1

Q-1:
Ethics & Business Dont Mix:
This myths holds that business practices are basically amoral because businesses operate in a free
market. This myths also asserts that management is based on scientific rather than religious or
eathical,principle.
the ethicist Richerard DeGeorge has noted that the belief that business is amoral is a myth
because it ignores the business would suggest, businesses would collapse. Employees would
openly steal from employers: employer would recklessly fire employees at will:concractors
would arrogantly violate obligations: and chaos would prevail. In the u.s business and society
often share the same values: rugged individualisms in a free enterprise system. pragmatism over
abstraction, freedom, and independence. when business practices violate these American values
society and the public are threatened.

Finally, the belief that businesses operate in totally "free market" is debatable. Although the
value or desirability of the concept of a free market is not in question, practices of certain firms
in free markets are. At issues are the unjust methods of accumulation and noncompetitive uses of
wealth and he power in the formation of monopolies and oligopolies. The U.S market
environment t can be characterized best as a mixed economy based on free market mechanisms,
but not limited to or explained only by them. Mixed economies rely on some governmental
policies and laws for control of deficiencies and inequalities.
First, the 3 Cs:
Company:
You first need to think about what type of company you plan to operate. What will it look like?
What values will you aspire to? What is your companys mission? Will it be a corporation, an
LLC or a sole proprietorship? Where will it be located? What will you name it? Basically, you
need to think about anything that that defines the type of company you plan to run.
Customer:
Next, you need to think about your target audience. What type of customer will most likely be
interested in your product or service? What are the demographics? Where will they live? To what
income brackets will they belong?
Competition:
Last but not least, you really need to consider your competition. Believe me, if you leave this
part out, youll get eaten alive. Theres a famous poker saying that sums this up nicely. It

basically says that if you dont know who the sucker is on the table, then its probably you. The
same holds true in the business world. You need to know your competition very well. You need
to learn how they operate, what marketing tactics they use, who their suppliers are, what
financial position they are in and anything else you can dig up.
Every successful leader demonstrates a curiosity that would not be satisfied without personal
examination of what exactly were the causes of failure to meet expectations. This was validated
through NAW's (National Association of Wholesaler Distributors) research "Profiles in
Wholesale Distribution Leadership. In this project, individual leadership models differed in their
specific approaches. The common thread that linked every model together was their respect for
the individual and the willingness and ability to listen with an understanding that embellished
their own leadership contribution to the organization. The most obvious similarity between these
the seven exceptional leaders interviewed was the fact that they were all curious, creative and
committed. Leadership is about curiosity, scenario planning, strategic planning and calculated
risk taking. Effective leaders are excellent listeners that have tremendous questioning skills. The
power of influence is often in the question and not in the answers. Effective leaders understand
this concept. A common trait found in every successful leader I have ever been associated with is
unhesitant curiosity. Curiosity about their markets, their business, their industry, their employees
and what it takes to grow, prosper and create competitive advantage. These leaders have accepted
the fact that they may not have all the answers. More importantly, they recognize that they don't
have to have all the answers. Changing a leadership style is not the easiest thing in the world to
do. Development of their leadership skills is a continuous process. This process includes: *
Enhancement of their instinctive curiosity and a strengthening of their focus on being a customer
driven organization. Service and quality become a way of life within the organization and it is
used to support their competitive advantage. * Taking their vision and redefining it as an end
game which challenges their executive team to create a strategic plan to meet this end game. *
The recognition that employees are the most precious asset and backing up that recognition by
the willingness to invest profits in the development of these employees. * Empowerment that is
accompanied by the resources necessary to succeed and accountability for results. * Utilizing a
board of directors as a resource while sharing management challenges seeking policy and
guidance, incorporating contingency planning and scenario planning as a regular exercise.
Wholesale distribution organizations increasingly are characterized by a large and incredibly
complex set of independent relationships between highly diverse groups of people. To be
successful, today's leader must determine how to get active involvement built on a platform of
creativity, commitment and curiosity out of their employees. Creativity
Successful leaders take the time to listen, imagine and investigate numerous alternatives. With
the involvement of people they forge creative solutions to difficult problems. They challenge
their people to stretch, go beyond their previous boundaries and think outside the box. Successful
leaders feed off their people and allow their people to feed off of them. They give credit where
credit is due. They give recognition as a means of gaining respect. They believe individuals can

