Persuasive Essay Ethics

Name

Date

Business Ethics

Persuasive Paper

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, the theme of a multinational corporation having no moral or social responsibility to engage in corporate social responsibility programs will be discussed. The differences in corporate social responsibility, and how it balances with the triple bottom line concept, along with the distributive justice concept and current distribution of wealth will also be dissected. The opposing view, supporting social responsibility programs will likewise be conferred. Ultimately, this paper will prove that the business has a responsibility to garner as much profit as possible, within the constraints of the laws and regulations it abides by and that social responsibility is a second tier goal, if it should be considered a goal at all.

THE CONFLICT

Given the ambiguity of ethical standards, norms, and spirit of the law, it would not be realistic for corporations to build mechanisms around vague and ever-changing ideals. Requiring a business to hold a moral standard would also require the business itself to be both the lawmaker and the citizen. In our free market system, our states define the rules and regulations of the field, while the businesses are players that are subject to those rules and must accomplish their goals within the best of their abilities. Requiring anything else would produce its own set of ethical issues, including what consensus can come from businesses writing their own rules.

Business morality would also entail agreement by all of those involved within the business, as a collective, to decide on what is right, wrong, ethical, or socially just (Hwang, 2012). That social responsibility should be maintained on the individual level, and not subjected on employees because of their choice of employment.

Concurrently, if a corporation is held morally culpable, it would make it nearly impossible for individuals within the organization to be held accountable for actions taken by the company. This would mean that punishments or repercussions would be shouldered by customers, employees, and shareholders (Smith, 2014) which is unjust and undermines the social justice sought by proponents of CSRs.

A COMPANY’S REAL GOAL

In a world of competing priorities and responsibilities, it is best to define the responsibilities of a company or its corporate executives who are able to make decisions for the company. Typically, a CEO and executive members are charged with increasing company profits, and are selected based on their abilities to run an organization. According to Friedman (1970), businesses have the sole responsibility of engaging in actions that build and expand profit and profit possibilities, without use of fraud. Placing added pressure on company leadership to create or implement plans outside of that scope, under the guise of social responsibility, could place the company in a situation where focus is taken away from profits, and could eventually lead to no company at all.

DIFFERENCE IN CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

There has been an increasing number of CSR activities, with many international companies that identify those activities as a high priority for their companies (Illia, 2013). However, there are a few executives that believe that the time for corporate social responsibility and the triple bottom line are now outdated, and a thing of the past (Zarnett, 2011). While CSR is part and parcel of the triple bottom line (social, environmental, and financial), and it has advanced the way corporations rate their performance, the paradigm of CSR does not coexist well with the idea of sustainability, which is the number one factor of long term profitability of a corporation. According to Kelly Baxter, the triple bottom line and CSR are flawed because of four main reasons: 1) It is based on past performances of marginal improvements, 2) It encourages a take-make-waste paradigm, 3) it looks at impacts instead of causes, and 4) it operates under a model of unlimited growth potential (Zarnett, 2011). The argument here is that the triple bottom line is hindering the ability for companies to ensure long term growth and profits through a more sustainable approach, because of their efforts concentrated on CSR programs.

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND THE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the strictest and simplest form of distributive justice as extreme equality of goods and services, and is also known as egalitarianism (1996). Our free market systems do not work in this way, in part because of our social constructs that define the Libertarian, and Desert-based principles which allow for a higher level of freedom and accrual of goods and services based on what people deserve.

CSR programs and moral obligations can be categorized similarly as restrictive to profits and can be applied in too utilitarian of a way to really produce benefits for all. Welfare based concepts like CSRs can fail to allow for individualism and again, force individuals to be complicit in an entity’s decisions and moral standings.  

OPPOSING VIEW

Many corporate executives have seen their bottom lines increase after initiating CSR programs into their companies and for their employees. More and more, it is being used as a recruitment and retention tool that allows employees to feel connected to their organization outside of professional tasks and responsibilities (Thorpe, 2013). However, when it comes down to weighing the mandatory act of implementing CSR programs, it is incumbent upon the corporate leadership to ensure that it does not get in the way of the main goal of a business: increase profits.