what is uncalled for, what is acceptable, and what is terrible as far as human conduct. It causes us to build up the standards and by which we judge and guide significant basic leadership.

What is Ethical Relativism?

Ethical relativism is the hypothesis that holds that ethicists are comparative with the standards of one’s way of life. That is, regardless of whether an activity is correct or wrong relies upon the ethical standards of the general public where it is polished. A similar activity might be ethically directly in one society yet be ethically off-base in another. For the ethics relativism, there are no all-inclusive good gauges that can be all around applied to all people groups consistently. The main good principles against which a general public’s practices can be judged are it’s own. If ethical relativism is right, there can be no normal structure for settling ethics debates or for agreeing on ethics issues among individuals from various social orders.

Most ethicists dismiss the hypothesis of ethical relativism. Some cases that while the ethical acts of social orders may contrast, the key good standards hidden these practices don’t. For instance, in certain social orders, butcher one’s folks after they arrived at a particular age was normal to work on, coming from the conviction that individuals were in an ideal situation in existence in the wake of death if they entered it while still genuinely dynamic and lively. While such a training would be censured in our general public, we would concur with these social orders on the basic good standard – the obligation to think about guardians. Social orders, at that point, may vary in their use of crucial good standards yet concede to the standards.

THREE ISSUES OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM IN BUSINESS

Child Labour

The fundamental ethics issue in due regard is that under the umbrella of widely acclaimed brands, nearby providers are deceptively applying youngster work considering house-to-house destitution and the staggering residential conditions in Africa and East Asia wherein most families regularly view their posterity as the sole wellspring of pay. Thinking about this, it is fairly hard to state where the issue of ethics should start. Henceforth, the investigation of pertinent hypothetical methodologies is important to completely appreciate the reality of the issue. Fundamentally, ethics hypotheses depend on the center establishments, for example, standards foreordaining shared objectives planned to be accomplished by each ethics hypothesis, including however not constrained to least mischief, usefulness, equity, and self-rule. The abuse of kid work doesn’t agree to both of the previously mentioned ethics standards. Neither does it produce a constructive outcome on youngsters as per the ethics rule of usefulness. As indicated by the ethics guideline of least damage, it is evident that while organizations are dealing with their momentary trading and business worries at the expense of the creating scene, they are devastating a great many youngsters by denying them of the ideal for a better future. In such a manner, managers show an absolute lack of regard for kid’s self-sufficiency, including their interests, inclinations and real inspirations. At last, youngster work is a genuine case of treachery practice which expects in general unfavorable effects to kid workers and economy all in all. This shows the worldwide economy will keep on contracting since the hole among rich and poor is quickly extending, and barely any association needs uneducated as well as unfortunate representatives either today or later on.

Animal Testing

The Canadian approach t animal testing incorporates limiting creature enduring at whatever point conceivable and utilizing options where pertinent. While perceiving that upgrades in numerous meds and medicines for infection, immunizations and other wellbeing helps are to a great extent because of creature testing, Canada despite everything bolsters refinement, substitution and decrease methods in creature testing. In Canada, the Canadian Council of Animal Care (CCAC) guarantees that creatures are utilized under moral and appropriate conditions. They refer to that creatures utilized for testing purposes must get ideal consideration inside the domains of the exploratory use. Moreover, they should be dealt with compassionately and deferentially over the span of their utilization. This utilization happens in colleges inside Canada just as in government and private offices the nation over. Rules made by the CCAC that oversee the test utilization of creatures necessitate that creature use human comprehension of science or to the picking up of information with the end goal that creatures or people can profit. It additionally refers to the significance of experts who can affirm that the exploratory use is to the greatest advantage of human or creature welfare.

There are, be that as it may, even now numerous associations and individuals from the open who do restrict creature testing in Canada. These are contained principally of the individuals who contradict beautifiers testing however on the other hand, bolster the utilization of creatures just when totally essential and just for the improvement of ailments and related medical problems. Because of open interest for a conclusion to creature testing in the beauty care products industry, a few beautifying agent’s makers have reacted by abrogating creature testing on beautifiers and solidly expressing their position on this kind of creature testing. Notices and item flyers are utilized to unmistakably show when an organization is against creature testing, which has improved deals for certain organizations in Canada.

In the same way as other different nations, Canada is available to stopping creature testing if a practical option is found or created. Until further notice, in any case, no such elective exists that is proportional to a whole life form. This implies creature testing in Canada will proceed however that it will do as such under guidelines and guidelines that guarantee creatures utilized for testing are dealt with morally and sympathetically.

Discriminations

The United Nations 1948 Declaration of Human Rights promoted the concept that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. Unfortunately, in the workforce, people are often a victim of discrimination.

