Ethics and Values of International Management - Assignment Example

Name Professor Title Date International Management Ethics and Values Question: Part (A) Q1: Do businesses have moral obligations to care for the environment? Justify your answer From various approaches of decision making business have moral obligation to care for the environment. The world sustainable world perspective supports the reasoning by claiming that business ought to meet the needs of the current generation without comprising the capability of the future or subsequent generation. Operations of business if not controlled have severe effects on the environment which can actually affect human beings, plants and animals. Since business also depends of the environment and people for raw materials and sales, it only moral to care for the environment so has to continue with operation and to create harmony with the community. In Addition taking care of environment means the business is conforming to the values of the society which includes protection of the environment. In justice perspective approach also support the idea that business has the moral responsibility to take care of the environment. Proponents of the environment argue that business need share the moral responsibility or making and caring for the environmental equally since they use resource from the environment to make products which give them profits. In this way, distributive justice would have been achieved. Similarly, business has the moral obligation to care for the environment because it will be considered just there would be many people who would have the capabilities to benefit from this decision. In conclusion, the research has proved that business has the right to protect their environment because in doing so it will create a good relationship with society. The company also has a right to protect the environment so as to remain sustainable and continue meeting the needs of the present and feature generations. Q2: Is it morally acceptable for a company to sell the remaining stock of a product it knows is harmful despite a modified version of the product that remedies the fault, being ready to release on to the market? Justify your answer Based on deontological, Consequentialist and justice approaches to decision making, it is ethical wrong to sell the remaining stock of a product knowing is harmful. According to deontological approach, the world has set its values which are either good or bad and the company must observe these values as duties or rule. If a company chooses to sell defective products knowing that the market or the world does not accept such behavior, then it has failed the universality test. Selling harmful products is an act of causing health risk to consumer and they would never trust the business with their needs. Similarly, in continuing to sell remaining harmful stock, ethicist would consider that the business has breached the principle of humanity in that it treats consumers as mere means and not end. In this context, the business has put its interest of making profit first and neglecting the interest of the human being. Nevertheless, to a big extent, the company also finds itself in conflicting situation or duties which can confuse the management in their decision making. In one end, the company is often pushed by the shareholder to increase profits, and on the other spectrum, the stakeholders i.e. the customers and society is often pushing the company to provide quality prevent and to protect them from harm. In such situation, the Consequentialist approach can be used to observe which duty prevail over the other. Just as the name suggest, Consequentialist approach looks at whether the action leads to bad or good results. In other words, it is the consequences that matter. However, allowing the company to sell the remaining stock of a product it knowing it’s harmful is a sign that a company’s good outcome means making more profit on behalf of shareholders and bad outcome is failing to sell the products. However, from the Consequentialist approach, the bad outcome to company overshadows good outcomes since selling harmful product could risk environment and even intergenerational health. As a result, the situation would destroy the image of company leading to subsequent losses. Similarly, other consequences could be that a company faces criminal charges and even high employee’s turnover. To conclude, on the basis of consequentialist and deontological approach, I think selling harmful products to human beings is wrong and portray bad image of the company hence might make it to lose customers leading to its closure. Q3: Is it right to advertise to children (say, those under 10 years old)? Ethics of advertising to children is either right of wrong depending on the approach a company or a business takes. Companies which observe virtue ethics normally wants to showcase such virtues in their operation including advertising. Research have shown that such companies understand that it is morally wrong to advertise to children particularly those who are under 10 ads can easily corrupt their minds. In this way, the companies demonstrate the virtue of self control hence maintaining a good relationship with virtuous society. However, companies observing consequentialist approach believes that it is right to advertise to the children just like adults. Not considering, the effects of advertisement on children some companies believe children also form a great market which make them increase profits. The consequentialists believe the action is right or ethical if the best overall outcomes satisfy their objectives. In this context, the best outcome is making more profits only. Deontological approach can also be used to answer this question. on this approach, advertising to children is right or wrong depending on whether the features in the ad is acceptable to the society or not. The society normally has the universal rule which action must be based. As such an ad which violates such rule is unaccepted. In this perspective, an ad which promotes sex, drugs and crime may not be acceptable for children. In conclusion, advertising children is wrong because it can corrupt their minds leading to unacceptable character traits and behaviors in future. Q4: Is it right to conduct testing of consumer products (say, cosmetics) on animals? Justify your answer. The process is right and wrong depending on the approach used to make the decision. From deontological approach, using animal bodies to test consumer products is wrong in that it goes against universality test and principle of humanity. Universally, animals also have rights just as human beings and using them for experiment is seen as torture and violating their rights. Again, although animals are not human beings, they