Principles of Social Corporate Responsibility and Strategies for Protecting Trade Secrets - Assignment Example

Individual Take-Home Examination Name Course Lecture Date Question One: Social Corporate Responsibility Corporate social responsibility is a topic that has received full recognition for a considerable amount of time. Some individuals argue that businesses should at times attempt to solve the various social ills affecting the society while other argues that companies should always aim at maximizing the shareholders wealth. Both sides of these debates have been vigorously defended and forcefully attacked. The best definition to be adopted in this essay is that of the Commission of European communities. They define corporate responsibility as the concept where organisations integrate the environmental and social concerns in their operations as well as in their interaction with the stakeholders and in a voluntary basis. In fact, corporations decide to go beyond their obligations and legal requirements with the aim of addressing the various societal needs (European Commission 2011). Friedman’s perspective of social corporate responsibility Friedman adopts a shareholder perspective in regard to social responsibility. By making use of this approach, he views the shareholders as essential economic engines for the organisation, and it is the only group that the firms should be socially responsible. As a matter of fact, the primary goal of companies should be to maximize profits and a portion of the profits ought to be returned to the shareholders as rewards since they took the risk in investing in the organisation. He further advocates that the shareholders ought to be the ones to decide the social initiatives they should take part in as opposed to having the appointed Executive to decide for them since he was only appointed for business reasons (Butler 2011). From his perspective, Friedman argues that a company have no social responsibility to the society or public since their primary concern is to make profits for themselves and shareholders. This concept was formulated and written in his book Capitalism and freedom. In the book, he further argues that when organisations concern themselves with the public or community rather than on their primary goal of making profits it is more likely to lead to totalitarianism. He further states that there is one social responsibility of business that is to make use of the available resources and engage activities that are designed for increasing profits as long as the company stays within the rules of the game (Friedman 1999). Thus, business should engage in free and open competition and should not engage in any form of fraud and deception. Critics of Friedman perspective argue that it is contradictory to the idea of corporate responsibility and most of the cost of the stakeholders. For instance, a company offering help to affected individuals may not be acting in the best interest of the shareholders. As an alternative Friedman argues that the shareholders should be given the chance to decide who to help and how much they can donate. Klein also criticizes Friedman perspective and argues that a significant number of citizens are impoverished while the corporate elites continue to gain enormous wealth (Klein 2006). Freeman’s perspective of social corporate responsibility Freeman also adopted a stakeholder theory in regard to corporate social responsibility, and its main purpose was to put forward another vision of a company objective. During the formulation of the theory, figures such as Friedman upheld the idea that a business's aim was just to create profit to be distributed to the shareholders. Based on Freeman this is a great mistake. People need to view profit as a company activity rather than a primary cause. Friedman idea meant that businesses should only focus on shareholders and not other people who are in one way or another impacted by the activities of the enterprise, for example, the employees, customers and suppliers. Thus, Freeman argues that business aim should be to meet the needs of all the stakeholders that is any individual who is affected by the decision made and when this is done the profits will ultimately be achieved (Freeman 1984). Freeman’s argument is revolutionary since it offers a different perspective of companies. This Freeman maintaining that CSR in a way encourages innovation since it offers opportunities to companies. Blattberg is among critics of Freeman’s perspective of CSR. He criticizes the theory for assuming that the need of different stakeholders in a business in certain circumstances balanced against each other. He argues that by doing so Freemans shows that negotiation can always be used as a dialogue mode when it comes to dealing with conflicting stakeholders interest (Blattberg 2004). Another critic of the theory is Mansell 2013, he argues that by applying a social contract concept in organisations, the stakeholders theory tend to undermine the basic principles upon which market economy is based. Kew Garden’s principle Kew Garden’s principle can at times inform the moral minimum perspective for corporate social responsibility. Kew Garden’s principle has four major aspects that is the need, proximity, capability and last resort. A good example of such a case in a company operating in an area where there is drought and the company is making huge profits. The need for food relief in the area increases the company’s responsibility in helping the society. In regard to proximity, the company operates in the drought affected area. Proximity is viewed as a function of notice. The company have be blamed for death that may occur due to the drought since they are aware of the problem since it has occurred in an area close to their business area. The company is expected to be more alert to the plight of the society in which they operate in. The third aspects relate to capability. This concept deals with what people are capable of doing. It would be reasonable for the company to offer the help they can to the affected people and also call upon other such as government agencies to come in and help. tte last concept is last resort since the drought have already occurred it would be unnecessary to wait for other who are far away to come and offer relief food. Thus, the company had a moral duty to play in offering food to the society before other adequate measures were taken. This will have lessened the impact of the drought. Question Two: Trade secret In broad terms any business information that offers an organisation an advantage over others in the market may be termed as a trade secret. Trade secrets entail industrial and manufacturing secrets. The unauthorised use of this kind of information by individuals who are not the holders is usually regarded as a violation and unfair practice of the trade secret. The term trade secret is defined in broad terms and may include aspects such as distribution methods, sales methods, advertising strategies, consumer