The primary reference in this topic is : Jennings, M. (2012). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. 7th ed. Mason, OH South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9780538473538.
Etine and Jennings views are: Etine and Jennings paint a clear picture of the world of "Corporate Social Responsibility" or CSR (Jennings, 2012). The use of CSR can be equated to the term "rain-forest chic", where a product is deemed "green" if its production can be in some way related to having been derived from a factory that exists in a straw hut high in the mountains that are far from the rain forest, run by unicorns and powered by rainbows, that uses the resources of garbage and manure, whose profits are used to preserve rain forests. Jennings uses less cynical, and more realistic examples of "no animal testing" "Dolphin-Free", and such concepts as "hair conditioner or ice cream made with nuts from the rainforest". The cynicism becomes justified when one becomes familiar with textual examples like Ben and Jerry's "Rainforest Crunch" ice cream, supposedly created to use nuts made from the rainforest; which in turn would reduce the need for landowners to sell their lands to timber and mining companies. As it turns out, the nuts used were not from the rainforest, but from commercial exchanges. This drove the price of the nuts down, so the landowners are suspected of having to have sold their lands faster than before to make up for the economic shortfall (Jennings, 2012). The company pulled it's claims and was granted reprieve similar to "nice try but no cigar!"
Friedman and Freeman views are as follows: Friedman seems to profess that it is inconsistent with the doctrine of "social responsibility" that a true democratic political system, which he describes as a social entity, can by it's own theory, attend to the needs of a free-enterprise, capitalistic, corporate business system, if that business system follows it's fundamental doctrine of "to increase it profits" (Jennings, 2012). He even writes that in a free society, it is a fundamentally subversive doctrine for the two to exist because if the business corporation requires, through its board of directors, one of its executives to take action to create profit that would be directly against a "social responsible action" that the executive believes should be done, then in order to remain employed by the board, the executive must do it. If he goes with his perceived socially responsible act instead, then he no longer has performed what the board desires. Freeman (Jennings, 2012) recognizes that "corporations have ceased to be merely legal devices through which the private business transactions of individuals may be carried on". He, however, believes that the basic firms' structures must be changed. He holds that the corporation needs to shift from managers responsibility to the stockholders to managers responsibility to the stakeholders. Stockholders demand a profit. They exist for profit. Stakeholders include the surrounding environment of the business including all those affected by it. If an executive, in Freeman's stakeholder corporation, has a conflict between the social responsibility and the business responsibility, he is permitted to follow the socially responsibility provided it follows that it demonstrates a gain to the stakeholders rather than just the stockholders.
Comparison and contrasts of Freidman, Freeman, Etine, & Jennings views: All of the contributors recognize the business impact of being irresponsible on stakeholders. All recognize that business must succeed because it's failure results in loss of its resources and paid employees on communities is devestating. Friedman says they (business and social responsibilities) are mutually exclusive, Freeman says their definitions need changing, and Etine & Jennings say changing the definitions may not be soulfully good enough. All four theorists seem to recognize that there is a problem, and many in our society know that recognizing that you have a problem is the first step of the twelve step process. In the text, Jennings (2014) indicates that there is a recognition that companies are not perfect, however, rather than succumb to the distraction of labels and images, an ethical examination of a "corporate soul" should be made by answering eight questions: 1. Does the company comply with the law? 2. Does the company have a sense of propriety? 3. How honestly do product claims match with reality? 4. How forthcoming is the company with information? 5. How does the company treat its employees? 6. How does the company handle third-party ethcs issues? 7. How charitable is the company? 8. How does the company react when faced with negative disclosures?
The primary reference in this topic is : Jennings, M. (2012). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. 7th ed. Mason, OH South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9780538473538.
ReplyDeleteEtine and Jennings views are:
ReplyDeleteEtine and Jennings paint a clear picture of the world of "Corporate Social Responsibility" or CSR (Jennings, 2012). The use of CSR can be equated to the term "rain-forest chic", where a product is deemed "green" if its production can be in some way related to having been derived from a factory that exists in a straw hut high in the mountains that are far from the rain forest, run by unicorns and powered by rainbows, that uses the resources of garbage and manure, whose profits are used to preserve rain forests. Jennings uses less cynical, and more realistic examples of "no animal testing" "Dolphin-Free", and such concepts as "hair conditioner or ice cream made with nuts from the rainforest".
The cynicism becomes justified when one becomes familiar with textual examples like Ben and Jerry's "Rainforest Crunch" ice cream, supposedly created to use nuts made from the rainforest; which in turn would reduce the need for landowners to sell their lands to timber and mining companies. As it turns out, the nuts used were not from the rainforest, but from commercial exchanges. This drove the price of the nuts down, so the landowners are suspected of having to have sold their lands faster than before to make up for the economic shortfall (Jennings, 2012). The company pulled it's claims and was granted reprieve similar to "nice try but no cigar!"
Friedman and Freeman views are as follows:
ReplyDeleteFriedman seems to profess that it is inconsistent with the doctrine of "social responsibility" that a true democratic political system, which he describes as a social entity, can by it's own theory, attend to the needs of a free-enterprise, capitalistic, corporate business system, if that business system follows it's fundamental doctrine of "to increase it profits" (Jennings, 2012). He even writes that in a free society, it is a fundamentally subversive doctrine for the two to exist because if the business corporation requires, through its board of directors, one of its executives to take action to create profit that would be directly against a "social responsible action" that the executive believes should be done, then in order to remain employed by the board, the executive must do it. If he goes with his perceived socially responsible act instead, then he no longer has performed what the board desires.
Freeman (Jennings, 2012) recognizes that "corporations have ceased to be merely legal devices through which the private business transactions of individuals may be carried on". He, however, believes that the basic firms' structures must be changed. He holds that the corporation needs to shift from managers responsibility to the stockholders to managers responsibility to the stakeholders. Stockholders demand a profit. They exist for profit. Stakeholders include the surrounding environment of the business including all those affected by it. If an executive, in Freeman's stakeholder corporation, has a conflict between the social responsibility and the business responsibility, he is permitted to follow the socially responsibility provided it follows that it demonstrates a gain to the stakeholders rather than just the stockholders.
Comparison and contrasts of Freidman, Freeman, Etine, & Jennings views:
ReplyDeleteAll of the contributors recognize the business impact of being irresponsible on stakeholders. All recognize that business must succeed because it's failure results in loss of its resources and paid employees on communities is devestating. Friedman says they (business and social responsibilities) are mutually exclusive, Freeman says their definitions need changing, and Etine & Jennings say changing the definitions may not be soulfully good enough. All four theorists seem to recognize that there is a problem, and many in our society know that recognizing that you have a problem is the first step of the twelve step process. In the text, Jennings (2014) indicates that there is a recognition that companies are not perfect, however, rather than succumb to the distraction of labels and images, an ethical examination of a "corporate soul" should be made by answering eight questions:
1. Does the company comply with the law?
2. Does the company have a sense of propriety?
3. How honestly do product claims match with reality?
4. How forthcoming is the company with information?
5. How does the company treat its employees?
6. How does the company handle third-party ethcs issues?
7. How charitable is the company?
8. How does the company react when faced with negative disclosures?