Abstract
Calls for ethical business practices continue to be made by the different stakeholder who understands the role of ethics in any business. Companies cannot engage in unwanted practices and assume that their practices will not affect their operations. The case study assignments from the textbook give a concise overview of some business practices that call for ethical considerations. From the different case, reviews were drawn on the applicability of the morality and how businesses should have behaved. The five cases enable the reader to form a final position based on ethical theories morality, justice, and law. The paper compiles the previews of the five cases and assesses ethical dilemma in each case and how the responsible parties should have behaved.
Position Paper
Today's businesses are called upon to be ethical in their practices. Never before has the topic of business ethics gained relevance as business try to engage in practices that consider the interest of all stakeholders. Companies are called upon to examine ethical practices in their activities if they desired to continue operating in the ever-changing environment. Ethical businesses are likely to reap better returns as customers are likely to engage them more than companies that are regarded as unethical. It is from this point of view that this paper tries to demonstrate how the various case scenarios have contributed to the formation of the final position on ethics. This paper builds on the case study assignments from the textbook whereby the review from the different case studies is compiled to a final paper.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In case study one, the economic conditions and the societal attitude have raised serious ethical issues. Ivory Coast is a low-income country that is not benefiting from the sale of its cocoa beans. The middlemen are the beneficiaries of the higher priced commodity. To sustain their daily needs, the population engages in all manner of activities to raise money to support their families. The case acknowledges the use of slave as workers in the farms. Child trafficking is also rampant in the country as farmers engage in all manners of activities to produce cocoa beans. The companies are also not left behind as they engage in cost reduction strategies to maintain their current markets. Ivory Coast has laws that prohibit slavery. However, there are inadequate resources and goodwill to combat such practices. It is one thing to set rules but it a different issue altogether to implement them. The willingness of the people in power to take serious actions against slavery depends on their moral values (Tencati & Perrini , 2011; Velasquez, 2017).
This case studies a corporate issue as to whether a company in the U.S.A should be liable for unethical business practices given that it knew the slaves are used to farm cacao in Ivory Coast. Such companies continue to buy the commodity from the country without trying to stop the practice. From the points given by the text, we can argue that the corporations are responsible for the wrongdoing because they are helping to cause and not doing anything to prevent it. The companies are also aware of their practices and are doing it at their own free will. The firms could have prevented the practice by discontinuing any trading relations with farmers who engage in slavery. The companies were driven by their desire to maintain low cost and they are not forced to engage in such practices ( Velasquez, 2017).
The individual issues according to the case are that the corporate managers are not ethical if such individuals we ethical, they would have changed the practices by not engaging farmers who use children, slaves. Slavery and child labor are wrong and should be discouraged at all means. It has the ability to affect the future human resource needs of the country as many children are not attending school. From this case, many people engage in unethical practices from the farmers, middlemen, law enforcement agencies, officials, corporate firms and the management. All these stakeholders are aware of the practices but have done nothing to change but instead continue to encourage the practices (Tencati & Perrini , 2011; Velasquez, 2017).
In the Triodos Bank Case Study Roche employ utilitarianism as a defense against the bank's action to delist them. According to this theory, actions and policies need to be evaluated on the basis of cost versus benefits that they produce to the society that is affected by the actions. Utilitarianism, in this case, can be used to argue that the outcome of tests, as well as procedures, benefit more people while improving their overall health. The outcomes from organ are greater than the effects of obtaining the organs through unethical practices where there are no controls over such practices. The testing of the drugs can be useful to a larger population in future which can be promoted because the public good will be more than the loss by the samples in the experiments.
The code of conduct of medical procedures is governed by human rights. Such rights are based on the moral norms and principles that provides that individuals are permitted to do something or entitled to have something done for them. Individuals, companies, and institutions using human organs for transplant and other tests should ensure that they consider the human right of their subjects. If the life of a participant is at stake, it is important for the practitioners to work with other stakeholders to save a life. Similarly, human experiments should be conducted in such a way that they contribute to the least harm. Roche, in this case, did not consider the ethical acquisition of organs and in this case, they violated the human rights of the subjects. No life should be lost irrespective of the position of an individual in the society. Even though Roche is trying to improve the lives of the people, its experiments should not expose the life of its research subjects to undue harm. Roche did not meet the guidelines by the Triodos Bank even though it was performing well financially. Delisting the company was, therefore, a good move in the right direction ( Velasquez, 2017).
In the GM Bailout case, the company should not have received the government support. The government was determined to save thousands of jobs which were at stake. However, the company conducted many mistakes and should be held accountable. Using the perspective of justice, there are no valid reasons that warrant the bailout but from a caring point of view, it was justified. The government, however, should not have taken ownership of the company. The government should have allowed a free market for the company ( Velasquez, 2017).