profiles, manufacturing processes and the list of the clients and suppliers. The exact language that defines the term trade secret differs by jurisdiction. Nonetheless, there are three main factors that, even though they are subject to different interpretations, seem to be common in all the various definition of a trade secret (Becker 2005). Thus a trade secret is defined as information that is not known to the public, offers some form of economic benefit to the holders and is subject to any reasonable efforts that are aimed at maintaining its secrecy. Whereas the final determination of what information make ups a trade secret depends largely in an individual case, unfair practices relating to secret information can be seen as a breach of confidence, contract or as a commercial espionage. When can information or knowledge developed by a firm be justifiably claimed as a' trade secret' Information and knowledge developed by a firm can be justified as a trade secret if it can be argued based on the following aspects; the first aspects if the extent to which the knowledge and information is known to claimants who are outside the business. If the knowledge and information are known by other individuals outside the organisation, it ceases from being a trade secret since the public knows it. This is because a trade secret should only be known by members of the firm (Snider & Ellins 2006). The other aspects relate to the extent to which the secret is known by employees as well as by other people involved in the business. In respect to this, few employees should be aware of the trade secret and those who know about it should have signed agreements to limit them from disclosing the information. The other aspects relate to the measures that the firm have put in place with the aim of guarding the secrecy of the information. In instances when no measures have been implemented it should not be termed as a trade secret since all people in the organisation can be able to get access to the information with ease. Another aspect that qualifies the information as a trade secret is the importance or value of the information or knowledge to the business as well as to its competitors. Through the trade secrets, firms can gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. If this knowledge and information is disclosed to their competitors, the competitors may make use of it for their benefit. Thus, this information needs to be guarded will all means possible from leaking to the competitors (Snider & Ellins 2006). The last aspects relate to the ease at which the knowledge and information can be accurately duplicated or acquired by other people. Trade secrets need to be protected from acquisition and duplication. In case the trade secrets are stored in electronic devices, limitations ought to be placed on copying, and this can be through passwords. Computers also need to be protected from hackers who may try to gain access to the knowledge and information through the use of illegal means. When all the measures are enhanced, the information will only be accessed by a few authorised individuals who have the concern of the business at heart. Strategies for protecting trade secrets One of the major ways in which companies can protect trade secrets is through the establishment of procedures and priorities. What constitutes a trade secret varies between businesses. It may include product development, business plan or financial projections. By putting safeguards in place, organisations can protect the information and at the same time show the interested parties that they tried to keep it safe in case of a dispute. Trade secrets are protected by the law when the legal owners have enforced measures that are reasonable in maintaining the secrecy. The other measure in protecting trade secret is getting the employees on board. Organisations need to have a company policy outlining the reasons as to why keeping the company’s information confidential is essential to the company and the various ways in which the business can be affected if the secrecy is breached (Becker 2005). Employees who have access to trade secrets information should be required to sign a nondisclosure, confidentiality agreements and may be helpful in case employee breaches the agreements. Annual certification should also be enhanced with the aim of reminding the employees of the compliance. Organisations can also protect themselves in deals. A great number of business alliances, for example, the licensing agreements require companies to reveal their secrets. Organisations can also make use of nondisclosure agreements in such cases. In case the counterparts decline to the agreement, the organisation should proceed cautiously. Organisations can also make use of an implied confidential relationship since it grants organisations rights that are somehow similar to those that are offered in the signed agreements though they are difficult to prove. The other measure can be regularly identifying and labelling trade secrets. Organisations need to audit their trade secrets on a regular basis. This would encompass an identification of trade secrets that are currently in use, whether information identified in the earlier inventory as trade secrets should be declassified. Organisations should also be answerable to any trade secrets questions such as its location, who have access to the trade secrets and safeguards protecting it. Once the trade secrets have been identified, organisations need to protect such information (Rockman 2004). For instance, they can label trade secrets, and confidential by doing so the organisation can be able to persuade a court that they information was valuable, and they had taken measures to safeguard it. Question Three: Whistleblowing Whistle blowing is essential to all people and organisations. This is based on the fact that every public body and business is likely to face the risk of things going contrary to the expected and at times harbouring individuals who are corrupt. When such risks arise, the people who are likely to realize the wrongdoing are those who work closely with the individual in the organisation. Nevertheless, these individuals who seem to be better placed in sounding blowing the whistle also have much to lose in case they do so. Unless practise, culture and law point out that it is acceptable and safe to make genuine concern relating to illegality and corruption, a great number of employees are likely to assume that they risk to face victimisation, damaging of their careers or even losing their jobs. Whistle blowing is when an employee in an organisation reports any suspected wrongdoing in the workplace. In official terms, it is termed as making a disclosure that serves the public interest. Employees reports issues that are not right, illegal or when other employees are neglecting their duties. Matters that are usually reported relates to damaging of the environment, noncompliance of the law by the company, covering of wrongdoings, criminal offences and when someone’s