Essays on The Tobacco Companies and Product Safety Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "The Tobacco Companies and Product Safety" is a great example of a MAnagement Case Study. Responsibilities are only associated with a person. However, it is important to mention that every firm is a person in itself, hence, should be responsible, for an enterprise the individuals responsible are the businessmen (Velasquez 1997). Corporate social responsibility is the integration of a system of regulations in the business strategy to govern, reconcile, and balance the conflicting goals of the profit incentive and duty to the environment which includes the community at large (Blowfield & Murray 2008).

Every business operates in an environment consisting of the ethical, social and economic factors which have to be integrated for its success. The corporate social responsibility of the cigarette companies which was supposed to be a relationship between them and the society was not ethical since the company did more harm to the society than good by maximizing profits at the expense of their health. In order to understand how the corporate social responsibility policy of the cigarette companies was supposed to work and how it failed, it is important to look at the three views of corporate social responsibility; the classical economic view, the socio-economic view, and the broad social view.

It is also important to note that other than being the relationship between a firm and society, corporate social responsibility is also a mechanism where a business monitors its activities in regard to laws, moral standards and universally accepted virtues (Kotler & Lee 2005). The purpose of social responsibility is to cultivate an accountability attitude to their employees and other members of the public who are considered stakeholders.

Corporate social responsibility provides a way for managers to resolve the needs of the existence of  their moral obligation. Every manager requires skills for the successful practice of business a factor that was misused by the managers of the cigarette companies who sacrificed the ethical values to ensure the success of the companies. Capabilities that entail making out the consequences of an act were not put into use by the managers of the cigarette companies (Miles, Munilla & Darroch 2006). One of the main issues emerging from corporate social responsibility of the cigarette companies was the need to identify and explore a new way of integrating the conflicting goals in business bearing in mind the tradeoff between the market provision of cigarettes which could cause health problems and public protection against any harm through regulations.

In regards to the case study of U. S. v. Philip Morrie et al. , public protection was not observed by the cigarette smoking companies which had conspired to deceive the public about the risks of smoking (Orlitzky, Siegel & Waldman 2007). The three viewpoints on corporate responsibility seem to contradict and this might have been the reason for the rapture of the moral and ethical values in the cigarette companies.

It is, however, important to understand that the responsibility was in the hands of all the departments since an examination of the firm’ s duty shows the distribution channel which embraces many departments of an organization is considered (Wood 1991). The absence of accountability all through the distribution channel which can be said to have had the research department under its blanket is what brought the cigarette companies to this action of deceiving the public for a long period (Chan 2008).

Reference

List

Beauchamp, T, Bowie, NE & Arnold, DG 2009, Ethical theory and business, 8th edn, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Blowfield, M & Murray, A 2008, Corporate responsibility a critical introduction, Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Bowie, NE 1999, Business ethics a kantian perspective, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.

Caroll, AB 1999, Corporate social responsibility, Business and society, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati Ohio.

Chan, G 2008, ‘The Relevance and Value of Confucianism in Contemporary Business Ethics’,

Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 347 – 360.

Daugherty, EL 2001, “Public Relations and Social Responsibility”, in Handbook of Public Relations, ed RL Heath, Sage Publications, London, pp. 389-401.

Dentchev, N 2005, Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility in Business Models, Ghent University, Hoveniersberg.

DesJardins, J 1998, ‘Corporate Environmental Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 17, pp. 825-838.

Fisher, C & Lovell, A 2003, Business Ethics and Values, Pearson, London.

Kotler, P & Lee, N 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, Wiley & Sons Ltd, New Jersey.

Masaka, D 2008, ‘Why Enforcing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is Morally Questionable’, Journal of business ethics, vol. 13, no. 1. Available from:

< http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol13_no1.pdf >. [22 March 2013].

Miles, M, Munilla, L & Darroch, J 2006, ‘The Role of Strategic Conversations with Stakeholders in the Formation of Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 69, no.2, pp. 195 – 205.

Orlitzky, M, Siegel, D & Waldman, D 2007, ‘Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Business & Society: Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability’, Business & Society, vol. 48, no.1, pp. 133 – 136.

Post, JE, Preston, LE & Sachs, S 2002, ‘Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view’, California Management Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp.6–28.

Scholtens, B & Dam, L 2007, ‘Cultural Values and International Differences in Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 273 – 284.

Velasquez, MG 1997, “Ethical Principles in Business”, in Business, Ethics and Society, ed KA Getz, Simon & Schuster Education Group, Needham Heights, pp. 19-72.

Wicks, AC, Freeman, RE, Werhane, PH & Martin, K 2010, Business Ethics A Managerial Approach, Prentice Hall, Boston, MA.

Wood, D 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 691 – 718.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us