Business ethics: profits versus principles

Business Ethics

There are not too many greedy people who want to live a life of greed or the overwhelming desire to acquire and sit on top of piles of money (Putnam 2003). Most people just want to live in convenience, send their children to school and avoid financial stresses. The clash between principle and profit in business, win the struggle against the temptation of greed and make a principled stand may involve certain considerations and steps. The business person must be clear about his ethical principle or philosophy on money matters and this should be the foundation of his business. Then he must establish and confront what is most important in his life. Children form values from what their parents show and teach them. These values vary among individuals. Wants can be considered needs, and a person can learn and grow up to pursue wants and desires hard and never get satisfied. This tendency can dominate a person and spill over to his adult life or business. The pursuit of material acquisition can become the essence of his ethical decisions in business. Such a person must come to terms with his greedy attitude, which will eventually lead to his loss. He will lose customers and honest employees. But a person in business may not have to choose between principle and profits by developing the proper perspective or viewpoint regarding money and observe his ethical principle while making fair profits (Putnam).

Unprecedented major changes in society have been modifying the way people view the good life and among the forces shaping that view are globalization and the resulting cultural differences, new communication technologies rapidly transmitting information worldwide, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and the decreasing autonomy of national governments (Ping 2001). More and more people expect business corporations to take the responsibility of addressing current social issues. Findings of studies revealed that there is a place for principles and profits and corporations have become more aware of their social responsibility. More and more businesses see that the key elements to competitiveness are employee productivity and innovation, when employees become most enthusiastic, productive and creative in evolving new ways of doing things. This requires an entirely new vision expressed in a mission statement, which details the values and principles to guide the organization. These will have to defocus from hard values, like profitability, accountability and efficiency, to more holistic values, such as freedom, fun and well-being of employees. Expected outcome will consist of better working environment for employees, which in turn, will result in increased profits from their greater productivity and innovation, a higher standing in the community through corporate involvement, and a new corporate image, which will attract more qualified people who want to work in a more fulfilling and empowering environment. This seems the time when business organizations must re-evaluate the way they do business and how they must chart the future (Ping).

Psychologists studied how creative professionals can remain true to their goals, art an values in these times of pressure to win and to make profit (Sleek 1998). They studied how these professionals' responsibilities conflict with their personal goals, family members and other intimate relationships, their vocation or calling and the wider world and generations to come. Health professionals commit themselves to the Hippocratic oath, but also have health maintenance organizations to consider. Journalists print or speak out the truth as an obligation but must remain in business to do so. These psychologists came out with indefinite results, which could only offer a universal model for those wanting to maintain or achieve professional fulfillment and creativity while performing their moral obligation to the public. It would help professionals find ways of doing or keep doing the good work despite pressures, which would compromise their individual values, goals or principles (Sleek).

The clash between profit and principle presents itself sharply in the case of profit-based organizations where profits and care compete directly and more when resources are limited (Wynne 2000). Limited funding must be stretched and profit is compromised. Pressures to generate more profits are, therefore, aimed at reducing or manipulating care and profit corporations enter the market for the purpose of generating profits to which they and society at large feel they are entitled. The stronger the market pressure for profit, the greater the pressure applied on their profit and care conscience decision. In their strongly competitive share market environment, survival depends or means the generation of larger profits in order to grow and resist takeovers. Those who can afford or choose to ignore their conscience succeed only at the expense of those who cannot or do not. There is no other way to look at the situation. Society views health care providers as those who can be trusted in a socially responsible way even under pressure and to place patient care ahead and above personal considerations and convenience. Recent and continuing events in the health care marketplace in the U.S.A. strongly indicate the response of the market to adverse economic factors and the instability that response creates in the patients and their care. Market demands for large profits have caused companies to behave imprudently and to stretch themselves in order to survive and resist a takeover. They had to manipulate care just to succeed and scandal, fraud allegations and large losses followed manipulative acts (Wynne).

Non-profit organizations present a welcomed picture. Not-for-profit nursing homes, for example, were reported to have done better financially under funding pressures by changes in Medicare in 1997 (Wynne 2000). These organizations had greater concern with care than with profit or growth. They did not have large loans and reports said that these organizations throughout the U.S.A. maintained superior standards of care. While these nursing home organizations were pressured to adopt many of the competitive practices of the corporate marketplace for the sake of survival, they still seemed to keep an eye on their mission, serve the community better, were less expensive, had fewer complications and a lower mortality rate. Their focus on service tended to increase costs and did not help them compete. Their market model failed and they were taken over and restructured by new corporate owners so as to make them profitable (Wynne). This has been the recent fate of this type of not-for-profit organizations in their quest for service over profit.