Business ethics are at THE HEART of ethics, but more advanced issues are unaddressed. A company can't commit murder because absolutely everyone agrees with the concept. Can a company still be moral if they sell tobacco products, or junk food, or paramilitary training? a companies practice may be ethical, even if they are in a somewhat'shady' industry.
Business ethics are at THE HEART of ethics, but more advanced issues are unaddressed. A company can't commit murder because absolutely everyone agrees with the concept. Can a company still be moral if they sell tobacco products, or junk food, or paramilitary training? a companies practice may be ethical, even if they are in a somewhat'shady' industry.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Business ethics are at THE HEART of ethics, but more advanced issues are unaddressed. A company can't commit murder because absolutely everyone agrees with the concept. Can a company still be moral if they sell tobacco products, or junk food, or paramilitary training? a companies practice may be ethical, even if they are in a somewhat'shady' industry.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The opening line in Paul Camenisch’s “Business Ethics: On
getting to the Heart of the Matter” is central to my working theory about religious business ethics so far. He writes, “Many current discussions of business ethics seem in the end to locate the ethical concern some distance from the central and essential activity of business.” He argues that basic human ethics are at the heart of ethics, but more advanced issues are unaddressed. At the heart of this argument, I say the issue lies at the concept of “the lowest common moral dominator.” It is possible to say there are certain moral standards that are accepted by business because absolutely everyone agrees with the concept. A company can’t commit murder because absolutely no one would support it within the company, or outside of it. When a group, for instance the American Family Association, institutes a boycott against a company for having non- exclusionary policies against LGBT workers, the company will not react with anti-gay fervor because they have the potential to lose just as many, if not more LGBT and allied customers. The article asks the reader to “Imagine a corporation which observes all the morals claims already noted—it does not commit fraud or murder, it freely contributes from its profits to various community ‘charities,’ its employment practices are above reproach, and it sells quality products at a fair and competitive price while securing for its investors a reasonable return on their investment.” The article then asks about the products or services offered by the company. Can a company still be moral if they sell tobacco products, or junk food, or paramilitary training? I say yes. A companies practice may be ethical, even if they are in a somewhat ‘shady’ industry. For example, a paper company may not be the environments best friend, however if a company takes steps to use recycled content, and use new growth wood from sustainably harvested areas, the company is taking steps to mitigate the impact of operations. This is ethical. On the opposite side of things, a company may be in an ethical industry, but make unethical decisions. For example, a solar panel manufacturer may purchase silicon from a company that extracts raw materials from a war torn nation. I feel a company is only as moral as required by law or by consumers. If consumers need a product, such as oil, consumers are willing to overlook issues such as exploration and extraction activities in war torn nations, or questionable environmental practices. Also, one must look at how the government reacts to practices as well. The government Is supposed to represent the people, and if the government doesn’t represent the proper interests ethical conflicts may result. The major fault I see with our economic system is not the corporation, with its emphatic goal for profits, but rather the breakdown of political leaders who create laws full of compromises that limit the possible breaches of ethics. If there are issues that are so important, laws should prohibit, or at least place responsibility for ethical breaches. I feel a good example of this was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. There is a title in this act that requires the CEO and CFO of a company to certify the accuracy of the financial statements. If they sign, but they have not reasonably verified the financial statements, then they face individual fault. The author also mentions the desire for persons to be “professional.” People like to be perceived to be the best. I remember watching this documentary on World Com, where AT&T, then only a national carrier, strived to match the profitability of WorldCom, when it turned out that WorldCom was fudging numbers because they had little or no accounting control. Bernie Ebbers, the CEO of the company, was obsessed with being the successful CEO, even though he had little expertise at running a large company, and was too concerned with little details. AT&T was actually at the top of the game, with huge profits from being a highly competitive player. AT&T was the most ethical player, because the strived for the profit for their shareholders, and provided services at a competitive price. If they weren’t so competitive at the dawn of the internet era, the United States may not have been at the forefront of the revolution at that time, and access may still be limited today. Although the goal of a company is to maximize profit, it doesn’t always mean short term profit. Continuing with the internet example, many places may not have direct internet connections had companies not invested in networks. Competitive activity has made many suburban communities and large rural towns connected to the global network. The author notes that while society has no need for profit making, people do. And while people would prefer minimal profits, they have the option of not using certain products. People use the products they do because they are the best fit for themselves.