Business ethics (also known as Corporate Ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics, that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that can arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations. These ethics originate from individuals, organizational statements or the legal system. These norms, values, ethical, and unethical practices are the principles that guide a business.
Business ethics refers to contemporary organizational standards, principles, sets of values and norms that govern the actions and behavior of an individual in the business organization. Business ethics have two dimensions, normative business ethics or descriptive business ethics. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns.
Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, most major corporations today promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters.
Adam Smith said in 1776, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control. The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.
Maintaining an ethical status is the responsibility of the manager of the business. According to a 1990 article in the Journal of Business Ethics, “Managing ethical behavior is one of the most pervasive and complex problems facing business organizations today.”
History
Business ethics reflect the norms of each historical period. As time passes, norms evolve, causing accepted behaviors to become objectionable. Business ethics and the resulting behavior evolved as well. Business was involved in slavery, colonialism, and the Cold War.
The term ‘business ethics’ came into common use in the United States in the early 1970s. By the mid-1980s at least 500 courses in business ethics reached 40,000 students, using some twenty textbooks and at least ten casebooks supported by professional societies, centers and journals of business ethics. The Society for Business Ethics was founded in 1980. European business schools adopted business ethics after 1987 commencing with the European Business Ethics Network. In 1982 the first single-authored books in the field appeared.
Firms began highlighting their ethical stature in the late 1980s and early 1990s, possibly in an attempt to distance themselves from the business scandals of the day, such as the savings and loan crisis. The concept of business ethics caught the attention of academics, media and business firms by the end of the Cold War. However, criticism of business practices was attacked for infringing the freedom of entrepreneurs and critics were accused of supporting communists. This scuttled the discourse of business ethics both in media and academia. The Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct (DII) was created to support corporate ethical conduct. This era began the belief and support of self-regulation and free trade, which lifted tariffs and barriers and allowed businesses to merge and divest in an increasing global atmosphere.
Religious and philosophical origins
One of the earliest written treatments of business ethics is found in the Tirukkuṛaḷ, a Tamil book dated variously from 300 BCE to the 7th century CE and attributed to Thiruvalluvar. Many verses discuss business ethics, in particular, verse 113, adapting to a changing environment in verses 474, 426, and 140, learning the intricacies of different tasks in verses 462 and 677.
Overview
Business ethics reflects the philosophy of business, of which one aim is to determine the fundamental purposes of a company. Business purpose expresses the company’s reason for existing. Modern discussion on the purpose of business has been freshened by views from thinkers such as Richard R. Ellesworth, Peter Drucker, and Nikos Mourkogiannis: Traditional views held that the purpose of a business organization is to make profit for shareholders. Nevertheless, the purpose of maximizing shareholder’s wealth often “fails to energize employees”. In practice, many non-shareholders also benefit from a firm’s economic activity, among them empolyees through contractual compensation and its broader impact, consumers by the tangible or non-tangible value derived from their purchase choices; society as a whole through taxation and/or the company’s involvement in social action when it occurs. On the other hand, if a company’s purpose is to maximize shareholder returns, then sacrificing profits for other concerns is a violation of its fiduciary responsibility. Corporate entities are legal persons but this does not mean they are legally entitled to all of the rights and liabilities as natural persons.
Ethics are the rules or standards that govern our decisions on a daily basis. Many consider “ethics” with conscience or a simplistic sense of “right” and “wrong.” Others would say that ethics is an internal code that governs an individual’s conduct, ingrained into each person by family, faith, tradition, community, laws, and personal mores. Corporations and professional organizations, particularly licensing boards, generally will have a written code of ethics that governs standards of professional conduct expected of all in the field. It is important to note that “law” and “ethics” are not synonymous, nor are the “legal” and “ethical” courses of action in a given situation necessarily the same. Statutes and regulations passed by legislative bodies and administrative boards set forth the “law.” Slavery once was legal in the US, but one certainly wouldn’t say enslaving another was an “ethical” act.
Economist Milton Friedman wrote that corporate executives’ “responsibility … generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom”. Friedman also said, “the only entities who can have responsibilities are individuals … A business cannot have responsibilities. So the question is, do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no, they do not.” This view is known as the Friedman doctrine. A multi-country 2011 survey found support for this view among the “informed public” ranging from 30 to 80%. Ronald Duska and Jacques Cory have described Friedman’s argument as consequentialist or utilitarian rather than pragmatic: Friedman’s argument implies that unrestrained corporate freedom would benefit the most people in the long term. Duska argued that Friedman failed to differentiate two very different aspects of business: (1) the motive of individuals, who are generally motivated by profit to participate in business, and (2) the socially sanctioned purpose of business, or the reason why people allow businesses to exist, which is to provide goods and services to people. So Friedman was wrong that making a profit is the only concern of business, Duska argued.
