Слайд 2
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
UTILITARIANISM
MORAL RIGHTS
KANT
RAWLS
Слайд 3
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILTY
FRIEDMAN’S VIEW
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE’S VIEW
NOVAK --”BUSINESS AS
A CALLING”
Слайд 4
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
Ethics can provide guidance for addressing non-market
issues, such as product safety, environmental regulation & employment
practices
Ethics and corporate social responsibility can be alternative to and/or preempt government intervention & regulation
Ethics concerned with moral standards & normative issues (i.e., how businesses & managers ought to behave)
There are different ethical perspectives
Слайд 5
1. UTILITARIANISM
Strongest influence on our way of thinking,
e.g., social efficiency criteria
Weighing economic costs & benefits of
actions
Criticisms:
does not consider distribution effects
ignores intrinsic rights
does not consider values other than economic
Слайд 6
2. MORAL RIGHTS (KANT)
Includes, civil liberties (free speech),
political rights (right to vote, political equality)
Emphasis on freedom
and individual & moral rights
Embedded in U.S. constitution & legislation
Слайд 7
RULES USED TO DERIVE MORAL RIGHTS
Universibility- “would I
like everyone to behave in that manner?”
Reversibility- “would I
want that rule applied to me?”
Слайд 8
CRITICISMS OF KANTIAN MORAL RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
How does one
weigh conflicting rights?
For example:
“right to life” vs. “right to
choice”
equal opportunity vs. affirmative action
right to smoke vs. right to breathe clean air
Слайд 9
3. THEORY OF JUSTICE(JOHN RAWLS)
Similar to Kant’s moral
rights perspective, but adds comparative dimension
Concerned with relative standing
of individuals
Behind “veil of ignorance” we would choose an egalitarian society (Rawls argues)
Слайд 10
CRITICISMS OF THEORY OF JUSTICE:
Ignores the role of
differential rewards in furthering the general welfare in a
capitalist economy
Income “leveling” might reduce incentives to work and innovate and be detrimental to long term economic growth and societal well-being
Слайд 11
Cases of Applied Ethics
Affirmative Action: based mainly on
moral rights and equality principles
correcting for past wrongs;
however, does correcting past wrong create new ones (“reverse discrimination”)?
Affirmative action might also be justified by utilitarian perspective --as a way to diversify workforce and gain market insights-e.g., Levi Strauss Corp. example
Слайд 12
Cases of Applied Ethics
Microsoft Anti-trust case -- did
the company act in violation of moral rights and/or
utilitarian values and objectives?
Access to the Internet --public policy insights from applying all three ethical perspectives
Слайд 13
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
(1) Two Different Perspectives of CSR
Milton
Friedman
The Business Roundtable
(2) Novak --”Business as a Calling”
(3)
Ben & Jerry’s Case --Group 1
(4) CSR --can it serve utilitarian ends?
(5) PCConnection --Matt Cookson, Director of Public Affairs
Слайд 14
FRIEDMAN (CHICAGO SCHOOL) View of Corporate Social Responsibility
Managers/corporations
should maximize profits while conforming to the basic rules
of society
Shareholders are the principals, managers are their agents in the pursuit of profit max. and max. shareholder wealth
Profits represent the net contribution that the firm makes to the social good
Managers representing shareholders and profit maximizing also act in best interest of society
Managers using corporate resources to promote social objectives in fact would be undemocratic
Слайд 15
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
View of Corp Social Responsibility
It is
a corporation’s responsibility to serve the public interest, as
well as private profit
Corporate stakeholders include not only shareholders, but also: employees, communities, and society at large
Corporation is a legal entity, creation of the state, and therefore it should not be viewed as the sole owner of “its” assets
Слайд 16
NOVAK --BUSINESS AS A CALLING
Private firms add to
society’s well-being
Private corporations create wealth beyond the wealth that
existed before it came into being (similar to Friedman’s view)
(Even) the pope argues: “when a firm makes a profit, this means that productive factors of the earth are used to satisfy human needs and are at the service of the whole society”
Слайд 17
NOVAK’S VIEW
OF MANAGERIAL ETHICS
Business corporations generate an
important form of human community
Managers therefore have responsibility for
creating moral community at workplace (more in line with business roundtable)
Firms and managers responsibilities include:
facilitating rewards for hard work (consistent with our merit-based society)
promoting upward mobility
Слайд 18
Managerial Ethics: What are managers responsible for?
Adherence to
the letter & intent of the law
Honesty and integrity
Contributions
to the development.of employees and communities
Capability of withstanding full disclosure of activities, a willingness to reveal to family/community/general public any action
Слайд 19
Ben & Jerry’s Case
Group 1 case leadership
Слайд 20
Functionality of CSR: Does it (Can It) Contribute
to Profitability?
(+’s)
Good public relations, can improve public image
Can
be used as “tool” to reach common goals
-can guide employee behavior
-can lead to shared values and cooperative effort
- “larger” purpose for corporation and employees e.g., could be used for recruitment
Can help avoid costly errors that may result from too narrow a focus on short term profits (e.g., Exxon Valdez)
In general, can help firms better anticipate nonmarket pressures, that can affect profitability
Слайд 21
CSR (-’s)
Can take away from the focus of
the corporation
Expensive, according to Friedman, by definition corporate social
responsibility reduces profits
Corporations and managers are best at maximizing net worth, that is ultimate responsibility of business.
Managers are trained in business, not social policy and/or ethics
Dangerous, corporate activity outside the market in social responsibility arena can give managers discretion over use of corporate funds to promote their personal political and social beliefs- csr can be “undemocratic”
Слайд 22
CONCLUSION:
Ethics & Corporate Social Responsibility
“Power” of the
private market as a regulator of not only economic
behavior (most efficient use of resources by firms) but also corporate social practices
As consumers (employees) become more concerned with social, environmental and product safety issues and are provided with more info they are positioned to regulate corporate behavior and ethics through their purchases (decisions where to work)
Corporate social responsibility and ethical considerations influence purchase decisions of consumers, employee decisions of where to work, and investor decisions and thereby can contribute to profitability and net equity/worth