make a difference. Through these methods they learn to create new insights and possibilities.
Successful leadership means creating a sense of urgency, getting mutual commitment to action.
Action steps are always clearly defined and precise. Often, due to the personification of the
leader's own personality and charisma, employees are eager to leap into action - without
forethought. A successful leader recognizes this possibility and takes the necessary steps to avoid
this pitfall by teaching precision in planning. They are clear and explicit. They communicate
with encouraging clarity that commands ownership by everyone involved in the commitments
made. The successful leader is constantly building advantages into the organizations. The belief
is that you don't always have to be better than your competition but you must be different. This
concept demands creativity and innovations.
Rules Of Game:
Being ethical is also of course doing the right thing, but what one does is hardly separable from
how one thinks. most people in business who do wrong do so not because they are wicked but
because they think they are trapped and do not even consider the ethical significance or
complications of their actions. It is thinking in terms of compliance with the rules, implicit as
well as explicit ,thinking in terms of contributions one can make as well as ones own possible
gains, thinking in terms of avoiding harmful consequences to others as well as to oneself.
Accordingly here are 4 rules for ethical thinking in business.
Rule No 1:Consider other peoples well-being ,including the well being of nonparticipants.
In virtually every major religion this is the golden rule. do unto others as you would have them
do unto you or negatively Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto
youIdeally.this might mean that one should try to maximize everyones interests but this is
unreasonable .First of all no one really expects that a businessman would or should sacrifice his
own interests for everyone else,s.Second,it is impossible to take everyone into account, indeed
for any major transaction the number of people who will be affected some unpredictably may run
into the tens or hundreds of thousands. But we can readily accept a minimum version of this rule
which is to make a contribution where it is reasonable to do so and to avoid consequences that
are harmful to others. There is nothing in the golden rule that demands that one deny ones own
interests or make sacrifices to the public good.
Rule No 2:Think as a member of the business community and not as an isolated
individually.
Business has its own rules of properties and fairness. These are not just matters of courtesy and
protocol. they are the conditions that make business possible. Respect for contracts paying ones
debts and selling decent products at a reasonable prices are not only ones own advantages thet
are necessary for the very existence of the business community.

Rule no 3:Obey, but do not depend solely one the law.

Is goes without saying as a matter of prudence if not of morality that businesses and business
people ought to obey the law. the most obvious meaning of compliance. But what need to be
added is that ethical thinking is not limited to legal obedience. There is much unethical behavior
that is not legal and the question of what is right is not always defined by the law.
The fact is that many things that are not immoral or illegal are repulsive disgusting unfair and
unethical .Paying debts only after the feebilerninded,taking advantages of trust and good faith,
selling faulty if not dangerous merchandise under the rubric buyer bewarechek the law but
dont stop there.
Rule No 4: Think of yourself and your company as part of society.
Business people and businesses are citizens in society. They share the fabric of feeling that make
up society and in fact contribute much of that feeling themselves. Business is not closed
community it exists and thrives because it serves and does not harm society. It is sometimes
suggested that business has its own ethical rules and that they are decidedly different from those
of the larger society. The comparison with poker has its own problems but leaving those aside
from now we can see how such a view not only invites but demands the most rigorous regulation
of business. Business is subject to the same ethical rules as everyone else because businessmen
do not think of themselves as separate from society.
Q-2;
Normative Theories of Business ethics
This theory is divided in two parts
1. Consequentialist Theories
2. Nonconsequentialist Theories
Consequentialist Theories:Those theories that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the
actions consequences or results.
Nonconsequentialist Theories:Those that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the actions
intrinsic features or character.
Consequentiality Theories is also further divided in to two types-

1.

Egoism:

The view that morality coincides with the self-interest of an individual or an organization.
Egoists:
Those who determine the moral value of an action based on the principle of personal advantage.
An action is morally right if it promotes ones long-term interest.
An action is morally wrong if it undermines it.
Personal egoists:
Pursue their own self-interest but do not make the universal claim that all individuals should do
the same.
Impersonal egoists:
Claim that the pursuit of ones self-interest, should motivate everyones behavior.
Egoists do not necessarily care only about pursuing pleasure (hedonism) or behave dishonestly
and maliciously toward others.
Egoists can assist others if doing so promotes their own advantage.
Psychological egoism:
The theory of ethical egoism is often justified on the ground that human beings are essentially
selfish.
Even acts of self-sacrifice are inherently self-regarding insofar as they are motivated by a
conscious or unconscious concern with ones own advantage.
2. Utilitarianism
Definition:
The moral theory that we should act in in ways that produce the most pleasure or happiness for
the greatest number of people affected by our actions.
Main representatives:
The British philosophers Jeremy Bentham (17481832) and John Stuart Mill (18061873).

