Corporate Social Responsibility Essay, Research Paper
Corporate Social Responsibility
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY By Lori S. Mohr-Corrigan, For The Paper Store
- ? October 1999 VISIT www.paperwriters.com/aftersale.htm — for more
information on using this paper properly! Because society is fundamentally based
upon performance and profit, it is not unusual to find that it is necessary to
impart a sense of corporate social responsibility with regard to contemporary
commerce. The ethical approaches of purpose, principle and consequence are
integral components of business social performance; itemizing these
contributions finds one incorporating the interests of ethics and morality
within the corporate structure, essential concepts that are often absent from a
managerial standpoint. Chapters two and three of Beauchamp and Bowie’s Ethical
Theory And Business address the very issues of corporate social responsibility
that should rightly exist within every company’s infrastructure; however, the
authors’ enlightening contentions enable the reader to realize that social
integrity is not something that is often at the forefront of modern day business
dealings. Ethics, business and society must work in tandem or there is no
purpose for any of its existence. Unethical practices are what harbor ill will
and create a climate of contempt and distrust, which is no way to run a
business, be it personal or otherwise. "?It is a necessary and critical
ingredient in the successful enterprise" (Ruin, 1997, p. PG). Beauchamp et
al (1996) clearly imply that establishing such ethical fortitude is not a
difficult objective if one maintains a moral and conscientious outlook. Ethical
concerns run rampant among various entities, posing questions along the way as
to whether a particular practice is deemed morally acceptable. "Ethics
sometimes get in the way of resolving questions like: What is the ethical
concern? Am I being true to myself? Why is this bothering me? Is it my problem?
What do others think? Who else matters?" (Ruin, 1997, p. PG). According to
the book’s article on this matter, establishing proper ethical guidelines — and
therefore appropriate corporate social responsibility — must come from a
management perspective, which is the primary location where policy is derived.
Utilizing the insightful perspectives of Beauchamp et al (1996), which include
purpose, principle and consequence, there exist myriad ethical considerations in
the daily world of business, with each one presenting yet another moral dilemma:
Should the decision be made for company or personal gain? How many will reap the
benefit of individualized attention at the expense of all others? Is there a
time when an individual’s interests supercede those of the masses? These are
ethical questions posed each and everyday throughout the global business and
social worlds; whether or not the right answers are acted upon is another matter
entirely. "Ethical problems of personal and public decision making are not
new. The need to undertake ethical reflection is part–indeed a central part–of
what it means to be human" (Mitcham, 1996, p. 314). Ethical decision-making
goes hand in hand with sound business judgment, yet this is not a concept always
followed. The very purpose behind ethical behavior has some people stumped as to
its true intention; while some believe it instills the foundation of good
business, others contend that it brings out nothing more than "an
absolutist, rigid set of constraints that violate one’s sense of independent
judgment" (Ruin, 1997, p. PG). In truth, ethics represent moral
perspective, which, while having a universal theme, is still quite
interpretational. In spite of the fact that each person reserves his or her own
value determination with respect to ethical behavior — which stands for
"the character and values that determine the identity and goodness of an
individual or group" (Ruin, 1997, p. PG) — there still remains a
significant void between what some consider to be morally acceptable and what
others believe to be otherwise. "We all have built-in ethical responses. We
identify certain actions as wrong, others as morally praiseworthy. The values of
honesty, promise- keeping, truth-telling, benevolence and justice, endure
because they are essential to the social fabric of human existence. Without
certain fundamental principles of fair dealing and mutual respect, business
would be impossible" (Ruin, 1997, p. PG). Establishing and maintaining
corporate ethics is indeed principle to continued success, both on a personal
and professional level. Beauchamp et al (1996) provide reminders that constant
nurturing of moral judgment and a specific code of ethics is in order as a means
by which to perpetuate the positive image necessary to uphold such policy.
"?The critics of principlism have failed to make a compelling case
against its theoretical or practical adequacy as an ethical approach" (Lustig,
1992, p. 487). The primary elements of such nurturing include having a clear and
concise forthrightness, which is substantiated by culture; appropriate and
applicable conformity with regard to difficult situations; managerial
involvement and awareness on ethics issues; a nurturing program that is
wholeheartedly supported by top management; and staff involvement. These
concepts, which are both interrelated and individual at the same time, represent
a complete quest toward ethical decision-making. "No one element can create
or sustain ethical management; and weakness in one element could undermine the
whole effort" (Ruin, 1997, p. PG). One can easily surmise from Beauchamp et
al (1996) that diversity is truly key to corporate social responsibility;
however, not all businesses are managed in such a manner. "It is not our
task to defend the validity of moral reasoning; its defense has been the task of
moral philosophers for generations, and we have nothing original to add. We also
find it unnecessary to point out the fallacies in the line of argument regarding
the claim that business has a special ethic." (Quinn et al, 1995, p. 22).