else health and safety is in danger. There are two main types of whistleblowing with the first one being internal and the other one being external. In internal whistleblowing the issues are reported to other individuals within an organisation. In external whistleblowing issues are reported to individuals who are outside the organisations for example to the media or the law enforcement agencies. When whistle-blowing is an ethically justified course of action The ethical theories of virtue, Kantian (duty) and utilitarian discuss instances when whistle-blowing can be seen as a morally justified course of action (Bolsin et al., 2005; Grant, 2002; Kline, 2006). The Kantian theory requires individuals always to act in harmony with the universally accepted rules. Always telling the truth is at the centre of the deontological theory. Though by the time he formulated the theory Kant had no knowledge of the self-sacrifice that is required in whistleblowing, it is believed that Kant would always want individuals to stand firm and always tell the truth not considering the personal outcome that would follow them. The virtue theory, on the other hand, requires people to personify courage and integrity (Adams 2006, Bolsin et al., 2005). Reporting the unethical employees, safety violations and fraud in organisations calls for honesty in a person’s professional character. For instance in the nursing profession, their primary role is offering relief to the patients who are suffering. By practising roles that are contrary to the primary aim, the nurse will be breaching their code of ethics and at the same time they will be violating the virtues of courage and honesty. Of the three theories, the ethical theory of utilitarian offers the most compelling moral justification for whistleblowing that is the maximization of the human benefit and minimization of the harm. In relation to this theory whistleblowing is ethically justifiable when an organisations policies and products do considerable harm to the public (Kline 2006). Additional is it legitimate to whistle blow externally when all the internal procedures that are within the organisation have been exhausted and when evidence exists to convince a reasonable and impartial observer that his or her view of the threat is correct. When whistle-blowing is an ethically obligated course of action Employees have an ethical obligation to whistleblowing if an organisation makes use of something that an employee has worked on to bring about or cause serious wrongdoing to the public. Is such a situation, the employee work may contributes to the harm and this is what makes it permissible for the employee to blow the whistle so as to prevent any form of harm that may be somehow connected to him/her. In regard to this, the complicity theory ought to function better than the standard theory since employees are encouraged to whistle blow even in instances when they cannot be able to prevent the harm (Davis & Konishi 2007). By so doing, the employee goes up beyond the call of duty instead of merely doing what they are supposed to do. Based on Davis 2003, is all the qualifications that he has marked out have been met then employees have an ethical obligation to speak out. Davis leaves these aspects to the complicity theory, and this is based on the fact that the employee may face huge risks when they blow the whistle on their employers. In regard to these though employee may believe that they have a moral obligation of blowing the whistle they are at times reluctant in doing so due to the associated repercussions such as firing, demotion, detested and discrimination. Strategies to maximise internal whistle-blowing and minimise external whistle-blowing When whistleblowing is done to an external entity for example to government agencies and the media, it seems to be hazardous for both the organization and the individual. The hesitant attitudes directed to the whistleblowers ensures that even though they have the legal protection they still face retaliation in various ways such as being shunned by fellow employees, being supervised closely and at times feeling alienated (Adams 2006). Those organisations should put measures in place that encourage internal whistleblowing so as to prevent external whistleblowing and the damage that occurs when external whistleblowing takes place. A major strategy that can be adopted is the training of managers and employees. Organisations need to teach and train their employee and managers in the most effective way of dealing with concerns without any fear of retaliation (Grant 2002). Another strategy can be the establishment of effective means of reporting any wrongdoings. Organisations can set up hotlines or having a culture within the organisations where they can encourage the feedback from the employees. And lastly organisations can also offer financial incentives to internal whistleblowers. Other people may refer to it as reward systems that offer an incentive for accurate and valid whistleblowing. This would not only lessen the employees fears of retaliation, but at the same time it would give the employee financial inducements. References Adams, R 2006, The theory of virtue, Oxford University Press, New York. Becker, S 2005, "Chapter 13: Trade Secrets and Confidential Commercial Information", Discovery from Current and Former Employees. American Bar Association, America. Blattberg, Charles (2004). "Welfare: Towards the Patriotic Corporation", From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 172–184. Bolsin, S, Faunce, T & Oakley, J 2005, ‘Practical virtue ethics: Healthcare whistles blowing and portable digital technology’, Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 612-618. Butler, E 2011, Milton Friedman, Harriman Economic Essentials, United States. Davis, A & Konishi, E 2007, ‘Whistleblowing in Japan’, Nursing Ethics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 194-2001. Davis, M 2003, Some paradoxes of whistleblowing, In W.H. Shaw (Ed.), Ethics at work (pp. 85-99), Oxford University Press, New York. European Commission 2011, Corporate Social Responsibility: a new definition, a new agenda for action, viewed 15 May 2015, . Freeman, R 1984, Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman, Boston. Friedman, M 1999, Two Lucky People: Memoirs, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Grant, C 2002, ‘Whistleblowers: Saints of secular culture’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 39, pp. 391-399. Kline, A 2006, ‘On complicity theory’, Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257-264. Mansell, S 2013, Capitalism, Corporations and the Social Contract: A Critique of Stakeholder Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rockman, H 2004, "25.3: Nature of a Trade Secret". Intellectual property law for engineers and scientists. Wiley, New Jersey. Snider, J & Ellins, H 2006, "Chapter 8: Trade Secrets and Business Strategy". Corporate Privileges and Confidential Information, Law Journal Press, New York. Read More