Peter Drucker once said, “There is neither a separate ethics of business nor is one needed”, implying that standards of personal ethics cover all business situations. However, Drucker in another instance said that the ultimate responsibility of company directors is not to harm—primum non nocere.
Another view of business is that it must exhibit corporate social responsibility (CSR): an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must act as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or other goals. In the US and most other nations, corporate entities are legally treated as persons in some respects. For example, they can hold title to property, sue and be sued and are subject to taxation, although their free speech rights are limited. This can be interpreted to imply that they have independent ethical responsibilities. Duska argued that stakeholders expect a business to be ethical and that violating that expectation must be counterproductive for the business.
Ethical issues include the rights and duties between a company and its employees, suppliers, customers and neighbors, its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Issues concerning relations between different companies include hostile take-overs and industrial espionage. Related issues include corporate governance; corporate social entrepreneurship; political contributions; legal issues such as the ethical debate over introducing a crime of corporate manslaughter; and the marketing of corporations’ ethics policies. According to research published by the Institute of Business Ethics and Ipsos MORI in late 2012, the three major areas of public concern regarding business ethics in Britain are executive pay, corporate tax avoidance and bribery and corruption.
Ethical standards of an entire organization can be damaged if a corporate psychopath is in charge. This will not only affect the company and its outcome but the employees who work under a corporate psychopath. The way a corporate psychopath can rise in a company is by their manipulation, scheming, and bullying. They do this in a way that can hide their true character and intentions within a company.
Functional business areas
Finance
Fundamentally, finance is a social science discipline. The discipline borders behavioral economics, sociology, economics, accounting and management. It concerns technical issues such as the mix of debt and equity, dividend policy, the evaluation of alternative investment projects, options, futures, swaps, and other derivatives, portfolio diversification and many others. Finance is often mistaken by the people to be a discipline free from ethical burdens. The 2008 financial crisis caused critics to challenge the ethics of the executives in charge of U.S. and European financial institutions and financial regulatory bodies. Finance ethics is overlooked for another reason—issues in finance are often addressed as matters of law rather than ethics.
Finance paradigm
Aristotle said, “the end and purpose of the polis is the good life”. Adam Smith characterized the good life in terms of material goods and intellectual and moral excellences of character. Smith in his The Wealth of Nations commented, “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
However, a section of economists influenced by the ideology of neoliberalism, interpreted the objective of economics to be maximization of economic growth through accelerated consumption and production of goods and services. Neoliberal ideology promoted finance from its position as a component of economics to its core. Proponents of the ideology hold that unrestricted financial flows, if redeemed from the shackles of “financial repressions”, best help impoverished nations to grow. The theory holds that open financial systems accelerate economic growth by encouraging foreign capital inflows, thereby enabling higher levels of savings, investment, employment, productivity and “welfare”, along with containing corruption. Neoliberals recommended that governments open their financial systems to the global market with minimal regulation over capital flows. The recommendations however, met with criticisms from various schools of ethical philosophy. Some pragmatic ethicists, found these claims to be unfalsifiable and a priori, although neither of these makes the recommendations false or unethical per se. Raising economic growth to the highest value necessarily means that welfare is subordinate, although advocates dispute this saying that economic growth provides more welfare than known alternatives. Since history shows that neither regulated nor unregulated firms always behave ethically, neither regime offers an ethical panacea.
Neoliberal recommendations to developing countries to unconditionally open up their economies to transnational finance corporations was fiercely contested by some ethicists. The claim that deregulation and the opening up of economies would reduce corruption was also contested.
Dobson observes, “a rational agent is simply one who pursues personal material advantage ad infinitum. In essence, to be rational in finance is to be individualistic, materialistic, and competitive. Business is a game played by individuals, as with all games the object is to win, and winning is measured in terms solely of material wealth. Within the discipline, this rationality concept is never questioned, and has indeed become the theory-of-the-firm’s sine qua non”. Financial ethics is in this view a mathematical function of shareholder wealth. Such simplifying assumptions were once necessary for the construction of mathematically robust models. However, signalling theory and agency theory extended the paradigm to greater realism.
Other issues
Fairness in trading practices, trading conditions, financial contracting, sales practices, consultancy services, tax payments, internal audit, external audit and executive compensation also, fall under the umbrella of finance and accounting. Particular corporate ethical/legal abuses include: creative accounting, earnings management, misleading financial analysis, insider trading, securities fraud, bribery/kickbacks and facilitation payments. Outside of corporations, bucket shops and forex scams are criminal manipulations of financial markets. Cases include accounting scandals, Enron, WorldCom and Satyam.