With the ever-changing workforce, it is imperative that companies open
themselves up to reorganization that previously had not existed within the
industry. Such applications of contemporary modification include the continued
application of ethical and moral decision-making processes. These changes,
however, are not only representative of the perpetual flow of time; rather, they
are also indicative of a more compassionate view towards all components of the
business world. Distinguishing these moral and ethical actions presses one to
determine if the actions are right or wrong based solely upon to what one is
accustomed. This, then, begs the question that asks what denotes right and
wrong? Unlike in other social circles where ethical behavior is dependent upon
the social customs imbedded in such actions, Beauchamp et al (1996) indicate
that there exists a clear path of morality to follow when it comes to the
corporate world. Not to follow this path would reap severe consequences upon the
business that ignored the inherent responsibilities associated with corporate
commerce. "The moral argument that helps managers choose among competing
duties based upon the best consequences must inevitably oblige managers ‘to do
that which is best.’ Discussions about stock price movements, instrumental
ethics, and shareholder wealth obscure the true moral argument" (Quinn et
al, 1995, p. 22). Determining what constitutes values is the fundamental purpose
of corporate social responsibility. Given the fact that all of humanity must
coexist on the same planet, there has to be a modicum of consideration with
regard to business values. If not, then there would be no sense of tolerance or
respect for individual life. People have to abide by an ethical code to ensure
proper behavior among the world?s population. Yet, again, who is to determine
what this corporate ethical code will represent, and who is to say that all
commerce must follow it? Clearly, defining ethics is to define man ?s proper
values and interests, a concept that Beauchamp et al contends must exist within
the framework of all business infrastructures. BIBLIOGRAPHY Beauchamp, T., &
Bowie, N. E. (1996). Ethical Theory And Business. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall). Lustig, B. Andrew (1992, October). The method of ‘principlism’:
a critique of the critique. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 17, pp.
487(14). Mitcham, Carl (1996, March). Technology and ethics: From expertise to
public participation. The World & I, vol. 11, pp. 314. Ruin, Joseph Eby
(1997, December). Importance of business ethics. New Straits Times, pp. PG. *PG
denotes page number taken from an online electronic source. The Journal of
Medicine and Philosophy, Oct 1992 v17 n5 p487(14) The method of ‘principlism’: a
critique of the critique. (Principles and Patients) B. Andrew Lustig. Author’s
Abstract: COPYRIGHT Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992 Several scholars have
recently criticized the dominant emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics
best exemplified by Beauchamp and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
In Part I of this essay, I assess the fairness and cogency of three broad
criticisms raised against ‘principlism’ as an approach: (1) that principlism, as
an exercise in applied ethics, is insufficiently attentive to the dialectical
relations between ethical theory and moral practice; (2) that principlism fails
to offer a systematic account of the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence,
respect for autonomy, and justice; and (3) that principlism, as a version of
moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by its theoretical agnosticism. While
acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress’s reliance upon Ross’s version of
intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the critics of principlism have
failed to make a compelling case against its theoretical or practical adequacy
as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess the moral theory developed by
Bernard Gert in Morality: A New Justification of the Moral Rules, because Gert
has recommended his approach as a systematic alternative to principlism. I judge
Gert’s theory to be seriously incomplete and, in contrast to principlism, unable
to generate coherent conclusions about cases of active euthanasia and
paternalism. ***************** The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Oct 1992
v17 n5 p487(14) The method of ‘principlism’: a critique of the critique.