The principle of utility:

Actions are morally praiseworthy if they promote the greatest human welfare, and blameworthy
if they do not.
Six points concerning utilitarianism:
(1)In choosing between alternative courses of action, we should consider the net worth of
happiness vs. unhappiness produced by each course of action.
(2)We should give equal consideration to all individual preferences, then calculate the net worth
of the various kinds of pleasures and pains.
(3) Anything can be morally praiseworthy in some circumstances if it promotes the greatest
balance of pleasure vs. pain for the greatest number of people.
(4) We should seek to maximize happiness, not only immediately, but in the long run.
(5) We should avoid choosing actions if their consequences are uncertain.
(6) We must guard against bias in our utilitarian calculations when our own interests are at stake.
So it is advisable to rely on rules of thumb.

Nonconsequentialist Theories
Kants moral theory is perhaps the most influential of all nonconsequentialist approaches. In his
view, right actions have moral value only if they are done with a good willfor dutys sake
alone. The meat of Kants theory is the categorical imperative, a principle that he formulates in
three versions. The first version says that an action is right if you can will that the maxim of an
action become a moral law applying to all persons. An action is permissible if (1) its maxim can
be universalized (if everyone can consistently act on it) and (2) you would be willing to have that
happen. The second version of the categorical imperative says that we must always treat people
as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to an end.
Kants theory seems to conflict with our commonsense moral judgments (Criterion 1) and has
flaws that limit its usefulness in moral problem solving (Criterion 3). The theory falters on
Criterion 1 mainly because some duties generated by the categorical imperative are absolute.
Absolute duties can conflict, and Kant provides no way to resolve the inconsistencies, a failure
of Criterion 3. Furthermore, we seem to have no genuine absolute duties.
Natural law theory is based on the notion that right actions are those that accord with natural law
the moral principles embedded in nature itself. How nature is reveals how it should be. The
inclinations of human nature reveal the values that humans should live by. Aquinas, who gave us
the most influential form of natural law theory, says that humans naturally incline toward

preservation of human life, procreation, the search for truth, community, and benign and
reasonable behavior. Like Kants theory, traditional natural law theory is absolutist, maintaining
that some actions are always wrong. These immoral actions include directly killing the innocent,
interfering with procreation, and lying. The theorys absolutist rules do occasionally conflict, and
the proposed remedy for any such inconsistencies is the doctrine of double effect. The principle
applies to situations in which an action produces both good and bad effects. It says that
performing a good action may be permissible even if it has bad effects, but performing a bad
action for the purpose of achieving good effects is never permissible. Despite the double-effect
doctrine, the theorys biggest weakness is still its absolutism, which seems to mandate actions
that conflict with our considered moral judgments. In some cases, for example, the theory might
require someone to allow hundreds of innocent people to die just to avoid the direct killing of a
single person.
Q-3:
The Nature of Justice
Definitions of justice: Justice is related to morality as part to a whole, and is often
specified in connection with terms such as fairness, equality, desert or rights.
It is one important aspect of morality.
Talk of justice generally involves related notions of fairness, equality, desert, and rights.
Aristotle on justice as fairness: Treat similar cases alike except where there is some
relevant difference.
Mill on justice as a moral right: Justice implies something that is not only right to do,
and wrong not to do, but something that an individual can claim from us as a moral right.
Five rival principles of distribution:
(1) Each an equal share.
(2) Each according to individual need.
(3) Each according to personal effort.
(4) Each according to social contribution.
(5) Each according to merit.
(6) Reconciling rival principles of distribution: Some philosophers argue that principles
are applicable in some circumstances and not in others but it is not always clear how to
reconcile two or more rival principles in the same circumstances.

(7) Michael Walzers approach: The idea that different distribution principles depend on
implicit social norms.
Distinctive utilitarian ideals:
(1) Worker participation: In his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill argued for the
formation of labor and capital partnerships promoting equality between workers and
industrialists.
(2) Greater equality of income: Utilitarians are more likely to favor equal income
distribution on the basis of the so-called declining marginal utility of money.
(3) The principle of liberty: Libertarians refuse to restrict individual liberty even if doing so
would increase overall happiness.
(4) Nozicks theory of justice: Nozick developed an influential statement of the libertarian
position in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, based on the idea of negative and natural
rights borrowed from the writings of the British philosopher John Locke (16321704).
Principles of Nozicks entitlement theory:
(1) A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in acquisition
is entitled to that holding.
(2) A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer,
from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
(3) No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of statements 1 and 2
(4) Nozicks Wilt Chamberlain example:
(1) The player of a team is guaranteed $5 from the price of each ticket.
(2) He is a favorite player and eventually ends up with far more than the average
income.
(3) Nozick argues that Chamberlain is entitled to his new wealth, and that any other
theory of economic justice would inevitably fail to defend his entitlement.
Explanation of the principles:
(1) The first principle takes priority over the second it guarantees as much liberty to
individuals as possible, compatible with others having the same amount of liberty.

