Businesses Shouldn’t Have to be Socially Responsible
Some consider the term ‘business ethics’ as an oxymoron. Every MBA program (including the on I’m in now) has a required business ethics course. The goal of this course, from what I can gather up to this point, is for the students, future managers and leaders in business, to understand that business objectives and positive social change are not always in conflict. And that through business practices, one can have a hugely positive impact on social benefits. I agree with that. I think almost everyone in my program agreed with that before we even took the course.
I think that this overall agreeable consensus leads me to the problem I’m having with this business ethics course I’m taking now. The professor is trying to make the point that we not only can we create social change via our future business practices but have an OBLIGATION to create positive social change. I disagree with this. I think that consumer transparency is important and you have an obligation to be honest with your consumers. On the other hand, if I make a food product that is really bad for people’s health (<cough> Mcdonalds <cough>) and the consumer is aware of how bad it is and still eats it, that’s their problem. I believe in consumer transparency but I don’t believe in a requirement to create positive social change (in this case, it would be to stop selling food that is bad for people). If future trends show that people want to eat healthier, then maybe profits and social change can work in tandem. But it shouldn’t be a requirement.
While this difference might seem trivial to some, I think it highlights the major divide regarding corporate social responsibility in today’s business world. Some people feel that corporations are required to act as forerunners in positive social change. Business people wouldn’t mind being the leaders for social change, but they have to see the financial benefits before they do so. Dove was given much praise and had a large sales increase because of their famous ads that used real women with realistic waist sizes rather than models who are size 0. This pushed for positive social change and helped increase profits. It can work. And companies who can make it work, should try. But it’s not an obligation and shouldn’t be presented that way.
[polldaddy poll=1136264]
Thats the Business Ethics class? I thought it would be a class on what is considered illegal,unethical and ethical business practices. I mean, considering that much of the economy was trashed by unethical, sometimes completely illegal practices, I would think that they would emphasize these things. My engineering ethics coursework didnt have so much saying that I must work in solar power or whatever. My class basically taught what various forms of unethical behavior are, and how to avoid the,.
So you would have no ethical problem working for a cigarette company? One with complete transparency? Yes, (educated) consumers are responsible for their own choices.
But a) most consumers will never be educated
b) a business that profits only when people suffer is…well, evil.
Mechwarrior, since our class is in an MBA program and people are going into a multitude of industries, it’s hard to focus on what is ethical and what is not. The professor tries his best to outline guidelines but there are no hard and fast rules.
Barry, whether I would work for a cigarette company is a different story. I don’t think, however, that cigarette companies should HAVE to stop selling cigarettes for the social good. I think the government needs to step in to make rules that hinder businesses that prey on addictive substances, such as cigarettes.
If cigarette companies were smart, they would start diversifying their business and stop relying so heavily on cigarettes as their main source of income.
The government makes rules and “hinders” business (read: taxes) in order to promote a certain behavior. Either you recognize that the cigarette companies are inherently immoral, or your position should be to allow them to do business without any special government interference.
Sounds very evil but I feel its not unethical…