Human resource management
Human resource management occupies the sphere of activity of recruitment selection, orientation, performance appraisal, training and development, industrial relations and health and safety issues.Business Ethicists differ in their orientation towards labor ethics. Some assess human resource policies according to whether they support an egalitarian workplace and the dignity of labor.
Issues including employment itself, privacy, compensation in accord with comparable worth, collective bargaining (and/or its opposite) can be seen either as inalienable rights or as negotiable.Discrimination by age (preferring the young or the old), gender/sexual harassment, race, religion, disability, weight and attractiveness. A common approach to remedying discrimination is affirmative action.
Once hired, employees have the right to the occasional cost of living increases, as well as raises based on merit. Promotions, however, are not a right, and there are often fewer openings than qualified applicants. It may seem unfair if an employee who has been with a company longer is passed over for a promotion, but it is not unethical. It is only unethical if the employer did not give the employee proper consideration or used improper criteria for the promotion. Each employer should know the distinction between what is unethical and what is illegal. If an action is illegal it is breaking the law but if an action seems morally incorrect that is unethical. In the workplace what is unethical does not mean illegal and should follow the guidelines put in place by OSHA, EEOC, and other law binding entities.
Potential employees have ethical obligations to employers, involving intellectual property protection and whistle–blowing.
Employers must consider workplace safety, which may involve modifying the workplace, or providing appropriate training or hazard disclosure. This differentiates on the location and type of work that is taking place and can need to comply with the standards to protect employees and non-employees under workplace safety.
Larger economic issues such as immigration, trade policy, globalization and trade unionism affect workplaces and have an ethical dimension, but are often beyond the purview of individual companies.
Trade unions
Trade unions, for example, may push employers to establish due process for workers, but may also cause job loss by demanding unsustainable compensation and work rules.
Unionized workplaces may confront union busting and strike breaking and face the ethical implications of work rules that advantage some workers over others.
Management strategy
Among the many people management strategies that companies employ are a “soft” approach that regards employees as a source of creative energy and participants in workplace decision making, a “hard” version explicitly focused on control and Theory Z that emphasizes philosophy, culture and consensus. None ensure ethical behavior. Some studies claim that sustainable success requires a humanely treated and satisfied workforce.
Sales and marketing
Marketing ethics came of age only as late as the 1990s. Marketing ethics was approached from ethical perspectives of virtue or virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, pragmatism and relativism.
Ethics in marketing deals with the principles, values and/or ideas by which marketers (and marketing institutions) ought to act. Marketing ethics is also contested terrain, beyond the previously described issue of potential conflicts between profitability and other concerns. Ethical marketing issues include marketing redundant or dangerous products/services, transparency about environmental risks, transparency about product ingredients such as genetically modified organisms possible health risks, financial risks, security risks, etc., respect for consumer privacy and autonomy, advertising truthfulness and fairness in pricing & distribution.
According to Borgerson, and Schroeder (2008), marketing can influence individuals’ perceptions of and interactions with other people, implying an ethical responsibility to avoid distorting those perceptions and interactions.
Marketing ethics involves pricing practices, including illegal actions such as price fixing and legal actions including price discrimination and price skimming. Certain promotional activities have drawn fire, including greenwashing, bait and switch, shilling, viral marketing, spam (electronic), pyramid schemes and multi-level marketing. Advertising has raised objections about attack ads, subliminal messages, sex in advertising and marketing in schools.
Inter-organizational relationships
Scholars in business and management have paid much attention to the ethical issues in the different forms of relationships between organizations such as buyer-supplier relationships, networks, alliances, or joint ventures. Drawing in particular on Transaction Cost Theory and Agency Theory, they note the risk of opportunistic and unethical practices between partners through, for instance, shirking, poaching, and other deceitful behaviors. In turn, research on inter-organizational relationships has observed the role of formal and informal mechanisms to both prevent unethical practices and mitigate their consequences. It especially discusses the importance of formal contracts and relational norms between partners to manage ethical issues.
Emerging issues
Being the most important element of a business, stakeholders’ main concern is to determine whether or not the business is behaving ethically or unethically. The business’s actions and decisions should be primarily ethical before it happens to become an ethical or even legal issue. “In the case of the government, community, and society what was merely an ethical issue can become a legal debate and eventually law.” Some emerging ethical issues are:
- Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Businesses impacts on eco-systemic environments can no longer be neglected and ecosystems’ impacts on business activities are becoming more imminent.