(2) The first part of the second principle articulates the familiar ideal of equality of
opportunity.
(3) The second part of the principle called the difference principle stipulates that
inequalities are justifiable only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
(4) Fairness and the basic structure: Rawls rejects utilitarianism because it could permit an
unfair distribution of benefits and burdens. Contrary to Nozick, Rawls believes that social
justice concerns the basic structure of society, not transactions between individuals.
(5) Benefits and burdens: According to Rawls, justice requires that the social and economic
consequences of arbitrarily distributed assets (natural characteristics and talents) be
minimized.
Q-4:
When corporations cause harm to the society, their corporate licences can be revoked, fines and
other sanctions can be imposed under the law or society can withdraw its patronage and profits,
placing the corporations existence in jeopardy.
Many corporations invest significant resources in philanthropic acts which are collectively
packaged and promoted as corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR reports offer the public
some proof that corporations are acting responsibly and are contributing to the well-being of the
society.
Some corporations have established corporate codes of ethics to set standards of business
practice that go above the base-line requirements of the law. In addition, corporations define
moral values that shape the corporate culture, with the expectation that these values will
be evidenced in the personal and professional conduct of employees.
We now live in an information age in which corporations are under constant public scrutiny. The
actions and implied intentions of corporate agents are very often judged, using moral and ethical
principles as the standard, and not just the base-line requirements of the law or the content of
CSR reports.
A case in point
Citizens of Lac Mgantic, Qubec, were outraged at the delayed response of Ed Burkhardt,
president of MMA, the company whose derailed train carrying crude oil devastated their small
town.
The widespread outrage at Mr. Burkhardts reaction is understandable and justified. His
behaviour demonstrated his concerns were primarily focused on base-line legal responsibilities.
And yes, there is much that is ethically and morally wrong with a corporations president

10

enjoying the comfort and safety of his office and home many miles away from a disaster area
where hundreds of people remain homeless, jobless and in the case of nearly 50 people, lifeless,
as a result of the corporations actions regardless of who eventually is found to be legally liable
for the disaster.
The BIG picture
Corporations must accept that they are not only legal entities with legal obligations.
Corporations have moral and ethical responsibilities to ensure that their actions, whether
intentionally performed or accidentally caused, do not harm the society. This, in my view, is the
BIG picture.
Putting public safety above profits is the true test of whether or not a corporation is acting in a
morally responsible fashion. The swift response and remedial actions of Johnson and Johnson in
the Tylenol capsule crisis in spite of multi-million revenue losses, demonstrated that
corporations recognition of its self-imposed obligation to avoid harming the public even though
it did not directly cause the contamination of the capsules.
Focus on whats important
Because moral and ethical responsibilities are self-imposed, corporations should find specific,
clearly defined ways and means of ensuring that they are fulfilling these responsibilities. A few
suggestions:
Annual training for employees on the code of ethics Each employee should review and sign the
code of ethics, attesting to their understanding and compliance. Part of the training should
include likely scenarios in which employees will need to apply the corporations ethical and
moral standards.
A moral audit committee Establish a committee that addresses situations that present ethical
and moral dilemmas for employees and for the corporation. In addition the committee should
periodically review the ethical and legal implications of the corporations business practices. For
example: pricing and special promotions, supplier relationships and the award of contracts,
competitive positioning in advertising and potential conflicts of interest in talent acquisition.
Whistleblowers hotline The provision of a secure way for employees to disclose business
practices and employee behaviour that are contrary to the companys code of ethics and
corporate values.
Protocol for crisis management The protocol should include guidelines for transparent
communication and codes of conduct for the corporations representatives that focus on
empathetic, remedial actions and intentions of the corporation.

