Ethical Theories Values and Apples Working Conditions - Case Study Example

RUNNING HEAD: ETHICAL THEORIES, VALUES AND APPLE’S WORKING CONDITIONS Ethical Theories, Values and Apple’s Working Conditions Name: Course: Business Ethics 6937 Institution: University of Canberra Date: Ethical Theories, Values and Apple’s Working Conditions Introduction While there are various definitions of ethics available in business literature, ethics essentially boils down to good or bad, or wrong and right, what is moral or amoral (Beauchamp et al 2009). However, there is no single perspective from which to determine what is ethical or what is not. There are various theoretical perspectives which can be used to determine the goodness, rightness or morality ethicality of business practices. These include utilitarianism, Kantian deontology; Rawls and Nozick’s theories of justice, rights based ethics and ethical relativism (Kramar et al 201, Hoffman et al 2001). This essay will introduce and briefly explain the values of each theoretical perspective and their relevance in ethical evaluation of contemporary business practice. The essay will then use these theories to evaluate ethical issues at Apple Inc. The essay will critique Apple’s business practices and recommend that to address the emerging ethical issues over working conditions and the reputation of its suppliers, Apple should change its values to reflect a commitment to ethical standards. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used normative theoretical approaches used in ethical analysis or evaluation of business practices, especially in human resource management. Utilitarianism borrows from the works of Jeremy Bentham who is its most influential exponent. Utilitarianism as a theory is consequentialist in nature. (Klikauer 2010: Kramar et al 2011). Therefore, utilitarianism determines the moral worth or the “good” of an action by its outcomes or consequences (Jones et al 2007). The main criterion in deciding whether an action or a business practice is ethical is whether it has produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Greenwood 2002). Utilitarianism ignores motives and intentions. A common view attributed to utilitarianism as an ethical theory is that of the ends justifying the means. Utilitarianism has been criticized for providing moral justification for some intuitively wrong acts or for validating actions against common sense. Utilitarianism justifies achieving happiness for a majority which may leave a minority suffering or at a disadvantage. For instance, as in the downsizing case employing 50 child labourers in Chinese sweatshop to make cheaper sneakers for an American apparel company would be ethical as it would substantially increase the profits of shareholders and make the shoes cheaper than had they been produced elsewhere (act utilitarianism). Kantian Deontology Another ethical theory that stands in opposition to utilitarianism is Kantian deontology. Drawing from the works of Immanuel Kant, deontological theory is based on the concept of duty and evaluates an action as ethical or moral for reasons other than their consequences (Kramar et al 2011: Klikauer 2010: Greenwood 2002). Unlike utilitarianism, Kantian deontology places emphasis on the motives of the person carrying out an action and not the consequences. Kantian deontology is associated with the view that people should never be treated as a means to an end but as the ends themselves. Therefore, for instance, treating employees as end-in-themselves implies providing them with some of the things that they need with their sustenance and well-being as the ultimate goals and not the benefits expected by the company in terms of skilled and motivated workforce. The company should have a moral obligation to the employee to provide meaningful work- work which is among other things; freely entered into, provides wages sufficient for physical welfare, supports employees’ moral development and does not interfere with the employees’ perception of how they wish to obtain happiness (Greenwood 2002: Shaw and Barry 2010). The main criticism levelled against Kantian deontological theory is that it deliberately ignores the consequences of an action in determining its morality. Negative consequences may arise from good intentions. For example, a company may incur high costs to provide meaningful work in an ethical workplace resulting in the company becoming unprofitable, running into bankruptcy resulting in losses of jobs and livelihoods. Justice John Rawls’ Justice John Rawl’s egalitarian theory of justice is another theoretical perspective used to evaluate the ethicality of actions. According to Rawls, justice is the first virtue of social institutions (Klikauer 2010). For anything to be ethical, it must be socially just.Therefore, according to Rawls, an action is ethical if it conforms to these principles of social justice and fairness. For instance, Rawls would consider the pay gap between men and women in a business as unethical since it violates distributive justice and is an outcome of gender discrimination. The various perks and benefits which are enjoyed by CEOs including high salaries and compensation plans that include stock options and cash bonuses (golden parachutes) are not available to lower level employees are also unethical as they would diminish