Business Ethics Definition: Uses and Examples - Annotated Bibliography Example

INDIVIDUAL ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (IAB) Individual Annotated Bibliography (IAB) CRANE, Andrew and Dirk MATTEN. 2007. Understanding Business Ethics. In: Business Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.86-121. In this article, the authors, Dirk Matten, and Andrew Crane review ethics as well as ethical theories in business. They try to make us understand the need for ethics in business in order to determine the right and the wrong things that cannot or can be done in business situations. They discuss various theories into which the ethics in business are well categorized into; these ethical theories relate to the situations in business when we stop and think and even ask ourselves whether what we are about to do is right or wrong. The authors argue that there is a need for standards to govern ethics in business so that whenever we feel that an organization has done something wrong, we can have a valid rationale, as well as a systematic and widely understandable point of argument. Andrew Crane is a Professor of Business Ethics at the School of Business in Schulich. He joined the school in January of 2007. He has also been the Chair of Business Ethics of the International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility (ICSSR) in Nottingham Business School. Before that, he had been at Cardiff University; here, he had been involved in the setting up of BRASS. With all these credentials, this is a very credible author whose insight cannot be brushed aside for anything else. Dirk Matten, Andrew Crane’s co-author are the Chair of Corporate Social Responsibility at Hewlett-Packard. He is also a Professor of Strategy at the Schuchlich School of Business in York University. These authors discuss the main ethical theories and their potential and value for business ethics. In looking at ethical theories, they suggest two perspectives from which to look at it. These include ethical relativism and ethical absolutism. These authors argue that, for the purposes and reasons of practical decision making in business, the theories of ethical absolutism and ethical relativism do necessarily make for positions that are particularly useful. For them, pluralism is the answer to the problems related to business ethics. Pluralism, as they explain, occupies the middle ground between relativism and absolutism. According to the pluralism point of view that these authors vouch for, different moral backgrounds and convictions are acceptable, and at the same time, a consensus in rules and basic principles in certain contexts in social domains deserve to be reached. Further on, these authors provide a line of thought that states that in business there is just benefit and harm to define morality. They get this statement from Kaler (1999). According to it, wrong and right are mainly to do with providing benefits and aiming to avoid harm at all times. The authors also criticize the egoistic theory of ethics. They state that the theory can and may only be successful in the event that there are measures to ensure that no egoist pursues his interests and desires at the expense of another egoists desires and interests. The authors of this article point out valid statements and perspectives in business ethics. Whatever we do, we should ensure that whatever we do; do not interfere with the desires and interests of other, especially in business. HOWELL, Robert. 2010. CHOOSING ETHICAL THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES AND APPLYING THEM TO THE QUESTION: ‘SHOULD THE SEAS BE OWNED?’ International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research. 5(1), pp.1-28. This article tries to take a deeper look into the theories of ethics, and whether they can be used and applied in the conservation of the seas. The author, Robert Howell tries to negate the point of view held by Grimond. Grimond is of the opinion that due to the serious threat towards the health of the oceans, ownership of these oceans and seas could be the best bet to bank on in order to end the pilferage. Alternatively, he suggests that regulation should be put in place to remedy the problem. Robert Howell disagrees with this viewpoint and instead points out that instead of allowing people to own the seas and the oceans, we should come up with theories of ethics to govern the relationship we have with the oceans and seas. The seas are part of the environment and the ecology on which we depend on to survive on earth. A change on the way we relate to the ecological systems we depend on will mean that the codes and constitutions such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights will be discarded. As Grimond states, not putting the seas under the ownership of individuals or under regulation spells catastrophe for human beings. He emphasizes this by saying that the seas are a common resource and going by the adage, all of us tend to be selfish whenever we find something to exploit. This is the kind of thinking most humans have. If we leave the seas unexploited, somebody else will exploit it. Robert Howell thinks otherwise. According to him, theories of ethics should be clearly spelt out. He goes on to provide the alternative principles and reasons that should dictate how resources should be used. He describes a methodology for making a choice on the ethical principles for this purpose. Robert dismisses Locke’s theories and rights that humans have towards the earth. He argues that they are out of touch with the current world we live in; more so because they are also based on religious frameworks. He also dismisses Locke rights because they do not have responsibilities of the relationship between humans and the earth. Robert Howell believes in advocates for better ethical theories than the traditional ones that will give more consideration to Earth-Human relationship. He calls for integrity as one of the ethical theories that need to be considered for a human-earth, and human-human perspective. If we have high regard and esteem for the environment, nature will not die but instead will flourish. PARKER, Martin and Gordon PEARSON. 2005. Capitalism and its Regulation: A Dialogue on Business and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 60(1), pp.91-101. The article is a dialogue on the ethics of the politics of capitalism. It reviews a debate of participants having divergent views on matters of ethics and politics of capitalism. Before covering the issues on the different understandings we have for the benefits and costs of the world capitalist systems, it covers definitions of capitalism. It then moves on to a debate of whether regulation should be used to make competition favor customers or consumers, and to prevent the negative results or outcomes for the common average citizens. As the author concludes, he criticizes and speculates that the debate may not be of much usefulness after all. The author seems to advocate for regulation in order to ensure that the excesses of capitalism are tweaked. These regulations act as the ethics that will govern the way consumers are treated and to ensure that traders – the capitalists do not take advantage of the consumers. The authors highlight the fact that some self-interested capitalists may abuse the weak and, therefore, the need for regulation. Gordon, for instance, states that the market economy needs to be regulated in order to provide for happiness to a large number of consumers and all those who are concerned. However, as he points out, it is hard to decide on the extent or degree of regulation that should be allowed. I agree with Gordon’s point of view on the matter. Regulation would limit exploitation by monopolistic capitalists in the market economy. A certain degree of regulation is duly called for to come to the rescue of the consumers. SHAW, William H. and Vincent BARRY. 