11

ust as the industrial economy gradually evolved from the agricultural economy, so the industrial
economy is currently giving way to the emerging digital economy. In the new economy
technology becomes the dominant factor of wealth generation "rather than land, labor and
particularly capital", whereas "information and its proper management through information
technology are making the difference and separating the winners from the losers" (Aldrich, 1999,
pp. 6 and 7).
In the digital environment the balance of power shifts inexorably from the manufacturer to the
consumer. To be competitive in the new economy companies must offer products and services
that are specifically customized to meet the needs of individual consumers (Daft, 2001, p. 207).
This implies that "businesses in the digital age must employ product development processes that
interact dynamically with customers; that they perform a more constant-and precise- monitoring
of overall market trends; that cycle times get dramatically reduced; that raw materials are
procured rapidly and in a cost-effective manner; and that distribution methods that suit the
customer's, not the company's convenience are put into place. In short, the free flow of
information made possible in the digital age will put the customer at the center of business
priorities and strategies" (Aldrich, opcit, pp. 11-12).
Consumer empowerment in turn implies a 180-degree change in business strategy from a 'makeand-sell' to a 'sense-and-respond' organization "an adaptive system for responding to
unpredictable requests. It is built around dynamically linked sub-processes and relies on
economies of scope rather than economies of scale. The people in a sense-and respond
environment are empowered and accountable, and spend their time producing customized
outcomes in accordance with an adaptive business design" (Tapscott et al, 1998, p. 37). Senseand-respond organizations are thus customer-driven, process-focused and employee-involved
(Zenger et al, 1994, p. 14). Due to the considerable increase in uncertainty, enhanced emphasis is
being placed on flexibility, change and hence adaptive, entrepreneurial cultures stressing that
"customer value is the only value that matters" (Daft, pp 319 and 483-487).
At the same time -responding to society's changing expectations of business- a growing number
of companies seem to take pride in corporate citizenship, committing themselves to social
responsibility. Companies that have received Corporate Conscience Awards in recent years
include Kellogg, Sainsbury, Hewlett-Packard, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Fuji Xerox (Schwartz
and Gibb, p. 78). A most notable evolution in this respect has been the development of Social
Accountability 8000 (SA-8000) - a global standard "providing a framework for the independent
verification of the ethical production of all goods, made in companies of any size, anywhere in
the world" . a major opportunity for companies "to demonstrate their commitment to best
practice in the ethical manufacture and supply of the goods they sell" (Fabian, 1998, p.1). SA8000 involves auditing companies by independent assessors on a wide range of issues,
comprising: child labour, health and safety, freedom of association, the right to collective
bargaining, discrimination, disciplinary practices and compensation (Fabian, opcit, p. 2).

12

Organizations meeting the standard earn a certificate attesting to their "social accountability
policies, management and operations"
The concepts of business ethics and social responsibility are often used interchangeably,
although each has a distinct meaning. The term business ethics represents a combination of two
very familiar words, namely "business" and "ethics". The word business is usually used to mean
"any organization whose objective is to provide goods or services for profit" (Shaw and Barry,
1995, p. 3; also see Velasquez, 1998, p.14), whereas organizations are defined as "(1) social
entities that (2) are goal oriented, (3) are designed as deliberately structured and coordinated
activity systems and (4) are linked to the external environment" (Daft, 2001, p. 12). One of the
most important organizational elements highlighted by this definition is that organizations are
indeed open systems, i.e. they must interact with the environment in order to survive. . "The
organization has to find and obtain needed resources, interpret and act on environmental changes,
dispose of outputs, and control and coordinate internal activities in the face of environmental
disturbances and uncertainty" (ibid, p. 14). The fact that business organizations are open systems
means that although businesses must make a profit in order to survive they must balance their
desire for profit against the needs and desires of the society within which they operate. Hence,
despite the fact that in market economies business organizations are traditionally allowed some
degree of discretion being "ostensibly free to choose what goods and services they produce,
the markets they aim to serve and the processes by which they produce" (Smith and Johnson,
1996, p. 28), organized societies around the world did indeed establish principles and developed
rules or standards of conduct - both legal and implicit - in order to guide businesses in their
efforts to earn profits in ways that do not harm society as a whole.
The word ethics in the term business ethics comes from the Greek word ethos meaning
"character or custom" (Shaw and Barry, op.cit, p.3). Ethics has been defined in a variety of ways,
inter alia, as: "the study of morality" (Velasquez, 1998, p.7); "inquiry into the nature and grounds
of morality where the term morality is taken to mean moral judgments, standards and rules of
conduct" (Ferrell and Fraedrich, 1997, p.5); and/or as "the code of moral principles and values
that governs the behaviors of a person or group with respect to what is right or wrong" (Daft,
opcit, p. 326). Based on these conceptualizations, the definition of business ethics adopted here
comprises "the moral principles and standards that guide behavior in the world of business"
(Ferrell and Fraedrich, opcit, p. 6), whereas "an organization's obligation to maximize its positive
impact, and minimize its negative impact, on society" is being termed corporate social
responsibility (Ferrell and Fraedrich, p. 67).
Corporate social responsibility is a multidimensional construct comprising four subsets of (1)
economic; (2) legal; (3) ethical; and (4) voluntary philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1989,
pp 30-33; Ferrell and Fraedrich, ibid, p.6). The economic responsibilities of a business are to
produce goods and services that society needs and wants at a price that can perpetuate the
business and satisfy its obligations to investors. Thus social responsibility, as it relates to the