employee morale, contribute to shareholder and employee neglect and imply that other critical business expenses such as research and development would face budget cuts. Nozick’s Justice Robert Nozick’s theory of distributive justice is different from and criticizes Rawls’ conceptualization of justice. Nozick challenges Rawls’ basis of fairness and argues that something can only be considered just as long as society accepts it based on their freedom to exercise their natural rights. Nozick’s entitlement theory evaluates an action as fair, just or ethical provide that it is consistent with the rules of acquisition, transfer or rectification. Therefore, a business practice is ethical and fair as long as it is based on the acceptance of the parties involved and it is based on the free will of those involved to enter or participate in it. For Nozick, justice is done when everybody is stuck with their entitlements provided that nobody else’s was violated. For example, according to Nozick’s theory of justice, paying low wages to uneducated workers and higher wages to skilled top management is not unjust provided the managers obtained their skills and qualifications in an appropriate manner and are therefore entitled to their benefits? Nozick’s theory of justice has been criticized for justifying lopsided inequality and for lacking a moral grounding. It seems counter intuitive to justice and ethics to rationalize inequality. Rights Rights (human rights) can be considered as ethical principles of entitlement and freedom and as part of the fundamental normative rules that depict what is owed to people and what is allowed of people. Rights form the cornerstone of any civilized society and are accorded to all people by virtue of them being human beings (Donnelly 2003). They are characterized as inalienable and universal. From a rights ethical perspective, business practices are ethical only if they uphold and do not violate the rights of those affected. There are absolute moral standards that should be upheld in business consistent with universal human rights. For example, a business that uses child labour or forced labour in sweatshops is unethical as it promotes violation of universal child and labour rights. On the other hand, a business which provides a safe work environment for its employees within its factory, compensates them justly and undertakes social responsibility programs to mitigate the impact of its operations on local communities is considered ethical. However, the rights approach to ethics has been criticized by ethical relativists who argue that there is no absolute moral standard in ethics and that moral judgement or ethical principles vary from person to person, culture to culture or from society to society. What may be acceptable to one society may be taboo to another (Donnelly 2003, Kramer et al 2010). Ethical Relativism As mentioned, ethical relativism is a doctrine that emphasizes that there is no absolute moral standard in ethics and that moral judgement or ethical principles vary from person to person, culture to culture or from society to society (Lafollete 1991). Therefore, for instance, what may be considered as communal labour in Africa or Latin America where children work to augment family income may be considered as child labour and violation of child rights in the west. Ethical relativists mainly argue that the idea of universal rights is an attempt to impose western or Euro-centric values. Therefore, a business’ practices such as using sweatshop labour would not be unethical if such labour is socially acceptable in that particular area and is not considered a violation of human rights (Kramar et al 2011). However, ethical relativism has been strongly criticised for providing ethical or moral justification for business practices counter-intuitive to justice, fairness and common sense (Hoffman et al 2001). It is argued by Kantian deontologists and proponents of universal human rights that ethical relativism provides convenient justifications for unethical human rights abuses and exploitation. For example, businesses have taken advantage of the poor monitoring mechanisms and social conditions in third world or developing countries to manufacture apparel and electronics using cheap sweatshop labour which would be unacceptable in their countries. This is counter intuitive to ethical moral standards. Ethics Issues at Apple Inc There are several ethics issues that can be raised from Duhigg and Barboza’s (2012) article on Apple Inc. from a utilitarian consequentialist perspective, Apple has become one of the richest and most successful technological companies by mastering global supply chain manufacturing. Therefore, the issues of unsafe working conditions, long working hours and use of child labour by its suppliers are ethical since they have yielded greater good for more people. However, from a Kantian deontological perspective, the reported unsafe working conditions, continuous shifts, employee intimidation (which has even led to suicide), use of child labour and the intimidation of employees is unjust as it treats them as a means to an end. The Apple code of conduct and the Apple values are the only ethically acceptable practices since its intentions are to provide safe working conditions where employees are treated with respect and dignity. The Apple values would