Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of ethical issues on business activities
The impact of ethical issues on business activities
Corruption at workplaces
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of ethical issues on business activities
Philosophy Corporate Accountability
Corporate accountability is an important subject in today’s society, in reading “Corporate Culpability Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,” by Jennifer Moore it is obvious that she feels very strongly that corporations are not being held accountable for their actions. Jennifer argues that employees are often blamed for their actions, but are simply complying with their job. This is very insightful, and I find it very hard to disagree with her logic.
She starts her argument by rejecting the idea that “it is sometimes difficult to locate the specific corporate agents responsible for a criminal act (171).” The rejection is not meant to infer that it is always easy to find the person at blame, but simply that this point has to do with prosecutors evidence and not the philosophical issue. Jennifer believes that because responsibility is spread throughout many different areas in the corporation, and decisions follow the same path, “there may in fact be no individual or group of individuals that is “justly to blame” for the crime (171).” The idea that many of us notice everyday, in many cases we as employees act blindly in accordance with policy, not exerting any control over the situations, and can therefore not be held accountable. In this respect the corporation is to be held accountable.
From my viewpoint, while I represent the company during work hours, and the company reaps the benefits of my good nature, they should also bear the responsibility of my actions. If I treat a customer rudely, the customer treats that as an indication of my character, and a reflection on the company. When a person enters employment with a certain company, that company is accepting responsibility for actions taken by the employee that are in accordance with company policy. The corporation should be held responsible by the government, while the corporation should hold it’s own employees responsible for their own actions.
In response to the idea of a corporate responsibility, not an individual’s, many argue that if the corporation is not a person, how can it be held to the same moral guidelines as an individual? After all, don’t people make the decisions, and those same people make up the corporations, and should therefore be held accountable. This theory does not exclude the possibility of upper management being held responsible; rather it includes it for the sake of the company’s survival.
Throughout your life, you’ll face tough decisions where you'll have to decide possibly against your ethical beliefs. Ethics don’t necessarily always have to involve law abiding. It’s rather about trusting your moral path and doing the right thing. Dori Meinert is the author of “Creating an Ethical Workplace” she explains the thought behind the never black or white decision making when it comes to businesses. Can businesses truly trust those individuals hired to steer their companies? It was mentioned that last year 41 percent of U.S. workers said they observed unethical or illegal misconduct on the job, according to the Ethics Resource Center's 2013 National Business Ethics Survey. Meinert’s article was not only eye-opening but very truthful since we’ve all been faced or witnessed unethical decision making. Once employees see individuals breaking the rules and regulations others will then think it's okay, which could result in employees leaving or major hoops for companies to jump through. When we tolerate misconduct we lower productivity and diminish the reputation of a company. Meinert mentioned that if
The relationship between employees and employers is often confusing and blurry. Who has the upper hand? Who is in control? In an ideal world, both would be equal. Unfortunately this almost never happens. It’s a give and take situation that often fails. High level executives don’t often have the lower level employees taken care of as they should be. The case study on United Airlines is just one example of this. In 2005, United Airlines won the approval to default on their pension plans. Hundreds of thousands of employees lost a large chunk of their retirement money. Much like the Enron situation, employees trusted their company with their future and it didn’t work out the way they planned. It’s unethical
Corporate crime is extremely difficult to detect for many reasons. One major reason is that many people do not realise a crime is being committed as corporate crime is often seen as a victimless crime. At face value this may seem to be the case but if you look deeper you will see that this is not true. Every year the FBI estimates that 19,000 Americans are murdered every year compared with the 56,000 Americans who die every year from occupational disease such as black lung and asbestosis (Russell Mokhiber 2000). Deaths Caused by corporate crime are also very indirect so it can be very difficult to trace the problem to the corporation.
This is elaborated in The Corporation, where Joel Baken (2005, p.56) suggests that corporations are evil and pathological institutions due to the fact that managers are inherently righteous people with good intentions but, when in the context of business, will act in what would otherwise be deemed outside of their private lives in a psychopathic
Before determining a company criminal liability, it is important to distinguish clearly two forms of liability:
Solomon, J (2013). Corporate Governance and Accountability. 4th ed. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p.7, p9, p10, p15, p58, p60, p253.
In today’s society, corporations are expected to be socially responsible. Drucker (1981) stated that this is a growing trend or chic for businesses to conduct in an ethical manner. These organizations are socially responsible if they partake in performing duties that will benefit the humanity. Any unethical mistake can tarnish the company’s reputation. The audience associates the reputation in making various choices, such as investment, career, and relation. The major issues that have resulted to the downfall of corporations and financial institutions include fraud, suspicious business valuation, money laundering, post-acquisition disputes and corporate economic damage caused by the breach of contracts and torts (Silverstone & Sheetz, 2012).
Further investigations revealed Foxconn had been guilty of unsafe and unfair working environments long before the incidents, which included the employment of extended working hours, discrimination, and military management techniques (Xu & Li, 2013). Due to Foxconn’s sole focus on maintaining businesses relationships by fulfilling Apple’s demand of technical products, their subsequent mistreatment of employees was exacerbated and generated 80-100 hours of forced overtime per week (Xu & Li, 2013). However, in an attempt to combat the negative publicity, each firm denied responsibility for the incidents, which ultimately added fuel to the media fire (Xu & Li, 2013). Since then, each firm has enacted superior regulations designed to maintain efficiency while recognizing limitations on labor hours and increased spending on compliance audits (Chandler & Werther, 2014). Yet, as Foxconn continues to sustain their global leadership and Apple’s profits remain unaffected, the disadvantages associated with the incidents at Foxconn have not transcended the outcomes. From a profit standpoint, the increase in spending and subsequent alterations of labor methods serve as the biggest disadvantage to each company’s bottom line. However, after both companies attempted to negate blame, their ensuing developments indicate assuming responsibility was the best avenue to recoup reputation issues and focus on long-term growth. Therefore, the greatest advantage for both companies was their heightened reputation resulting from increased transparency and the employment of business models focused on the welfare of all supply chain
...can be an arbiter of business responsibility to society through the application of tax incentives or tax credits. In good corporate governance, the management should be able to meet their social responsibilities, these include making sure that their products are not hazardous to people and to the environment, sharing their profits for the good of the community as a natural person or human being would do, donating to social causes, organizing activities to benefit the community.
When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose.
Tia Benjamin, writer of organizational policies, procedures, and management training programs for more than a decade, suggests: “Irresponsible employees have a direct impact on productivity and the bottom line,” and goes on to explain that irresponsible workers can actually harm the morale of those around them (n.d.). The article Client Obligations and Handling your Boss by Jessica Silliman brings to light just one example of an epidemic that is sweeping modern America. There is a clear lack of personal responsibility.
(8) This is not to say that the analogy between a corporation and a person is completely baseless (corporations are made up of persons, after all), but the human motivations behind corporate activity, the overriding goal of which is monetary profit, and the human aspirations behind leading of an ethical life in civil society, are fundamentally different, and therefore may well warrant different legal/regulatory approaches.
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.
Thus emerged the modern concept of governance based on the foundation that untrammeled personal freedom is akin to lawlessness. Such an employment of personal freedom requires a strict internal discipline or self – governance that is rare. If we admit the concept of original sin, we are faced with the need for a code of morality and a process of self – governance. As Geoff Mulgan suggests ‘morality is a word that can be notoriously abused’. Thus making self – governance an imperfect art and a shaky foundation for the governance of ‘ groups ‘. As corporate’s realised this, new models of governance came to the fore...