Abstract In recent years, the business ethics literature has exploded in both volume and importance. Because of the sheer volume and diversity of this literature, a review article was deemed necessary to provide focus and clarity to the area. The present paper reviews the literature on business ethics with a special focus in marketing ethics. The literature is divided into normative and empirical sections, with more
emphasis given to the latter. Even though the majority of the articles deal with the American reality, most of the knowledge gained is easily transferable to other nations. Journal Information The Journal of Business Ethics publishes original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have
encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term 'business' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while 'ethics' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested
in business ethics – the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon. Publisher Information Springer is one of the leading international
scientific publishing companies, publishing over 1,200 journals and more than 3,000 new books annually, covering a wide range of subjects including biomedicine and the life sciences, clinical medicine, physics, engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, and economics. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Journal of Business Ethics © 1989 Springer
Request Permissions SpecificationIn Business Ethics, learners should have the opportunity to discuss issues raised by these areas of
business ethics, including: • the application of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism to business ethics • whether or not the concept of corporate social responsibility is nothing more than ‘hypocritical window-dressing’ covering the greed of a business intent on making profits • whether or not human beings can flourish in the context of capitalism and consumerism •
whether globalisation encourages or discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business Lesson ResourcesLesson 1: Kantian Business EthicsLesson with differentiated learning objectives, key words, reading tasks. Lesson 2: Utilitarian Business EthicsLesson with differentiated learning objectives, key words, reading tasks. NYT
Friedman Doctrine ArticleLink to article Johnson & Johnson CredoExample of Kantian ethics MultimediaNotes Kantian Approach Deontological-
An action is only good if it comes from a good will and not from anything else. Business should act responsibly because it is their duty and should not be driven by profit. May support corporate social responsibility – e.g. companies sponsor charities, support community, care about pollution or worker safety but only if done for duty’s sake and not to
promote or protect their own reputation. Supports whistleblowing - the right course of action can be worked out a priori – regardless of consequences, customs or culture. If a company is behaving in an inappropriate way, Kantians would argue that we have a duty to report this, regardless of consequent loss of job, opinions of co-workers etc. Regarding
globalisation, Kant would disagree with using cheap labour abroad to cut costs to maximise profits as we cannot use people as a means to an end.
Universal Law - Act according to that maxim which can be a universal law. Actions must be sustainable. Formula of Ends - Shareholders and stakeholders must be treated as ends and not means to an end. Kingdom of Ends - A Kantian approach to the organizational design of a business firm as a ‘kingdom of ends’ would consider the interests of all the affected stakeholders in any decision it makes. The managers of a business firm should respect the humanity in all the persons in the organization. On the other hand, each individual in a business firm should view the
organization other than purely a means for achieving individual goals. CASE STUDY: Nike - Since the 1970s, Nike, Inc. has been accused of using sweatshop to produce footwear and apparel to lower cost of labour which led to child labour and exploitation and increase profits. In this case, Nike have not behaved as law-making members of a kingdom of ends.
Stakeholder Theory: Freeman
& Evan: each stakeholder group has a right to be treated as an end in itself and not as a means to some other end, and therefore must participate in determining the future direction of the firm. Open book management: Developed by Jack Stack at the Springfield Manufacturing Company, all employees are given all the financial information about the company on a regular basis. With complete information and the
proper incentive, employees behave responsibly without the necessity of layers of supervision. Follows Kant's concept of respect for human persons as ends in themselves.
Objections Milton Friedman – stakeholder theory places managers in the impossible situation of balancing competing claims from a wide variety of
groups. Managers only responsibility is to shareholders to make a profit. Concern for customers should only be to extent it contributes to profit-making. Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives based on environmental or social justice limit shareholder wealth. it is a waste of corporate resources to reduce air pollution below the level required by law, to require vendors to participate in a sustainable supply chain
initiative, or to pay lower-level employees a salary above the legally mandated minimum wage. Friedman asserted that “doing good deeds” is not the job of corporations; it is the right of those people who want to do them but should not be imposed on those who do not. Kantian Ethics is too utopian and demands businesses abandon a hierarchical structure that requires those lower down to carry out the orders of those above, more or less without question. COUNTER: In management theory and in management practice teamwork is almost universally praised, and several corporations have endorsed
varieties of the concept of participative management, including Levi Strauss and Singapore Airlines.
Kantian Ethics is too demanding as it requires the motive to be purely out of duty, which is done for its own sake. A business, however ethical, must consider the profit motive. Defenders of Globalisation will argue it is a vehicle for expansion of
consumerism and justified for sake of profits. Kant ignores the environment and animal rights.
