Global Corporate Responsibility Issues - Coursework Example

Profits and Principle: Managing Values and Corporate Responsibility in Global Principle Operations Name Course Lecturer Date Introduction In the current global economy, organizations’ responsibility to the society has continued to gain momentum. This may be attributed to the fact that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has continued to focus on the operations of an organization and its impact on the society (DesJardins 2006). In addition to CSR, business ethics have received massive support given the fact that they are concerned with human rights and justice. It is important to note that ethical issues are viewed from relativism dimension which mainly ignores decision making in a corporate (Pojman 1995). Proponents of this dimension hold that it is not possible for any business entity to decide on matters relating to good or wrong. Kantianism and utilitarianism are other forms of approaches that have been used to describe ethical decisions. Other scholars have also coined various guidelines including Kew Garden principle and DeGeorge which mostly addresses ethical issues. In response to the recent disaster at Raza Plaza, the paper seeks to explore global corporate responsibility, values and ethics of multinational by looking various principles and ethical approaches has put forward by various authors in preparation for the new code at the national convection for GAEMCI, Australia. Ethical Approaches DeGeorge coined seven moral guidelines or principles that are considered by various critiques as important and therefore, should be considered by all multinational corporations. Of important to note is the fact these principles may be considered as norms that should be not only practiced but also respected in order for a multinational corporation to escape legal criticism that is perceived in the dilemma that it may be facing. It is obvious that DeGeorge developed these norms for multinational corporate on the ethical basis of not doing any harm (DeGeorge 2010). One of the guidelines addresses the issue of a multinational corporate of not involving itself in any intentional harm; indeed, he notes that a company that does not uphold this ethical value clearly violates the primary norm. In additional to this, it is also expected that a multinational corporate should produce more superior than inferior for the host country. This principle is more or less a utilitarian approach that expects a country to assist the country more than how it produces negative effect. Still, multinationals activities are expected to result to develop in the host country; as such, if it does not uphold this ethical value, then its activities should be considered as exploitation and using the host country for its own benefit (DeGeorge 2010). All multinationals corporate are also supposed t respect and uphold human rights in the host country. Human rights should be upheld irrespective of the activities and view of the local companies. These human rights issues include maintaining safety and health measures, comfortable working condition, good wages and salaries and so on. It is important to note that DeGeorge also points out that the multinationals should pay taxes accordingly. This is significant given that some companies may take advantage of the economic status of the host country and engage in avoiding taxes. In relation to this, it is ethical for a multinational company to cooperate with the host government so as to development institutions in the host country. This includes campaigning for better organization labour and improving the citizens’ living standards. Finally, DeGeorge also expects multinational corporations should work with the culture found in the host country. As such, they should attempt to introduce the culture but take into account the local customs and needs (Boss 2011). In the case study presented, it is expected that the Australian multinational corporate upheld the above given that not only are they operating in a foreign country which is characterized by unemployment, poverty and poor education but also has a different culture. Of most important to consider is the fact that multinationals should practice tolerance especially in cases where differences in practices and priorities that may raise ethical difficulties (Friedman 1970). In the case of Bangladesh, it is important to note that the situation is wanting given that working conditions are poor, low salaries and wages when compared to the work done and the employees are exposed to mistreatment and harassment. As such, when the companies uphold the above guidelines and implement them will they not ensure that they consider the living standard of the employees in the host country but will also ensure that they maintain ethical values and responsibility as spelt out by the international community. In addition, it will rule out the notion that in a free market, multinational companies are at liberty of choosing whether to cause harm to the host country or whether they are willing to the risk as related to Friedman. In considering the above, CSR should provide safety guidelines and proper training (Boatright 2012). Not only are multinationals corporate implement DeGeorge principles, but they are also expected to consider the Kew Gardens Principle; moral minimum. Under this principle, companies should in various circumstances take up moral responsibility not only to protect human rights but also advance it. It is obvious that there is a need to provide assistance when the following features are encountered; need, proximity of actors, capability and last resort. Under critical need, this is present when life is at stake. However, it is important to note that human needs greatly differ and comes in many forms such as developing and developed countries from an economic perspective. On the other hand, proximity may be said to spatial; nevertheless at the root, awareness exists. As such, there are potential actors who are aware of the existing need. Capability, as coined by Immanuel Kant, generally, refers to individuals having the knowledge that a particular problem exists while the last resort refers to the absence of other individuals or group that might assist (Hartman 2002). It is obvious that the above principle brings in an ethical or moral argument that any business, in this case, multinational corporations, have an ethical obligation to help in advancing and protecting human rights and some situations. Such companies are expected to uphold human rights as it will protect the corporate reputation and maintain its license to enhance its products and operation (Mokhiber & Weissman 2003). For example, in their operations the companies in question make profits and therefore they have the capability of assisting the country. Still, they understand that workers are working under poor conditions and it si their moral duty to do something. It is important to note that promoting human rights may also advance multinational corporate interest and subsequently, advance human value and interests. On this Bowie (1999) makes it clear that every business has a huge role to respect human rights even