(Principles and Patients) B. Andrew Lustig. Author’s Abstract: COPYRIGHT Kluwer
Academic Publishers 1992 Several scholars have recently criticized the dominant
emphasis upon mid-level principles in bioethics best exemplified by Beauchamp
and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics. In Part I of this essay, I
assess the fairness and cogency of three broad criticisms raised against ‘principlism’
as an approach: (1) that principlism, as an exercise in applied ethics, is
insufficiently attentive to the dialectical relations between ethical theory and
moral practice; (2) that principlism fails to offer a systematic account of the
principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice;
and (3) that principlism, as a version of moral pluralism, is fatally flawed by
its theoretical agnosticism. While acknowledging that Beauchamp and Childress’s
reliance upon Ross’s version of intuitionism is problematic, I conclude that the
critics of principlism have failed to make a compelling case against its
theoretical or practical adequacy as an ethical approach. In Part II, I assess
the moral theory developed by Bernard Gert in Morality: A New Justification of
the Moral Rules, because Gert has recommended his approach as a systematic
alternative to principlism. I judge Gert’s theory to be seriously incomplete
and, in contrast to principlism, unable to generate coherent conclusions about
cases of active euthanasia and paternalism. ************* Technology and ethics:
From Expertise to Public Participation ( The World & I ) Carl Mitcham;
03-01-1996 Technologies appear in society accompanied by assumptions about their
inherent beneficence. But shortly after their appearance questions often arise,
stimulated by unintended consequences or unclear implications for established
moral values. Consider, for example, the following three instances of
technosocial problems. Each involves issues that cannot be resolved simply on
the basis of scientific or technical reasoning, but call for reflection on and
reference to moral principles and practice: * There are not enough organ
donations for everyone who needs a liver transplant. How should a physician (or
a patient) decide who gets a new liver and who does not–and dies as a result?
Should it always be the Mickey Mantles of the world who get priority treatment?
* Nuclear waste is accumulating at temporary storage facilities all across the
United States. But every proposal for the construction of a permanent storage
facility is challenged by some interest group (such as environmentalists) as
reflecting the biases of another interest group (such as the nuclear power
industry). How are such conflicts to be resolved? * The Fourth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures." What is the meaning of this right in a world where papers and
effects, not to mention persons and places, are increasingly transformed into
digitalized information in cyberspace? Ethical problems of personal and public
decision making are not new. The need to undertake ethical reflection is
part–indeed a central part–of what it means to be human. But as these three
cases indicate, ethical decision making is increasingly engaged with advances in
modern technology. Even if technology does not create radically new ethical
problems, as some philosophers have argued, it surely constitutes a new and
important domain for old-fashioned moral struggles to resist temptation and to
do the good. The importance of such struggles can scarcely be overemphasized,
since technological change not only sets up hard problems for ethical
reflection, but ethical decisions also influence how we use and live with our
technologies. The problems of ethical technodecision making are compounded by
the emergence of two cultures of expertise. One is that of the technical experts
who create and manage our medical, energy, and information technologies. Another
is that of those on ethics committees at hospitals, in regulatory agencies, and
with professional organizations who articulate and reflect on the issues
involved in these various areas of technoethical concern. Indeed, the last two
decades have witnessed the development of a number of specialized fields of
reflection on ethics and technology. Among these are biomedical ethics,
environmental ethics, and computer ethics. In each case, however, discussions
have remained largely restricted to professionals in these different fields of
applied ethics. What scientist and novelist C.P. Snow in 1959 called the
"two cultures" gap between literary and scientific
intellectuals–which is related to what earlier in the century sociologist
William Fielding Ogburn had identified as the "cultural lag" between
science and society– is further reflected today in a hiatus between technical
experts and applied ethicists. Although one aim of the academic study of ethics
and technology has been to bridge this two-cultures divide, applied ethics
expertise sometimes creates a new version of the very difference it would
overcome. The real promise of applied ethics will be realized only when such
reflection both transforms technical decision making and enters the public
realm. Science and technology have major influences on our lives today, so much
so that they often seem to dominate. How many times have we heard about a need
to invest in the most advanced science, and to adopt the most efficient
technology, in order to be economically competitive- -even though economic
competitiveness is not the highest value? Haven’ t we all experienced
difficulties controlling the use of our technologies- -from limiting the TV our
kids watch to not letting the hurried pace of high-tech transportation and
communication engulf our lives? Although an ethical analysis of technodecision
making has begun to emerge among specialized experts, it must be expanded to
include all citizens in a high-science, high-technology society. Experts alone,
whether scientists and engineers or philosophers, cannot solve our problems for
us. Efforts must be made to open and involve the emerging specialized fields of
techno-ethical analysis with a wider public. One reasonable way to begin is with
a review of some recent developments in biomedical, environmental, and computer
ethics- -relating them to real-world problems facing society. FROM MEDICAL TO
BIOMEDICAL ETHICS >From its earliest history, medicine was associated with
the acceptance of special moral obligations by those who attempted to assist
nature in promoting health and overcoming illness. Because physicians brought
specialized knowledge or expertise to bear on vulnerable patients, the
Hippocratic tradition of medical ethics emphasized their responsibilities not
just to avoid harm and to do good but also not to disclose confidences or to
take sexual advantage. At the same time there was always an implicit
responsibility on the part of