13

economy, encompasses a number of specific issues including how businesses relate to

competition, shareholders, consumers, employees, the local community and the physical
environment. The legal responsibilities of businesses are simply the laws and regulations they
must obey. It is the bare minimum required of business organizations by society in return for
allowing them to obtain the inputs they need from the environment, transform inputs into outputs
and dispose of outputs -- in the form of goods and services acquired by consumers in order to
satisfy their individual needs and wants. The legal dimension of corporate social responsibility
thus refers to obeying local, national and international law regulating competition
(procompetitive legislation) and protecting: workers' human rights (equity and safety
legislation); the consumer (consumer protection legislation); and the natural environment
(environmental protection laws). Ethical responsibilities are those behaviours or activities
expected of business by society -- yet not codified in law. This subset of corporate social
responsibilities may be interpreted as expressing the 'spirit of the law' vis--vis the 'letter of the
law' in the previous case. Lastly voluntary philanthropic responsibilities are those behaviours
and/or activities desired of business by society and referring to business contributions to society
in terms of quality of life and society's welfare - for example, giving to charitable organizations
and/or supporting community projects.
Q-5:
The nature of moral rights and responsibilities in the workplace
Workers want to be paid well, have safe work conditions, be rewarded for their productive work,
have a chance to get promotions, have free speech, privacy, and so on. There was a time when
workers had almost no legal rights in the workplace, but an employer must now treat minorities
as equals, pay employees the minimum wage, pay employees more for overtime, and provide
relatively safe work conditions. For more information, go here. However, the law doesnt
guarantee that employees will be treated with respect. Employers could have a moral
responsibility to their employees beyond what the law requires.
Our actual moral rights and responsibilities are a matter of debate. Mills utilitarian theory of
justice might be used to justify our responsibility to help people, and employees might have a
right to have a workplace that can help them live better lives. However, Nozicks libertarian
theory cant justify a responsibility to help others. Even so, Nozicks theory can justify the fact
that we have a right to noninjury and employers have a responsibility not to harm their
employees. That means that employers have a responsibility to provide employees with safe
working conditions and managers have a responsibility not to be abusive to their employees. This
could include an employee right not to be verbally abused assuming that verbal abuse is harmful.
No matter what theory of justice we agree to, we have reason to think that employees have
certain rights that cant be taken away. For example, any theory of justice can deny the right to
own human beings. If thats true, then what exactly does it mean to own a person or to sell

14

oneself? It might be immoral to sell oneself to a company, even for limited periods of time (from
9 to 5). Stripping a person of their liberties could be considered to be a form of slavery.
Although theres an American tradition that assumes that corporate efficiency requires
employees to sacrifice their civil liberties and other rights between 9 and 5, theres reason to
think otherwise (208). For example, Ewing points out that the companies that lead in
encouraging rightsorganizations such as Polaroid, IBM, Donnelly Mirrors, and Delta Airlines
have healthier-looking bottom lines than the average corporation does (ibid.).
Employers can also be tempted to be disrespectful of employees because it can cost money to
pay more for wages, to create safer working conditions, and so on. However, employers have
a moral reason to be respectful of employees, and it can be in the best interest of the company.
Being respectful of employees can increase productivity by raising morale, help a company hire
better employees by making a business more attractive to applicants, and keep productive
employees from looking for better jobs elsewhere.
Our moral rights and responsibilities are merely minimal moral standards and only reflect a
minimal level of respect. Its possible for a work environment to respect employees beyond
moral requirements. What is moral isnt necessarily a duty. Sometimes we can treat people in
ways that are beyond the call of duty. For example, rewarding employees with a bonus could be
a good thing to do, and it could be more respectful than is morally required of a business.
Additionally, employers can show appreciation, compliment, and encourage their employees.
Personnel policies and procedures
Personnel policies and procedures determine how a company handles hiring, firing, promoting
etc. I will discuss the moral implications of various personnel policies and procedures.
Hiring
Hiring often involves, screening, testing, and interviewingand each of these steps of a hiring
process have unique moral implications (210).
Screening
Sometimes a great deal of people apply for a job and screening helps a company reduce the list
of eligible applicants to be more manageable. People should be screened on the basis of their
qualifications rather than discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and so on (ibid.).
Screening includes the job description and job specification. The job description should disclose
the relevant details of a job, such as its duties, responsibilities, working conditions, and physical
requirements (ibid.). The job specification should list all the requirements needed to be hired,
such as skills, educational experience, appearance, and physical attributes (ibid.). How does
this relate to morality? First, if a job description or specification is inadequate, candidates can

