This case illustrates several ethical issues including those related to social responsibility as well as to business transactions. A food and beverage shop has an ethical obligation to follow rules of food safety. If it is agreed that the rule related to the distance between the building and the trash dumpster is a reasonable one, then our company should comply with these rules even if it poses an inconvenience and requires us to reconfigure our locations. However, it is possible that the government arbitrarily set these distances. It would be in our company’s best interest to find empirical evidence suggesting that six feet makes a difference, and that five feet is actually unsafe. If we can unearth research that shows that five feet is sufficient to promote public health and safety, then we should present those findings to the health department and request that the rule be changed. Doing so would also help other small businesses and promote a rational and evidence-based legal framework rather than one based on arbitrary regulations. As Sherman (2003) points out, “laws, rules, and regulations set enforceable limits beyond which personal choice is not permitted,” (p. 1). If our research does yield the conclusion that...
There are two reasons why the inspector’s offer is unethical. The first is that it constitutes a bribe. Soliciting or accepting bribes is categorically unethical in this situation. The fact that the inspector offered to trade oversight for food is a violation of ethical norms of business transactions. We should certainly not take this offer. The second reason why the inspector’s offer is unethical is that it would mean that we care more about the distance between the trash bin and the store than we do about our customers’ health and safety. In the long run, protecting the best interests of our clients is not just ethical but sensible from a business perspective. As Silverthorne (2003) puts it, “good ethics is good business,” (p. 1).
But the shareholders themselves need to be more aware and more involved in their company's business in order for any meaningful change to sustain itself: Shareholders, the intended beneficiaries of the corporate vehicle, are the ultimate capitalists: avaricious accumulators with little fiscal risk and no legal responsibility for the way in which they pursue their imperative to accumulate. Shareholders, not corporations, show indifference to the needs and values of society. It
Corporate Social Responsibility Literature Review a topic-Corporate Social Responsibility The term 'corporate social responsibility' is a social word that has often taken the world by a storm at its mention. Noya and Clarence (2007) in their book "The social economy: building inclusive economies" offers a succinct description and understanding of what normally takes place and get exemplified at the mention of this term in the business world. Many writers of business journals
Corporate Social Responsibility (Sony) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is no longer a tenable option to just be silent. Companies have to take responsibilities of their actions as a result of the impacts their businesses causes to the community and their stakeholders. For example during the recent oil spill of the British Petroleum Company (BP), at the coast of United States, the U.S. government did not remain silent on the issue but
591-2). The failure to integrate CSR initiatives into a larger development plan is another problem contributing to the lack of implementation of CSR projects. Projects are often driven by short-term expediency meaning that the decisions taken are at too low a level as to which projects to execute. There may be little coordination in determining the areas that will benefit and how the projects can be put together to contribute
Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, And Business Law: The Fall of Enron and the Discussion of Morals in Business Ethics in business has continued to be a growing concern in the twenty-first century. In order to protect and attract stakeholders, companies have enforced social responsibility, while law has protected and ensured security to stakeholders through the passing of laws. Despite corporate social responsibility and federal law, individuals in some businesses still find means
The activities of businesses affect different stakeholders within the communities they operate in. They affect customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, financiers, regulatory authorities, and communities. Accordingly, in their pursuit of economic objectives, business organizations have a responsibility to satisfy the concerns of stakeholders affected by their operations. This is the core of corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR theory asserts that business organizations exist for not only profit motives, but also social
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now