EthicsandCorporateSocialResponsibilityGuidanceNoteFive[3頁]

1、Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility Guidance Note Five.The question of ethics in society is full of complexities and difficult choices, and the international business environment is beset by the full range of ethical dilemmas. In lectures we discussed the consequentialist (teleological) appro

2、ach to ethical decision making, where the outcomes of an action are taken into account to consider whether a particular ethical choice can be justified on the grounds that it delivers the greatest good for the greatest number where the end justifies the means. The alternative to this approach is the

3、 non-consequentialist (deontological) approach to ethical decision making, where choices are seen in absolute terms an action is either morally justifiable or not, irrespective of the outcome. Thus there would be some actions which should never be taken, no matter what. This leads us into considerin

4、g whether there are absolute moral choices which apply in all contexts are there ethical choices we can all agree on, in all societies. For example, can we all agree, the world over, that children should have their childhood and an education and should not be forced to engage in work? Even this simp

5、le question throws up many different considerations in different socio-economic contexts around the globe, and highlights issues of ethical relativism, where ethical norms may vary in different settings. Perhaps the most pressing issue for us today is the increased influence of giant corporations an

6、d their transnational activities through global production networks, particularly where practices in some parts of the global production network would not be tolerated in another. The image of capital as mobile, in the sense that today corporations have access to finance and technology which can inc

7、rease their ability to move around the globe wherever conditions are most favourable for profit maximisation, gives giant firms leverage over governments eager to attract their investment. As Crouch (2011) points out so well, this doesnt necessarily mean that corporations will behave badly or engage

8、 in a general lowering of standards frequently termed the race to the bottom in terms of their policies and practices, but it does give them a privileged position in setting the rules of the race. The underlying reason for giant firms privileged position as powerful political actors is that:it is th

9、eir market strategy that determines (or at least strongly affects) whether particular government policies will be rewarded with investment or not, whether these are policies for making available a population to work at low wages or one with high skills and secure lives (Crouch, 2011: 127).These fact

10、ors are brought into sharp focus when we consider different attitudes towards business ethics. The neoliberal context for our current phase of capitalist development puts forward a strong case for businesses being free of political interference. Neoliberal theory, you will recall, sees the state as

11、an anticompetitive and potentially corrupt interference in the market. Neoliberal principles are therefore founded on the benefits of private enterprise and the free operation of the forces of supply and demand (competitive markets) in delivering the best economic outcome. An increase in the size of

12、 the economy is seen as a benefit for all, as the creation of wealth, even if concentrated in the hands of an elite, will eventually trickle down to all levels of society. In our studies we have discussed to what extent this theory is supported by concrete evidence, in a world where the wealth gap a

13、ppears to be increasing everywhere. Putting that issue to one side for a moment, when considering issues of ethics and corporate responsibility, we need to keep in mind the potential for transnational corporations to use their economic strength to access political power. While we have established in

14、 other areas of our study on the module that the world retains its social and cultural diversity, the absence of powerful international or global regulatory bodies with power to enforce rules and regulations means that it is possible for transnational organisations to manipulate standards for rule m

15、aking and enforcement of legal regulation across geopolitical borders. It follows that it is very possible for there to be widely varying standards of practice within a global production network and perhaps most crucially, while corporations want politics to stay out of its affairs, the business lob

16、by is itself a very powerful actor.In the case of ethics and corporate social responsibility, the desire by corporations to avoid state regulation throws up some inconsistencies as we look at corporate attitudes towards social responsibility. The basic neoliberal position on social responsibility, m

17、ost notably expressed by Milton Friedman, is that the corporations only responsibility is to its shareholders. Beyond that responsibility, the corporations only moral / ethical responsibility is to abide by the law of the setting in which it is located. From this perspective, the responsibility to e

18、nsure specific minimum standards of social and environmental practice lies with the state, by establishing good legal provisions, and any additional social responsibility undertakings by the firm could only be justified if they benefit the shareholder.Perhaps through a non-consequentialist approach

19、to their ethical position, but perhaps in response to advancements in information technologies that have led to consumers of goods being made aware of unethical practices within global production networks, many firms have engaged with their own corporate social responsibility agenda. In line with th

20、e neoliberal hostility to government regulation, firms generally promote their own voluntary codes of social responsibility as superior to legal regulation. The key word here is voluntary, and the key issue is how/ when/ whether voluntary codes are audited. If firms employ their own auditors, there

21、may by major conflicts of interest and we need to pay attention to who is doing the monitoring, where their loyalties lie, and what their interests are (Soule, 2009: 119). There is some evidence of the effectiveness of consumer campaigns and also shareholder campaigns in improving corporate ethics i

22、nside firms and along their supply chains. Indeed, some firms have taken up the banner of ethical behaviour as a key feature of their corporate image, as a positive marketing strategy. The overall picture, however, is a highly contested and inconsistent, where neither legal regulation nor voluntary

23、codes of socially responsible practice prevent abuse and exploitation in the international business environment. The voices of the people most disadvantaged by unethical behaviour workers, communities, the natural world struggle to be heard against the power and hostility of commercial interests and

24、 the corporation, and indeed, corrupt governments and state officials who collude in unethical behaviour for personal gain (Crouch, 2011: 125143; Munck, 2002; Soule, 2009). Thus we are left with a muddled picture of what corporate social responsibility (CSR) actually delivers. Clearly, it would be a

25、 mistake to believe that CSR initiatives solve all ethical problems in the international business environment. Having said this, as Crouch (2011: 149) points out, it is rare to find completely overt cynicism in the field of social responsibility and we should be ready to give corporations, and indeed governments, credit for the good efforts that they do make. For