Business Ethics Theme Essay
“Business ethics examines issues of right, wrong, fairness, and justice that arise in the commercial realm on business (Carrol & Buchholz, 2006).
” Business ethics is such again a broad term just like it is stated with social responsibility. There are many outlines to business ethics, where business ethics present a company’s general overall view of their philosophy for their business.But it goes much deeper than that and this is where the outline comment comes into play with other ethical identities are presented, such as: Professional Ethics, Ethics in Human Resources, Sales Management, Accounting, Production, International, and Economic Systems, etc… Now don’t get me wrong some of the ethical issues stated in each of these outlining topics probably do overlap. But the point being made is that there is more business ethics than just a common definition that states what is right or wrong in a business.Drucker gives a very good detailed explanation of what business ethics is and how it has evolved and the different views.
But the thing that concludes with my state of business ethics being too broad is shown up in Drucker’s reading. He states these common things “surely “business ethics” assumes that for some reason the ordinary rules of ethics do not apply to business. “Business ethics,” in other words, is not “ethics” at all, as the term has commonly been used by Western philosophers and Western theologians. What is it then?It’s casuistry, prudence and self-development, interdependence, and organizational (Drucker, 1970). ” Drucker explains all of these points in his writing, but my point is to show that the topic is too broad when it comes down to explaining business ethics in general.
Some people believe that business ethics main principle is to maximize return to its owners. “Under this view, only those activities that increase profitability and shareholder value should be encouraged, because any others function as a tax on profits.Some believe that the only companies that are likely to survive in a competitive marketplace are those that place profit maximization above everything else. However, some point out that self-interest would still require a business to obey the law and adhere to basic moral rules, because the consequences of failing to do so could be very costly in fines, loss of licensure, or company reputation (George, 1999). ” Comparison of the Two ArticlesBoth Freidman and Drucker give great examples and explanations towards their view on the certain topics at hand.
My view on the comparison of the two articles is not so much the comparison of business ethics but of social responsibility towards the corporate setting. Don’t get me wrong this type of corporate social responsibility can be categorized as business ethics, but if we are looking to describe just the term social responsibility then let’s look at it from the two sides.The first thing that caught my eye in the whole comparison of the pieces of literature was that both authors consider a social responsibility to be more of a political statement than that of the market statement. Drucker first writes “In the first place casuistry must end up becoming politicized, precisely because it considers social responsibility an ethical absolute.
In giving primacy to political values and goals it subordinates ethics to politics. Clearly this is the approach “business ethics” today is taking.Its very origin is in politics rather than ethics. It expresses a belief that the responsibility which business and the business executive have, precisely because they have social impact, must determine ethics-and this is a political rather than an ethical imperative (Drucker, 1970). ” While it is stated in Freidman’s view point that “social responsibility involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scare resources to alternative uses (Freidman, 1970). ”Drucker compares business ethics and social responsibility towards the term “casuistry” which he explains with a ruler and their responsibility to themselves and their kingdom, he is quoted by saying “casuistry asserted that rulers, because of their responsibility, have to strike a balance between the ordinary demands of ethics which apply to them as individuals and their “social responsibility” to their subjects, their kingdom-or their company (Drucker, 1970).
” Now something that seems really comparable to this from Friedman’s standpoint is the same view in a way but just the use of a different explanation.“The corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily — to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, and even to leave his job, for example, to join his country’s armed forces.
If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as “social responsibilities. ” But in these aspects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are “social responsibilities,” they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not of business (Freidman, 1970).” The comparability to these to view points is as follows that as much as the situations are ethical in a business environment, that each of the individual examples each have a responsibility to his one self (individuality) and to his or her company at hand. To me the two comparison examples that preaches more on social responsibility than anything proves that again social responsibility is more evaluated and accepted not in a business practice term but towards the actions and responsibility that one has on certain societal situations.
I have tried to open and see the other aspects of views that maybe institutes social responsibility into a business aspect, but have yet to put the two pieces together. The comparison is in the writings, even though there is social responsibility towards a person’s “kingdom” or “business” it does represent more of an aspect to the persons willingness to be responsible to society.