- Fairness: The three aspects that motivate people to be fair is; equality, optimization, and reciprocity. Fairness is the quality of being just, equitable, and impartial.
- Misuse of company’s times and resources: This particular topic may not seem to be a very common one, but it is very important, as it costs a company billions of dollars on a yearly basis. This misuse is from late arrivals, leaving early, long lunch breaks, inappropriate sick days etc. This has been observed as a major form of misconduct in businesses today. One of the greatest ways employees participate in the misuse of company’s time and resources is by using the company computer for personal use.
- Consumer fraud: There are many different types of fraud, namely; friendly fraud, return fraud, wardrobing, price arbitrage, returning stolen goods. Fraud is a major unethical practice within businesses which should be paid special attention. Consumer fraud is when consumers attempt to deceive businesses for their very own benefit.
- Abusive behavior: A common ethical issue among employees. Abusive behavior consists of inflicting intimidating acts on other employees. Such acts include harassing, using profanity, threatening someone physically and insulting them, and being annoying.
Production
This area of business ethics usually deals with the duties of a company to ensure that products and production processes do not needlessly cause harm. Since few goods and services can be produced and consumed with zero risks, determining the ethical course can be problematic. In some case, consumers demand products that harm them, such as tobacco products. Production may have environmental impacts, including pollution, habitat destruction and urban sprawl. The downstream effects of technologies nuclear power, genetically modified food and mobile phones may not be well understood. While the precautionary principle may prohibit introducing new technology whose consequences are not fully understood, that principle would have prohibited the newest technology introduced since the industrial revolution. Product testing protocols have been attacked for violating the rights of both humans and animals.There are sources that provide information on companies that are environmentally responsible or do not test on animals.
Property
The etymological root of property is the Latin ‘proprius’ which refers to ‘nature’, ‘quality’, ‘one’s own’, ‘special characteristic’, ‘proper’, ‘intrinsic’, ‘inherent’, ‘regular’, ‘normal’, ‘genuine’, ‘thorough, complete, perfect’ etc. The word property is value loaded and associated with the personal qualities of propriety and respectability, also implies questions relating to ownership. A ‘proper’ person owns and is true to herself or himself, and is thus genuine, perfect and pure.
Modern history of property rights
Modern discourse on property emerged by the turn of the 17th century within theological discussions of that time. For instance, John Locke justified property rights saying that God had made “the earth, and all inferior creatures, [in] common to all men”.
In 1802 utilitarian Jeremy Bentham stated, “property and law are born together and die together”.
One argument for property ownership is that it enhances individual liberty by extending the line of non-interference by the state or others around the person. Seen from this perspective, property right is absolute and property has a special and distinctive character that precedes its legal protection. Blackstone conceptualized property as the “sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe”.
Slaves as property
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, slavery spread to European colonies including America, where colonial legislatures defined the legal status of slaves as a form of property. During this time settlers began the centuries-long process of dispossessing the natives of America of millions of acres of land. The natives lost about 200,000 square miles (520,000 km2) of land in the Louisiana Territory under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, who championed property rights.
Combined with theological justification, the property was taken to be essentially natural ordained by God. Property, which later gained meaning as ownership and appeared natural to Locke, Jefferson and to many of the 18th and 19th century intellectuals as land, labor or idea, and property right over slaves had the same theological and essentialized justification It was even held that the property in slaves was a sacred right. Wiecek noted, “slavery was more clearly and explicitly established under the Constitution as it had been under the Articles”. Accordingly, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in his 1857 judgment stated, “The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution”.
Natural right vs social construct
Neoliberals hold that private property rights are a non-negotiable natural right. Davies counters with “property is no different from other legal categories in that it is simply a consequence of the significance attached by law to the relationships between legal persons.” Singer claims, “Property is a form of power, and the distribution of power is a political problem of the highest order”. Rose finds, “‘Property’ is only an effect, a construction, of relationships between people, meaning that its objective character is contestable. Persons and things, are ‘constituted’ or ‘fabricated’ by legal and other normative techniques.”. Singer observes, “A private property regime is not, after all, a Hobbesian state of nature; it requires a working legal system that can define, allocate, and enforce property rights.” Davis claims that common law theory generally favors the view that “property is not essentially a ‘right to a thing’, but rather a separable bundle of rights subsisting between persons which may vary according to the context and the object which is at stake”.
In common parlance property rights involve a bundle of rights including occupancy, use and enjoyment, and the right to sell, devise, give, or lease all or part of these rights. Custodians of property have obligations as well as rights. Michelman writes, “A property regime thus depends on a great deal of cooperation, trustworthiness, and self-restraint among the people who enjoy it.”