in regions where the government may be unwilling to uphold the rights. However, in most case it is observed that the preservation of human right is more of instrumental (interest of the business) instead of intrinsic (from a moral perspective) (Fritzsche 2004). In relation to the above, it is expected that the Australian companies to protect the workers who make their brand. Indeed, looking at the situation at hand, many employees complain of mistreatment at the workplace, underpayment, harsh managers, exploitation and poor working condition. It is also reported that the workers do not have the right to express their fears and working; efforts to form organization is met with resistance and harsh treatment form the employers. This situation should be addressed given that many of the employees live in much poverty and only earn three dollars a day making their lives more miserable. Given that the Australian companies operating in Bangladesh are aware of the need of the citizens, it is therefore, expected as per Kew Garden Principle, to address the need as they have the capability of doing so (Singer 2002). When coining Kantianism, while addressing respect of human rights, Kant argued that it is the intent behind a given reaction rather than the consequences that results to an action being good. For instance, if a business is honest so as to sell its name, the act is described as not genuinely moral (Melloan 2004). The scholar clearly explains that there is a need for every corporate to treat everyone as a stakeholder irrespective of their position. In relation to this, he observes that no human should treat the other in a way to satisfy his or her needs or interests (Prasad 2008). Simply, no human should be treated as a means but as person at the end of every transaction or activity. In a business set up, the above require two basic things; stakeholders especially the workers should not be deceived or coerced, and business practices or organizations should be neatly arranged in order to develop moral capacities and human rational instead of hindering the development of the aforementioned capacity (Carey et al. forthcoming). The above requirements may be used to address the situation in the case presented. The Australians should be deeply concerned with the massive problem that employees in Bangladesh are doing undergoing owing to poor working condition and environment as presented by their companies. Indeed, one would label the conditions and treatment as immoral as the workers are merely used as instruments and tools to increase shareholder wealth. In addition, one may clearly argue that workers in these factories are treated as means not at the end given that they are working in poor environment, unfair wages and salaries, and working for long hours (Ip 2009). While Kantianism assesses an action on the basis intentions, a utilitarian approach is basically based on consequences; that is the benefit to the stakeholders at every level, in other words produce more goods than bad. Still, when a Kantianism approach does not uphold manipulation, lies and coercion; utilitarianism approach may be argued to encourage them given that the benefits acquired are not criticized from any negative process. Generally, in from a business perspective, utilitarianism argue that a decision relating to business conduct is considered proper if it produces benefit for most people in the organization. As such, it conquers the fact that decisions need to be weighed in order to hold a moral choice giving every stakeholder a just consideration. From the given case, one may readily agree to the fact that the Australian companies operating in Bangladesh have not put into consideration the above approach. This is attributed to the fact that many of the stakeholders, the employees in this case, have been subjected to immoral situations; therefore, the act of the companies may be said to be unjustified on utilitarian grounds. There is a need for multinational corporate to support code of conduct since they represent excellent business practices. This is despite the fact that adopting them may be viewed as complex. It is clear in the last decade there is an increase concern among employees who form part of the stakeholders, that multinational corporations should not only concentrate on their legal charters but they should also broaden their scope to cover social contracts that cover cultural mores and reflects the current changing society. This has led to employees in the developing countries pushing for health care, better wages and salaries, job security, environmental issues and other challenges. Scholars argue that there is a need for multinational corporations to implement justice and human rights while operating in host countries. As such, they are obligated to avoid causing adverse human suffering through their activities. Still, they are expected to mitigate negative impacts that are linked to their products, services and operations directly. Conclusion Indeed, the paper basically considers the need to practice ethical approaches in multinational corporate in order to uphold human rights and justice. In the discussion, it is noted that various authors forwarded various principles that may govern Multinational Corporation while operating in host countries. It is expected that the multinationals should uphold human rights and abort exploiting workers in the host countries as seen in Bangladesh. Instead, they should respect the local culture and assist in building and developing the country. References Boatright, J 2012, Ethics and the conduct of business (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Boss, S 2011 “Ethics for life”, New York: McGraw Hill Bowie, N 1999 “Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective”, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Carey, L, Crone, G & Boatright, J (forthcoming) “Ethics and the Conduct of Business”, Australia: Pearson DesJardins, J 2006, An Introduction to Business Ethics (2nd ed). New York: McGraw- Hill. De George, R 2010, “Business Ethics. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In Hartman, L.P., 2002 Perspectives in Business Ethics (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Fritzsche, D 2004, Business ethics: A global and managerial perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill, 56–57 Melloan, G 2004, Feeling the muscles of the multinationals, WallStreet Journal, 5 (5)132 Hartman, L 2002, Perspectives in Business Ethics (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Prasad, A 2008, Towards a system of global ethics in international business: a Rawlsian manifest”, Management Decision, 46:1166-1174 Ip, P 2009, The challenge of developing a business ethics in China, Journal of Business Ethics, 88:211-224 Pojman, L 1995, A critique of ethical relativism, In Ethical theory (2nd ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth pp 29-37 Mokhiber, R., & Weissman, R. 2003, Multiple corporate personality disorder: The 10 worst corporations of 2003. Multinational Monitor ,December: 9–20 Singer, P 2002, Navigating the ethics of globalization. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 October 2002 Read More