Utilitarian Approach Principle of utility – an action is right if it maximises pleasure and minimises pain. This
may lead the utilitarian to support corporate social responsibility as in most cases it would be more likely to produce more pleasure for the maximum about of people (customers and wider society). When it comes to whistleblowing, a utilitarian need to consider the interests of all of the workers and their own family, and weigh this against the damage being
done by the company. They should only blow the whistle if doing so leads to the greater good. Globalisation - need to weigh up impact, both negative (loss of jobs as local businesses cannot compete with global competitors) and positive (best prices for consumers and growth of online market allows for greater convenience to customers)
Bentham: Act; Hedonic Calculus - measure
the amount of pleasure and pain of each action. Objective empirical approach. CASE STUDY: Ford Pinto - It may seem at first that Ford acted in a utilitarian way with a simple cost/benefit analysis. However, they only considered the cost to the company. Bentham would argue that a customer dying would have effects lasting for years (duration) and would lead to friends/family suffering (purity) etc. You need
to consider all of the consequences.
Mill: Qualitative; Higher pleasure; Greatest Happiness Principle - Mill distinguishes between higher and lower-order pleasures and so workers need to be given safe working conditions, holidays, education for children etc. to bring about their happiness. Mill: Rule Utilitarianism: An action is right if it confirms to rules that follow utilitarian principles. Whereas an act utilitarian might justify an act of corporate espionage, for example, a rule utilitarian would consider the effects whole-scale and would consider it wrong. Singer:
Preference Utilitarianism: An action is right if it lead to the greatest number of preferences being met. CASE STUDY: Enron - In case of Enron inflating profits and misleading shareholders, they acted selfishly, making money for themselves whilst thousands lost out, and so this would be considered unethical.
Cost-benefit analysis: follows utilitarian
principles, adding up the benefits of a course of action, and then comparing these with the costs associated with it.
Objections Difficult to decide for whom the benefits should weight towards. Difficult
to predict consequences: e.g. consequences of whistleblowing Disregards the means in which the consequences are achieved: If acting irresponsibly would provide more pleasure than pain, utilitarian could justify acting irresponsibly. Rawls: Criticised utilitarianism as Principle of Utility can lead to tyranny and allow the minority to suffer. He
also criticised Mill's harm principle as it did not require anyone to give up anything if it had to be done with coercion or force. Instead of calculating pleasure and pain, profit and loss with the aim to maximise wealth (utilitarian goal), Rawls argues we should establish justice as criterion to distribute goods and services amongst the populace. He came up with three principles and five procedural steps for achieving this justice. The first principle is that of
the 'original position', that people can hypothetically arrive at a contractual position about distribution of resources on basis of resources. The second position, is the veil of ignorance, that those entering the contract enter it blind, putting all identity aside to redue bias. The third principle is the unanimity of acceptance, that all agree to contact before it goes into effect. Rawls hoped this justice theory
would provide a minimum guarantee of rights and liberties for everyone, because no one would know, until the veil was lifted. Strength of Rawls' approach to business: Justice and fairness is a value that is embraced across all cultures and social groups, which is important as businesses become more inter-dependent and globalised and need to pay more attention to human resources and leadership in diverse settings. Justice
theory may also provide a way of engaging in corporate social responsibility outwardly and employee development inwardly. Fairness as a corporate doctrine can be applied to all stakeholders and define a culture of trust and openness, with all the corresponding benefits, in marketing etc. RESPONSE to Rawls: Nozick argued that the power of the state may never ethically be used to deprive someone of
property that they have legally obtained or inherited in order to distribute it to others who are in need of it.
Bibliography Ahluwalia, L. & Bowie, R. 2017. Oxford A-level Religious Studies for OCR
Year 2. (OUP: Oxford). Bowie, N.E. (2002) "A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics" in Donaldson, T., Werhane, P.H., and Cording, M. Ethical Issues in Business: a philosophical approach. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall). Available online at:
http://www.chris-downs.f2s.com/BAM321/Assets/Kantian%20Approach%20to%20Business%20Ethics.pdf [Accessed 31 Mar 2021] Ed. Byars, S.M. & Stanberry, K. "Business Ethics" in Ethics from Antiquity to the Present. Available online at:
https://opentextbc.ca/businessethicsopenstax/chapter/a-theory-of-justice/ [Accessed 31 Mar 2021] Pojman, L.P. 2016. Discovering Right and Wrong. (Wadsworth Publishing: USA). RS Revision. Available online at:
http://www.rsrevision.com/ [Accessed 31 Mar 2021] Wilkinson, M. & Wilcockson, M., 2017. Religious Studies for A Level Year 2. (Hodder Education: London).
Which definition best describes utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness and oppose actions that cause unhappiness. Utilitarianism promotes "the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people."
What is the correct definition of business ethics?
What Is Business Ethics? By definition, business ethics refers to the standards for morally right and wrong conduct in business. Law partially defines the conduct, but “legal” and “ethical” aren't necessarily the same. Business ethics enhances the law by outlining acceptable behaviors beyond government control.
Which approach to ethics holds that the moral worth of actions or practices is determined by their consequences?
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong.
What does business ethics mean quizlet?
Business Ethics can be defined as. Comprises principles, values, and standards that guide behavior in the world of business. Principles. Specific boundaries for behavior that are universal and absolute i.e. Freedom of speech, civil liberties.
|