Menon claims that the autonomous individual, responsible for his/her own existence is a cultural construct moulded by Western culture rather than the truth about the human condition. Penner views property as an “illusion”—a “normative phantasm” without substance.
In the neoliberal literature, the property is part of the private side of a public/private dichotomy and acts a counterweight to state power. Davies counters that “any space may be subject to plural meanings or appropriations which do not necessarily come into conflict”.
Private property has never been a universal doctrine, although since the end of the Cold War is it has become nearly so. Some societies, e.g., Native American bands, held land, if not all property, in common. When groups came into conflict, the victor often appropriated the loser’s property. The rights paradigm tended to stabilize the distribution of property holdings on the presumption that title had been lawfully acquired.
Property does not exist in isolation, and so property rights too. Bryan claimed that property rights describe relations among people and not just relations between people and things Singer holds that the idea that owners have no legal obligations to others wrongly supposes that property rights hardly ever conflict with other legally protected interests. Singer continues implying that legal realists “did not take the character and structure of social relations as an important independent factor in choosing the rules that govern market life”. Ethics of property rights begins with recognizing the vacuous nature of the notion of property.
Intellectual property
Intellectual property (IP) encompasses expressions of ideas, thoughts, codes, and information. “Intellectual property rights” (IPR) treat IP as a kind of real property, subject to analogous protections, rather than as a reproducible good or service. Boldrin and Levine argue that “government does not ordinarily enforce monopolies for producers of other goods. This is because it is widely recognized that monopoly creates many social costs. Intellectual monopoly is no different in this respect. The question we address is whether it also creates social benefits commensurate with these social costs.”
International standards relating to Intellectual Property Rights are enforced through Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. In the US, IP other than copyrights is regulated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
The US Constitution included the power to protect intellectual property, empowering the Federal government “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”. Boldrin and Levine see no value in such state-enforced monopolies stating, “we ordinarily think of innovative monopoly as an oxymoron. Further, they comment, ‘intellectual property’ “is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity, and liberty”. Steelman defends patent monopolies, writing, “Consider prescription drugs, for instance. Such drugs have benefited millions of people, improving or extending their lives. Patent protection enables drug companies to recoup their development costs because for a specific period of time they have the sole right to manufacture and distribute the products they have invented.” The court cases by 39 pharmaceutical companies against South Africa’s 1997 Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, which intended to provide affordable HIV medicines has been cited as a harmful effect of patents.
One attack on IPR is moral rather than utilitarian, claiming that inventions are mostly a collective, cumulative, path dependent, social creation and therefore, no one person or firm should be able to monopolize them even for a limited period. The opposing argument is that the benefits of innovation arrive sooner when patents encourage innovators and their investors to increase their commitments.
Ethically, property rights of any kind have to be justified as extensions of the right of individuals to control their own lives. Thus any alleged property rights that conflict with this moral basis—like the “right” to own slaves—are invalidated. In my judgment, intellectual property rights also fail to pass this test. To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech and press? It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is universal, existing in other people’s minds and other people’s property, and over these, the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.
Machlup concluded that patents do not have the intended effect of enhancing innovation. Self-declared anarchist Proudhon, in his 1847 seminal work noted, “Monopoly is the natural opposite of competition,” and continued, “Competition is the vital force which animates the collective being: to destroy it, if such a supposition were possible, would be to kill society.”
Mindeli and Pipiya argued that the knowledge economy is an economy of abundance because it relies on the “infinite potential” of knowledge and ideas rather than on the limited resources of natural resources, labor and capital. Allison envisioned an egalitarian distribution of knowledge. Kinsella claimed that IPR create artificial scarcity and reduce equality. Bouckaert wrote, “Natural scarcity is that which follows from the relationship between man and nature. Scarcity is natural when it is possible to conceive of it before any human, institutional, contractual arrangement. Artificial scarcity, on the other hand, is the outcome of such arrangements. Artificial scarcity can hardly serve as a justification for the legal framework that causes that scarcity. Such an argument would be completely circular. On the contrary, artificial scarcity itself needs a justification” Corporations fund much IP creation and can acquire IP they do not create, to which Menon and others have objected. Andersen claims that IPR has increasingly become an instrument in eroding public domain.
Ethical and legal issues include patent infringement, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, patent and copyright misuse, submarine patents, biological patents, patent, copyright and trademark trolling, employee raiding and monopolizing talent, bioprospecting, biopiracy and industrial espionage, digital rights management.