2006. The Nature of Capitalism. In: Moral Issues in Business, Wadsworth: Wadsworth, pp.127-147. The article reviews the nature of capitalism and defines capitalism from various perspectives; it then goes ahead to compare capitalism, with socialism. The features of each of them; capitalism, as well as socialism are highlighted. The author takes us through the history of capitalism in a bid to let us see how far this kind of business economy has evolved over time. The authors explain the key features of capitalism and the roles capitalism plays using these features to the benefit of the society. For instance, as they point out in the article, competition, as a feature of capitalism ensures that individuals who engage in this kind of business to pursue their self-interest in a direction that is socially beneficial to people. This happens when the society appeals to the self-interest of these individuals by giving them or rather inducing them, as the producers, to provide the society with what the society wants. An example of such a case is the one in which manufacturers of formal dresses and slacks were enticed into the production of jeans. Additionally, competition helps ensure that the prices of goods and services are down; much to the benefit of consumers. The authors also cover the moral justifications of capitalism. This stems from the fact that the proposition of capitalism being morally acceptable is pretty much debatable. This, as the authors’ state, depends on which theory of justice we believe can morally justify capitalism. One of the motivations these authors state is the natural right to ownership of property. However, this is dismissed by theories such as utilitarianism. The authors go on to state that while people are allowed to own property, at some point there should be regulation on the amount of wealth a person is allowed to amass, and for what purpose they may use the wealth they have amassed for themselves. Socialism, as described by this article, is the polar opposite of capitalism. It calls for the communal cooperativeness, and communal interest in economic activities and business. While each economic system has its advantages and disadvantages, it is evident that the capitalism or the socialism of the past has been replaced by the newer version in which regulations play a part. The laissez-faire forms of the past have been done away with; they do not exist anymore. A society should not be completely capitalistic since this would mean no regard for the common good. Additionally, the society should not be absolutely socialistic as it would inhibit individual freedoms. VELASQUEZ, Manuel. 2000. GLOBALIZATION AND THE FAILURE OF ETHICS. BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY. 10(1), pp.342-352. The article reviews the problems companies and international businesses face in trying to deal with the ethical problems brought about by globalization. This is in regard to what should be allowed to govern the relations multinational companies have over their employees or workers, for example, in the host nations which may be developing countries. Common problems, the article highlights, include the relationships between corrupt governments, risky technologies and the multinational companies responsible for them. How can such scenarios be handled in order to ensure justice at the end of it all? Additionally, globalization came with its fair share of environmental and labor problems. Since the problems of globalization in business are different with each country and location in which a company has been setup, it is prudent to come up with standards and ethical norms that can be applied to each of the different cultural contexts in question. In this context, contemporary ethical standards have failed to address such issues. The authors highlight various cultures and their beliefs on what is fair and what is not. Some say people should get what they deserve based on the effort they put into the process of coming up with yields in the first place. In this light, there are collectivist cultures, and there are individualistic cultures. No single theory should be put to the task of overseeing the ethical problems in business and globalization. Justice, however, should be ensured at the end of the day. VISSER, Wayne. 2010. The Evolution and Revolution of Corporate Social Responsibility. In: Nick TOLHURST and Manfred POHL, (eds). Responsible Business: How to Manage a CSR Strategy Successfully, New York: Wiley, pp.1-9. This article reviews corporate social responsibility by defining what it stands for and looking at its roots. Where did it start? And where is it headed? Is it dead? The author states that corporate social responsibility does not exist anymore. In the section of the article titled the Failure of CSR, the author highlights the reasons why CSR has not been successful in addressing the issues which it claims it is most concerned about. Factors such as peripheral CSR, Incremental CSR, and uneconomic CSR are indicated as the curses of CSR and probably responsible for the failure of the concept in dealing with the problems and situations for which it was developed. Companies are called for to be socially responsible; however, it should not be at the expense of the economic reasons for which the company was setup in the first place. Highlighting this fact, the author of this article gives the example of Enron, a company that was once voted among the best 100 companies that a person would work for in America in the year 2000, ended up collapsing as a result of fraudulent ways. The author believes that CSR 1.0 failed and is dead and champions for the next version of CSR, which he refers to as CSR 2.0. in this version of CSR, principles such as Scalability, Connectedness, Responsiveness, duality and circularity will run the show. The stated principles are the basis on which businesses should be run, and we will not have to worry about the ethical responsibilities of any business so long as they comply with the stated principles. References CRANE, Andrew and Dirk MATTEN. 2007. Understanding Business Ethics. In: Business Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.86-121. HOWELL, Robert. 2010. CHOOSING ETHICAL THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES AND APPLYING THEM TO THE QUESTION: ‘SHOULD THE SEAS BE OWNED?’. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research. 5(1), pp.1-28. PARKER, Martin and Gordon PEARSON. 2005. Capitalism and its Regulation:A Dialogue on Business and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. 60(1), pp.91-101. SHAW, William H. and Vincent BARRY. 2006. The Nature of Capitalism. In: Moral Issues in Business, Wadsworth: Wadsworth, pp.127-147. VELASQUEZ, Manuel. 2000. GLOBALIZATION AND THE FAILURE OF ETHICS. BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY. 10(1), pp.342-352. VISSER, Wayne. 2010. The Evolution and Revolution of Corporate Social Responsibility. In: Nick TOLHURST and Manfred POHL, (eds). Responsible Business: How to Manage a CSR Strategy Successfully, New York: Wiley, pp.1-9. Read More