Sustainable Management Futures - Essay Example

An assessment of Cameron’s speech Name Instructor’s name Institution of study Date Number of words An assessment of Cameron’s speech 1.1 Using your knowledge of the free markets perspective examine the ethics and morality of ‘let capitalism rip’ allegation made by British Prime Minister David Cameron (750 words) Examining the ethics and morality of “let capitalism rip” allegations made by British Prime Minister David Cameron using free market perspectives demand that a clear and concise definition to capitalism and an assessment of its application and outcome as out rightly alleged by the Prime minister[Wes]. In addition we ought to give the principles of popular capitalism to bring out the contrast as wells as identifying different types of markets. To start with capitalism in the market context could be defined as a system where no controls and regulations are imposed to interfere with demand, supply, and the prices of services commodities it is the laissez-faire system[Col09]. With capitalism the right to own wealth is highly regarded and the state has little interference is business however its role is to ensure that there is no violation of rights of persons. On the other hand there are two main types of markets namely controlled market and free market[Cor08]. A free market is the one described in early parts of this paragraph. This is the market where market forces such as demand and supply determine the prices and direction of production and investors rip the profit while the consumer derives satisfaction from their services. Cameron alleges that the preceding government had ignored the cooperate excesses and the results saw a few at the top rip the benefit[Wes]. He argues that a better economy would be developed with increased market freedom. With reference to ethical theories the utilitarian theory of ethics market perspectives which states that a system that is bound to benefit majority qualifies to be ethically right[Rid98][Rob95][Col09]. The theory states that prior to application of a chosen system the applicant should be in a position to foretell and settle on the best option driven by profit. However, it is almost possible to predict the future and where similar incidences are used to form the bases sometimes the outcomes may not be the same. Therefore, according to this lens we would conclude say that the preceding government was acted unethically and that Cameron’s proposal if applied would be ethical. According to [JJG07] the deontological theory of ethics market perspective the government should stick to its obligations to the public because actions are judged from the result and effects. According to the theory ones duty to the society is the most important aspect in the assessment of morality[Col09][Rid98]. Cameron’s emphasizes on social responsibility and the strength of the market being derived from the duty of responsibility. We can therefore argue that the government was acting in the good of the public by following the law that allowed for free market that would allow all to flourish as predicted however, the results did turned out as expected thus according to this theory the actions were quite ethical. Modern consequential theory of ethics and market perspectives assesses ethics based on the consequences of an action. According to the proponents of this theory actions are correct if they are able to cause the most desirable results[JJG07]. Furthermore, the founders argue that a desirable result is categorized as the one that would lead to ultimate happiness therefore if any legislation can bring these results then the law is ethically correct[Col09][Rob95]. Using this theory as a lens we find the consequence of allowing capitalism to rip could be multifaceted. Cameron argues that it is not advisable to take advantage of the problem currently market instead we should see a chance to influence positive changes. On one side somebody within the system benefited and in accordance with the theory the government’s actions allowed him to flourish and live well and he/she was happy. In this context the will show that the government was ethically right. However, the larger part of the community was left in great hardships because they could not rip the benefit and the economy suffered causing regrets to many[Bob09]. In this second argument we could conclude that the government in a manner that was not ethical because its actions did not cause any pleasure or happiness at all. Therefore, Cameron may and may be not justified to put forward his allegations because the different theories allow us to derive different conclusions. However, his speech should not offend anyone because his opinion was based on the theories supporting the fact that the party forming the former government relied on polices that could not lead to the realization of desirable results. 1.2 Evaluate the system using Milton Friedman’s and Norman Bowie’s neo-classical models of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Make recommendations on the way forward for a more ‘sustainable’ market economics. (750 words) In order to evaluate the system Milton Friedman’s and Norman Bowie’s neo-classical models of corporate social responsibility (CSR) I would like to state that defining the models would be vital. Basically corporate social responsibility could be split into three models namely the traditional conflict model, corporate social responsibility (brings money model) and multiple firm goals model. In relation to the first model business enterprises are established with the aim of making profits for the investor. However, in the event of operation business proscribing to this model do not assume social and environmental cost when arriving at important conclusions concerning production these are unnecessary costs[Mil70][Cor08]. This in turn attracts more problems that the government has to intervene in order to protect the community and the environment. Coining this with the market perspectives it is clear that the results justify the avenue to getting there. In relation to Cameron allegations concerning the government’s actions and unpopular capitalism[Wes] we could conclude that the actions allowed the firms to rip profits at the expense of the minority in any case they in some level of percentage comply with this model and thus unethical. On the other hand the bring money model is different from the former because it consider all the three costs. According to this model social and environmental costs do not pose as liabilities to the business enterprise instead a healthy community and society seems to be more useful to the business because it allows the firm to realize its objectives which interpret to increased profits and returns to the investor[Cor08][Mil70]. Applying this model to Cameron’s allegation context we are tempted to argue that the initial intention of the government through its actions was to influence corporate enterprises to ensure equitable and sustainable development however, the result from the unpopular capitalism was directly the opposite driving the state deep into debts while a few were able to progress. The last model is an improved form of the second because financial, social and environmental costs influence the corporate decision. In a broader view the model proponents argues that business firm managers assume the responsibility and that the efforts applied in order to realize profit also influences the companies effort towards other factors. It advocates for economic, environmental and ethically sound measures. In relation to the system it is clear that this is the best model and that it fits into the proposed system that would help in the recovery. However, in the allegation by Cameron unpopular capitalism did not exhibit this model in the sense that it failed to restructure the system after realizing that there were some drawbacks[Mil70][Nor05]. Having looked at the neo-classical models of corporate social responsibility and evaluated the system it is important to note that the preceding authority failed to influence the earlier capitalism system for the benefit of all. In any case it exhibited a very unpopular system therefore; my recommendation would be the adoption of a system driven with the interest of all stakeholders at heart. The ideal model would be the last option which allows corporate enterprises to flourish as long as they would agree to take care of the welfare of stakeholders [Nor05] and in this case employees and the community. In addition adopting a system that allows the existence of a free market where market forces play each other to arrive at the equilibrium without much external influence. However, such a system should allow minimum influence from the state in order to protect the local industry from unnecessary competition from external industries because this would threaten their performance and compromise the wellbeing of minor stakeholders. In any case Cameron’s argument sounded viable because the prime-minister points that having gone through the experience with unpopular capitalism and learnt from the past errors the party is better placed to address emerging issues. It is in order for the Prime Minister to argue that you learn from mistake and that you do not run from a problem instead attempts are made to counter the trend. This would be termed as restructuring the system to fit into the changing times and shifting priorities and rewarding efforts alongside encouraging innovation and new ideas among increased participation. References Wes: , (Cameron, 2012), Col09: , (Colin Fisher, 2009), Cor08: , (Strategy, 2008), Rid98: , (Aaron, 1998), Rob95: , (Penslar, 1995), JJG07: , (Graafland, 2007), JJG07: , (Graafland, 2007), Bob09: , (Bob Doherty, 2009), Mil70: , (Friedman, 1970), Nor05: , (Bowie, 2005), Nor05: , (Bowie, 2005), Read More