From the utilitarian point of view, it was justified to bail out the company as the government was interest in saving many jobs that were at stake. However, the money that was used to bail out the company was taxpayers’ money and it is unethical to use it in such a way. It is evident that free market and private property produces more benefits than any government support. The government should encourage a free market and not engage in business activities as advocated by Adam Smith. The government had good intentions in saving the company from going under but it should have considered the job creation as well as the taxpayers. If the government allowed the company to go under, the employees would have moved to other companies as there are many car manufacturers that would otherwise record improved performance (Tencati & Perrini , 2011; Velasquez, 2017).
Based on justice, the bailout should not have been done given that the management conducted their activities in an unethical manner by solely focusing on SUV which led to the crisis faced by the company. The management was unable to evolve leading to the financial woes. If justice was applied, the company would have turned around by its own or closed shop. On rights, the company had every right to request for financial assistance from the government. However, the rights of the taxpayers were violated when the government bailed GM. This argument aligns with John Locke theory of natural rights. According to law, individuals have an absolute right to use their property as they want and the government has limited opportunities to interfere with such property even if it is for the good of the public. The government interfered with GM by bailing it out then owning 61%. Under caring perspective, it is ethical as the government perceived it was doing the correct thing and one that would benefit the society ( Velasquez, 2017).
In the Intel case, the company was acting like a monopoly by using its power to control the market. It is unethical for Intel to use its compilers and libraries of software code to make AMD processors appear to be inferior which is not the case. The company violated section 2 of Sherman Antitrust Act. Intel controls about 70% of the market whereas AMD had 20% which in this case makes Intel a monopoly. Both companies hold the patent for making processors and the initial investment costs runs into billions which can be strong barriers to entry into the market. Intel tried to prove that AMD processor was inferior whereas in actual sense it was better and could perform with the previous versions. Intel gave large computer manufacturers rebates to buy their products as it had lost a substantial market share ( Velasquez, 2017).
It is unethical for companies in a free market to engage in unethical practices like unfair competition. The company added new programs that made AMD products appear inferior thus forcing customers to switch back. Intel engaged in unethical practices rather than embracing competition and developing superior products that can counter competition. In a move, the company could have regained its market share and controlling power in a legal and ethical way. By encouraging competition, the outcome is just and there is respect for the moral rights and therefore utilitarianism is satisfied. Intel violated the second section of Sherman Antitrust Act (Boylan, 2014; Velasquez, 2017 ).
Case study 5 involves an assessment of the harmful effects of natural gas mining in Wyoming. The case raises the systemic issues of economic pressure from the administration, the congressional reforms, the local business groups and energy industries that face opposition from the federal parastatals, environmentalist and wildlife preservers. Mining companies intend to drill and sell natural gas to the federal government at the expense of wildlife in the area. The Wyoming government intends to increase its revenues from the trade. The value of the wildlife is not comprehensive. Chardonnett et al (200) states that wildlife can be valued based on the purpose they play in the ecology, consumptive and nonconsumptive usage and the social-cultural impact they have on the surrounding communities including the nutritional value. The challenge posed by the mining company was not based on environmental degradation but on the displacement of wildlife. Pursuing economic development at the expense of the environment and wildlife cannot guarantee long-term economic growth. Businesses need to consider the impact that their actions have on the environment and pursue business activities in a sustainable way. Thus businesses are called upon to be socially responsible for their action. According to the case, the companies decided to take appropriate actions to ensure that the appropriate actions are taken to avoid interfering with the movement of the wildlife ( Velasquez, 2017; Welford, Chan & Man, 2008).
Ethics and business cannot be separated as can be assumed by some organizations that believe that their objective is profit maximization. However, ethics plays a critical role in guiding the business in the right direction to achieve its desired goals. Ethics can help in solving some of the emerging challenges that cannot be addressed using law. Management decisions are also affected by ethics and ethical decisions are known to contribute to long-term growth and development of the company. Ethics can be used to address some of the current practices and investment opportunities while pursuing objectives that not only benefit the company but also its stakeholders. From the case studies, a final position is that businesses must be guided by ethics in all operations f they are to succeed.
References
Boylan, M. (2014). Business ethics . Chichester, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell.
Chardonnet, P., et al (2002). The Value of Wildlife: The Review Article. Rev Sci Tech, 2002 April, Volume 21 Issue 1, pages 15 -51. Retrieved on April 8, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11974626/
Tencati, A., & Perrini, F. (2011). Business ethics and corporate sustainability . Cheltenham, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Velasquez, M. G. (2017). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (8th ed.).
Welford, R., Chan, C., & Man, M. (2008). Priorities for corporate social responsibility: a survey of businesses and their stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental Management , 15 (1), 52-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.166