also be considered (Duhigg and Barboza 2012) Apple’s business practices are also unethical from Rawls’ distributive justice- the use of child labour and working conditions in China being socially unjust since it only exacerbates the disadvantage of workers at the benefit of Apple executives. Nozick would argue that as long as Apple has not violated any labour laws and that workers have chosen out of their own free will to work for Apple under the stipulated conditions and pay, Apple is acting ethically and justly. From a rights perspective, Apple is unethical since it promotes the violation of several fundamental universal labour rights and rights-based moral standards such as the prohibition of all forms of forced labour or working under duress (workers working until their legs are swollen and being intimidated) and abolition of all forms of child labour (hiring 15 year olds by some suppliers) (Duhigg and Barboza 2012). However, ethical relativists would defend Apple as pointed out by Nicholas Ashford who states that what is morally repugnant in one country is acceptable in another. Therefore, ethical relativists would justify Apple’s taking advantage of different ethical standards. Critique of Apple Inc Values The Apple values have been defined as the qualities, customs, standards, and principles that the company believes will help it and its employees succeed. They are: empathy for customers/users, aggressiveness, positive social contribution, innovation, individual performance, team spirit, quality/excellence, individual reward and good management (The Age, January 30 2012). These values appear ethical on face value and from a utilitarian, Rawlsian (nominally) and Nozick’s justice perspective. However, considering the ethical issues that have been raised about Apple Inc. such as unsafe working conditions (which have even led to suicide) and violation of international human rights and labour standards and practices, these are not ethically consistent with deontology or rights. While Apple’s values appear ethical on paper, they have not translated into ethical practice in reality. Furthermore, most of the values seem to shape unethical business practices such as demanding quality/excellence and aggressiveness while remaining silent on employee rights, safety policy and a commitment to universal ethical standards. This noncommittal stance has actually allowed room for the various ethical issues that have arisen about Apple’s business practices. Therefore, as a recommendation, Apple should revise its values to reflect a commitment to absolute moral standards and ethics such as a commitment to work only with suppliers who uphold ethical business practices, to provide the highest and an unparalleled standard of safety for its employees, to strictly observe human rights and labour laws (such as severing ties with suppliers who use child labour) and to provide meaningful work for their employees (Kramar et al 2011: Shaw and Barry 2010). Such commitments would adequately address the ethical concerns over Apple’s factories. Conclusion Different theories set different moral and ethical standards for business practices. For example, while deontology focuses on duty and obligation to act ethically, utilitarianism emphasizes on consequences. The implication of this divergence in moral standards, as captured by ethical relativists, is that it becomes increasingly difficult to properly evaluate or to make a moral judgment on the ethicality of contemporary business practice. Nevertheless, large businesses such as Apple Inc. have been singled out for criticism over their commitment to ethical business practices. This is because intuitively, and from common sense, some practices such as using child labour are intrinsically unethical. Reports of overworking labourers in harsh conditions, use of child labour by suppliers and even suicide due to repressive working conditions have compromised their ethical outlook. Subsequently, to address these issues, Apple should embrace commitments to upholding ethical standards in its company values. References Beauchamp, R.T., Bowie, N.E. & Arnold, D.G. (2009). Ethical Theory and Business (8th ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press: New York. Duhigg, C. & Barboza, D. (February 1, 2012). Apple Inc: Working themselves to death. In The Age. Greenwood, M.R. (2002), Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36 (3): 261-278. Hoffman, W., Frederick, R. & Schwartz, M. 2001. Business Ethics (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York. Klikauer, T. (2010). Critical Management Ethics. Palgrave: Basingstoke (UK). Kramar, R., Bartram, T. & De Cieri, H. (2011). Human Resource Management in Australia- Strategy, People, Performance (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill: Sydney. Kramer, M. & Simmonds, N. & Steiner, H. (2000). A debate over rights: philosophical enquiries. Oxford University Press: London. Lafollette, H. (1991). The Truth in Ethical Relativism. Journal of Social Philosophy, 22 (1): 146-154. Legge, K. (1997). “The Morality of HRM,” in Mabey, C. (Ed), Experiencing Human Resource Management. Sage: London. Shaw, W. H & Barry, V. (2010). Moral Issues in Business. Wadsworth: Belmont The Age (January 30, 2012). 'We care about every worker': Apple CEO responds to harsh working conditions claim. Read More