Corporate Social Responsibility Essay Research Paper Corporate

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