too have rights to be misused. In the context of principle of human, it is not right to conduct testing of consumer products on animals because its looks like they are being used as mere means to attain individual interest and not as ends. Despite animal non being human being, people who want to conduct testing of consumer products on animals should consider that non human too have inherent values. It is also wrong to conduct testing of consumer products on animals from virtue ethics point of view. A virtuous person often wants to be judged by positive behavior which is accepted by the society. Conducting experiment on animals is an act which put pain on animals hence many people think is unacceptable. The fact that this act is not done out of self-defence but to make profits makes it unaccepted virtues. However, from the Consequentialist approach, the act is right for a short gain but can also have severe overall consequence to a company. Since Consequentialist approach is about how good the result is, the act is right because the company will sell the products and get more profits. However, the overall result can be that the company might lose customers who believe that experiment on animals actually put pain and suffering on them. In conclusion, conducting test of consumer products on animals is unethical because it is not done out self-defence, and inflict pain and suffering on them. It is also wrong because it on cares for financial gain and not their inherent value. Q5: What is the difference between ‘bribery’ and ‘gift giving’ in business? Are either morally acceptable? Justify your answer. Bribery is a described a specific offence that entails the action of offering something, often in form of money, in quest to gain an illegal advantage and corruption is regarded as an abuse of a position of trust so as to attain an unjustified advantage. On the other hand, gift is described as a present of donation given to someone without payment. Gift is considered normal practice in the society as a result of social consequences such as honor or good gesture. In differentiating between bribery and gift, various factors are considered such as the value of such gift. The value can either be nominal or significant enough to trigger someone to make a business decision. Another factor is whether the gift can influence someone to make decision outside the protocols. The differentiation also look at the situation under which such gift was given; whether it broke the law. However, despite gift taken to be a normal practice, it may not be right particularly if it is “normally corrupted” to influence a decision. Giving and accepting bribery is morally wrong in much perspective such as virtue ethics and deontology. However, gift is only wrong if it when intended to influence a decision. Normally, people and the society at large want to associate good virtues such as honesty, integrity and fairness among others. Going against these virtues are unaccepted and can put one at loggerheads with the society and the law of the land. A company which practices bribery to get tenders or favours is believed to be using deception and lies for favor. The practice also goes against first deontological rule, universality test. The practice violates the virtue of fairness which is universally accepted. In conclusion, while bribery is wrong because it denies fair play in the market, gift giving to influence decision is also wrong because it destroy credibility of a business. Q6: Is ‘obeying the law’ a suitable moral standard by which an organization should conduct its activities? Justify your answer ‘Obeying the law’ depends on the company’s moral standards which can be determined by deontological, consequentialist and justice approach. Deontological approach implies to that the right or the wrong of a particular action which is determined by the universal rule which every member of the society is willing to follow (Wood 2008, p.16). It is in this context which laws are made to guide the society to do what is good. Similarly, the laws define the bad and consequences such as fines and cancellation of licenses. In this context, obeying is viewed as a moral standard by which organization should operate. When the company is using consequentialist approach in their decision making they will not observe ‘obeying the law’ as a suitable moral standard because it would deny them enjoying various benefits. Environment laws restrict pollution to some level but some company would rather not obey because what matters to them is the overall good which in this case is making profits. However, for companies which use justice approach in decision making, ‘obeying the law’ becomes a suitable moral standard for its operations. The society has their laws and companies would want to seen as part of the society by 'obeying the law’. The company can obey law through distributive justice where both good and bad are shared with the society. Further companies which recognizes the laws or views of the society in their operations gets a good image and also prevent lawsuits. To conclude, companies need to “obey the law’ since it is suitable moral for operation. laws are part of the society universal rules and obeying them improve the image of the company. Q7: Is ethical behavior in a business consistent with economic value creation (i.e, profit making)? Justify your answer. Ethical behavior in business is not always in line with economic value creation. To answer this question, we can question whether acting ethically and sustainably reduces profits, adds it or make no much difference. The research has established that while some businesses which act ethically create more profits, others reduce in terms of profits. Proponents of ethical behaviour in business argue that companies which engage in ethical activities improve stakeholder relationships, increase, marketing opportunities, raise pricing premiums and reduce costs. Customers have become aware of ethical behaviour and majorly want with companies which practice such behaviours. In that way, companies attracts large customer base thus increasing profits. Companies which involve themselves in ethical practices like energy conservation through usage of solar, reduces cost of operation. Studies also shows that currently, employees now want to work and associate themselves with companies which promote personal values or virtues. The same research also claimed that employees are loyal to such organizations. There is relationship between loyalty and high financial performance. Company which display ethical factors in their marketing attract more customer hence increasing profits. On the other hand, researches have shown that a company with weak ethical activities often do not increase profits. The argument is based on Milton