The discrimination made by companies toward their employees is considered to be unethical incorporate behaviors. The term discrimination describes a large number of wrongful acts in employment, housing, education, medical care and other important areas of public life. Discrimination in employment generally arises from the decisions employers make about hiring, promotion, pay, fringe benefits, and the other term and conditions of employment that directly affect the economic interest of employees.

Discrimination at work could be sex discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful for an individual to be discriminated against in the workplace to selection for a job, training, promotions, work practices, dismissal or any other disadvantage such as sexual harassment.

Discrimination is divided into two main categories, direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination occurs where a person is treated differently on the grounds of their gender. Indirect discrimination is where an employer applies a requirement or policy, which though on the face of it has nothing to do with gender, in practice tends to affect one sex rather than another.

SHOULD MORAL THEORIES BE RELATIVE TO THE NORMS OF ONE’S CULTURE OR SHOULD IT BE ACCEPTED BY UNIVERSAL STANDARD?

The Abortion Debate

Some fetus removal rights advocates, in light of ace life contentions, act out such guard sticker mottos as: ‘Professional decision, however by and by restricted,’ ‘Don’t care for premature birth, don’t have one,’ or ‘Foetus removal is against my convictions, yet I could never fantasy about overwhelming my convictions on others.’ These trademarks endeavor to express in a basic manner a typical road taken by legislators and other people who need to stay away from the slings and bolts that normally follow an inflexible stance on fetus removal. It is an endeavor to discover ‘a trade-off’ or ‘a center ground’, it’s a method to abstain from being named ‘a fanatic’ of either camp. During the 1984 presidential crusade when inquiries of Geraldine Ferraro’s Catholicism and its evident clash with her premature birth rights position were noticeable in the media. New York Governor Mario Cuomo, in a talk, conveyed at the University of Notre Dame, endeavored to give this ‘center ground’ scholarly decency. He attempted to give a philosophical establishment to his companion’s position, however, he bombed wretchedly. For one can’t engage the way that we live in a pluralistic culture (portrayed by ethics pluralism/relativism) when the very inquiry of who is a piece of that society (that is, regardless of whether it incorporates unborn youngsters) is itself the point under debate. Cuomo made one wonder and lost the contention. The professional abortionist’s unaged suspicion of good relativism to understand the fetus removal banter uncovers a gigantic numbness of the master life position. For the truth of the matter is that if one accepts that the unborn are completely human (people), at that point the unborn conveyed in the bellies of ace decision ladies are similarly as human as those conveyed in the bellies of ace life ladies. For professional life, an unborn kid is no less a human individual basically because the youngster happens to be living inside Whoopi Goldberg or Cybil Shepherd. Philosophy doesn’t change character. Expert decisions should put probably some exertion into understanding the ace life position. At the point when they tell star lifers (as they regularly do) that they reserve a privilege to accept what they need to accept, they are accidentally advancing the extreme strategies of Operation Rescue (OR). Consider it. On the off chance that you accepted that a class of people was being killed by strategies that incorporate evisceration, suffocation, and consuming bringing about unbearable torment, as a rule, wouldn’t you be confused if somebody attempted to facilitate your shock by disclosing to you that you didn’t need to take an interest in the homicides on the off chance that you would not like to? That is actually what genius lifers hear when premature birth rights supporters let them know, ‘Don’t care for fetus removal, don’t have one,’ or ‘I’m ace decision, yet by and by restricted.’ In the psyche of the professional life, this resembles telling an abolitionist, ‘Don’t care for subjugation, don’t possess one,’ or disclosing to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ‘Don’t care for the holocaust, don’t kill a Jew.’ Consequently, to demand that ace lifers ‘shouldn’t constrain their star life conviction on others’ while simultaneously guaranteeing that ‘they reserve an option to accept what they need to accept’ is to uncover a staggering numbness of their position. In opposition to mainstream thinking, the supposed ‘expert decision’ position isn’t unbiased. The premature birth rights lobbyist’s case that ladies ought to reserve the ‘privilege to pick’ to slaughter their unborn embryos adds up to denying the expert life position that the unborn are deserving of assurance. Furthermore, the ace lifer’s certification that the unborn are completely human with a ‘right to life’ adds up to denying the premature birth rights position that ladies have a central right to end their pregnancies since such an end would bring about a murder. It appears, at that point, that speaking to ethics relativism (or good pluralism ala Mario Cuomo) to ‘explain’ the fetus removal banter is a scholarly inconceivability and illuminates nothing.

Conclusion

It appears that ethical relativism must be false. Ethnicity is not subjective. The ethics status of actions like rape or murder is not merely a matter of taste. It is simply not true that things are wrong only because most of us presently disapprove of them, or that they would become permissible if our society suddenly started finding these actions to be acceptable. No, it seems obvious that actions like rape or murder are wrong not just because most of us find them distasteful but rather because there is some objective ethics truth of the matter about the ethical status of such actions.