Friedman perspective that companies which involves in social and environmental activities incur high cost hence reducing their profits. In conclusion, ethical behavior in a business is consistent with economic value creation because it creates a good relationship with stakeholders hence increasing profits. Similarly, increases employees’ loyalty hence high performance. Question: Part (B – case study) Q1: Is it ethical for a company, such as BATM and its sale of cigarettes, to sell and profit from the sale of a product that is known to be a major cause of harm to human well-being? Justify your answer Based on justice approach, particularly distributive justice, it is ethical for the BATM to sell and profit from the sale of cigarette. Distributive justice normally asks whether the distribution which comes from good or bad are equitable. When it is equitable then the action is right. A study of BATM shows that the company actually practice CSR where it provides assistance to the farmers, scholarships and charitable donations. In addition, the company also engages in the anti-smuggling measures, provides yearly Social Reports and involves in youth smoking prevention initiatives. From this perspective, the company can argue that they are distributing the good equally because they use part of the profits to organize CSR practices. Distributive justice also applies between individuals of the present generation, and between individuals of the present generation and future generations. Since the company is involved in youth smoking prevention initiatives it can argue that it also take care of the future generation hence the right to sell cigarettes. Based on capability justice, it also ethical to benefit sell cigarettes because the company also gives the society or customer the capability tom improve their lives through awarding of scholarship and sensitizing the youth against smoking. Virtue ethics approach shows that it is unethical to sell or benefits from sale cigarettes. Virtue is the good traits which a company wants to associate himself with like self-control and modesty. Selling harmful products shows an intention to cause health risk to human being hence rejected as improper virtues. According to deontological approaches, it is unethical for a firm to sell cigarettes or benefit from its profit knowing to product is harmful to human beings. This is where the principle of humanity is violated. Understanding that cigarette is harmful to human health but going ahead to sell it demonstrates that the firm has decided to ignore intrinsic value of human inquest of economic value. Q2: Consider the CSR activities undertaken by BATM. Do they represent genuine CSR activities by BATM? Justify your answer. From the article it is evident that BATM is not genuine its CSR activities. There exist great conflicts of interest in the BATM activities which water down its genuineness of its CSR activities. It is evident that the company sells products which are harmful to health and can cause lung cancer. The conflict on interest comes out in that as much as the company disguise that it reduces health issues the youth smoking prevention initiative, its intention is to improve the image of company and attract more customers. The eventual intention is to get more customers and increase profits. BATM CSR practices also conflicts themselves. At one spectrum, the company has CSR program on preventing the youth from smoking, and at another spectrum, the company sells the same products to adults. From this point of view it is obvious that company does not put high regard to wellbeing of adults and uses them as means to make profits. The genuineness of BATM has been questioned on its anti-smuggling measures on cigarette. as much as the company has been claiming to try and eliminate counterfeit cigarette, there has been a claim that its parent company has been involved in smuggling substandard cigarette into Malaysia. CSR activities like social reporting of the company are highly questionable. As much as the company reports its activities, some information is concealed to the public. BATM has been unwilling to admit the risk of the passive smoking. In fact, its website information on smoking and Health postulates that that there is no information which shows that tobacco smoking is a risk factor for diseases or health effects. Several researches have shown that cigarette is a health risk factor hence BATM reporting shows that insincerity of the company in its CSR practices. In conclusion, it is evident that the company’s CSR is not genuine based on flaws which have been discovered. As such there is need for tobacco control proponents to highlight such flaws to smoke the company from pretense. Q3: If you were offered a very lucrative job at BATM in the marketing department, with much higher pay and benefits than any other option available to you, to develop and implement strategies to help the company expand its markets, both in Malaysia and for BAT more generally in the global space, what would you do? Justify your position. If I was to be offered a job at BATM within the marketing department I would decline the position. I would use three approaches to ethical decision making to decline the position including virtue ethics and deontological approaches. A virtue ethics in this case basically test one’s moral standards. Some of the high moral standards which I adore include self-control, morality, truth and prudence, and going against these virtues I consider as wrong. Taking a job as a marketer of cigarette which is a harmful product will be pretending not to know the truth. Similarly, taking a job just because of lucrative pay to market harmful products shows how one does not value the worth of human beings but the financial benefits. I would also decline the marketing job because it goes against, deontology’s universality test and principle of humanity. The world has its universal rules which it human beings must act and going against such rules make one loose trust of the society. For instance, if take up the job and continue marketing and selling the cigarette in order to increase the profit of the company, I intensify smoking and make it a universal practice, but then against I will lose trust of the society. In addition, I would decline the job because it violates the principle of humanity. From deontology perspective the act is good if it’s treating other as both means and end, and not just a mere means. Getting the job to attain personal and company’s economic value at the expense of human inherent value is wrong. In conclusion, the ethical issues discussed renders the job not exiting as it looks because at the end of the day, the company could have a bad relationship with society leading to low sales and loss of jobs. Read More