15

waste time and money pursuing jobs they arent suited for (ibid.). Second, jobs must not screen
out qualified people on the basis of irrelevant characteristicsand disabilities, race, age, religion
(or lack of religion), and gender are often irrelevant to qualification. Even job descriptions that
are for mailmen could end up screening out women. Instead, gender neutral job titles like
mail carrier are better (211).
Sometimes discrimination is warranted and sometimes it isnt. Requiring applicants to have
certain educational or physical capacities isnt always warranted, and discrimination against
people with disabilities and other minorities is occasionally justified because the job might have
a good reason for doing so (211-212). For example, it can make sense to hire women for
modeling positions or to be the attendant in a womens bathroom (211).
Sometimes illegal forms of discrimination are motivated by the actual profitability of an
employee (ibid.). For example, racist customers might prefer a white salesperson over a black
one, and a white salesperson could make more money for the company as a result. Nonetheless,
companies cannot discriminate based on the irrational prejudice of customers.
Tests
Tests can measure an applicants skills in an attempt to make the applicant pool smaller and
efficiently decide which applicants are most qualified for a job (213). Employers have a duty to
make sure that tests are valid, reliable, and fair:
Valid
Valid tests are relevant to the job. It would usually be unfair to require computer programmers to
be sociable or to require diplomats to be good at computer programming.
Reliable
Reliable tests make sure that the scores properly assess the applicants abilities and that a
subjects score will remain constant from test to test (ibid.).
Fair
Fair tests must be relevant to job performance and must not discriminate against anyone who is
qualified for the job (ibid.). For example, tests can be culturally biased.
Assuring that tests are valid and reliable can be expensive, but its morally necessary to protect
the rights of applicants, to hire the most qualified employees, and to protect the interests of
stockholders.
Interviews

16

Interviews allow employers to assess the qualifications of an employee through personal

communication, but they can also involve unjust discrimination. An interviewers negative
attitude around minorities can cause minorities to decide they dont want to be hired.
Interviewers must exercise care to avoid thoughtless comments that may hurt or insult the
person being interviewedfor instance, a passing remark about a persons physical disability or
personal situation (a single parent, for instance) (214).
Promotions
Deciding who gets promotions is a decision with moral implications quite similar as hiring new
employees. Additionally, seniority, inbreeding, and nepotism are tempting reasons to give people
promotions despite not always being good reasons to give a promotion (215). These three factors
must compete with the actual qualifications of an employee who is likely to do the best job.
Seniority
Seniority determines how long someone has worked for a company. A qualified person can be
insulted if they are passed up for promotion time and time again, but not everyone with seniority
are most qualified for a job. It is important that jobs can reward loyalty, but seniority doesnt
always indicate loyalty either (ibid.). Nonetheless, seniority is a morally relevant factor in
determining promotions because (a) its important that workers have opportunities for job
advancement, (b) the actual prolonged contributions an employee makes to a company should
count for something, and (c) refusing to give promotions based on seniority has a chance to
lower morale (216).
Inbreeding
Inbreeding is when people who work for a company tend to be considered for promotions rather
than hiring people from outside of the company. Inbreeding is a relevant consideration to giving
promotions to the same extent as seniority.
Nepotism
Nepotism is showing favoritism towards family and friends. Nepotism can be a legitimate
factor in justifying a promotion when a company exists primarily for the interests of a family, but
it must not disregard the actual qualifications, loyalty, and prolonged contributions of other
employees.
Discipline and discharge
Discipline and discharge are necessary measures to make sure that employees stay productive.
Discipline involves punishment and discharge involves a separation between an employee and
the company, such as being fired. Moral implications to discipline and discharge include the
following:

17

Employees should be notified of infractions privately rather than publicly or not at all (217).
Chastising employee in public can be humiliating and is disrespectful, but employees must be
notified at some point so they can correct their behavior.
Employees should have chances to correct their behavior rather than being fired for the first
minor infraction (ibid.). Infractions can give employees an incentive to be productive and
improve their performance, so firing employees too quickly will destroy this incentive.
Discipline and discharge should be given for just cause, meaning they should be relevant to job
performance (ibid.). Employees should not be punished or fired for having various illnesses,
being a minority, smoking cigarettes at home, etc.
How a person behaves outside of work is generally not relevant to job performance, but it can
occasionally have a relevant impact on the business (217-218). Our rights to privacy and
freedom of speech outside the workplace should be assumed to override the businesss interest to
control their workers while theyre off the clock unless we are given good reason to think
otherwise.
The job should provide workers with due processfair and consistent sanctions (218).
Discipline and discharge should be administered to everyone equally without favoritism. Those
who allegedly violate the rules should be given a fair and impartial hearing and there should be
a step-by-step procedure by which an employee can appeal a managerial decision (ibid.).
Employers must carefully analyze the reasons for dismissing an employee, and wrongful
termination is a common cause of lawsuits (ibid.). The reasons for discharge should be outlined
in an employee handbook, collective bargaining agreement, or corporate policy agreement
(ibid.). Even if an employer dismisses an employee legally, they might not have done so morally.
Employees should not be dismissed without a good reason.
Employers should be careful how they dismiss employees (ibid.). Employees should be
dismissed privately, and they usually shouldnt be dismissed after funerals, on Fridays,
birthdays, wedding anniversaries, or the day before a holiday (ibid.).
Q-6:
challenges facing the workplace today
According to Axero Solutions, best known for creating the enterprise social networking software
Communifire, theres a good chance your organization is suffering from one (or more) of the
aforementioned plights. Axero conducted an informal survey of visitors to the companys
website and found that, of all the challenges facing the workplace today, these are the five most
common and most daunting:
Employee engagement:

18

This likely doesnt come as a surprise to anyone, considering that roughly31.7 percent of U.S.
workers are engaged in their jobs. That leaves the vast majority of the U.S. workforce
disengaged.
Time management:
Among industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks first in terms of hours worked per year. The
average American employee puts in 1800 hours annually 400 more hours than
their Norwegian counterparts, for example. Is this because U.S. workers are bad at time
management, or is it because U.S. workers are simply asked to do more than workers in other
industrialized nations? In all honesty, its probably the latter.
Overwhelming workloads:
As mentioned above, Americans work a lot. Their heavy workloads likely contribute to their
time-management problems. When you have so much to do, how can you possibly fit it all into
the confines of the eight-hour workday?
Employee turnover:
In 2014, the average turnover rate across all industries was 15.7 percent. Considering that
the golden turnover rate should be about 10 percent (depending on who is leaving), it seems
there is some serious work to be done in this area.
Open communication:
Transparency has reached full buzzword status, but in true buzzword fashion, it doesnt seem
like too many people are actually paying attention to the very same virtues they laud. Only 14
percent of organizations can say with confidence that their employees understand the companys
goals, strategies, mission, and vision.
problems solution
The first step is recognizing that the problems are real and do exist. Again, if your organization
believes it isnt suffering, some intense scrutiny may be in order.
Once the problems have been recognized and noted, the solution breaks down to three levels:
he Individual Level:
This includes things like making sure you hire the right people for your organization;
engaging new hires from day one and making them feel comfortable; helping new hires set goals
and achieve them; keeping people motivated; and connecting the people inside your organization
to one another and the companys overall values and mission, Eisenhauer says.
The Relationship Level:

19

This includes the steps managers can take to build employee trust and foster strong relationships
between all members of the company. Eisenhauer says that managers should consider strategies
such as rewarding people; thanking them; letting them know that their contributions are heard
and that they actually matter; supporting career development; identifying what people are good
at; and giving people projects related to their strengths.
The Company Level:
At this level, the priority must be building a strong culture and allowing it to evolve,
Eisenhauer says. Organizations need to promote open communication and candor; they need
to design and share missions that people can get behind; and leaders and high-level executives
need to lead by example, interacting with the employees who are working down in the trenches.
Q-7:
Moral Issues Facing Employees
Employees have various moral decisions to make. Many of these decisions should be made on
the basis of our moral obligations, but sometimes the morally preferable action could require
courage and be performed beyond the call of duty. I will discuss (1) obligations employees have
for the firm, (2) the illegitimate use of ones position for private gain, (3) bribery, (4) the
obligations employees have to third parties, (5) whistle blowing, and (6) self-interest. This
discussion is based on chapter eight of Business Ethics (Third Edition, 1999) by William Shaw.
Obligations to the firm
Employees are hired to do something for the company (282). They obligate themselves to work
for that company for financial gain. The employer often sets various conditions to employment,
such as a dress code and respectful behavior.
Loyalty to the company
Most people assume that employees have a moral obligation to be loyal to the company they
work for (ibid.). It is plausible that we are obligated to do our jobs in order to get our paychecks,
but do we have an obligation to help the company in any way beyond strictly doing our job?
Many employers seem to think so. They may expect employees to defend the company if it is
maligned, to work overtime when the company needs it, to accept a transfer if necessary for the
good of the organization, or to demonstrate their loyalty in countless other ways (283). Shaw
does not tell us if we are obligated to have any loyalty to our employers, but we certainly think
loyalty to the company is often a good thing and we hope that our loyalty will be rewarded
through raises, promotions, good letters of recommendation, and so on.
Conflicts of interest

20

An employees interests can conflict with the companys. Some of these conflicts of interest are
minor and involve the fact that we might be doing something at work we would rather not.
However, other conflicts of interest are serious and can tempt employees to behave disloyalty.
For example, Bart Williams, sales manager for Leisure Sports World, gives all his firms
promotional work to Impact Advertising because its chief officer is Barts brother-in-law. As a
result, Leisure Sports World pays about 15 percent more in advertising costs than it would if its
work went to another agency (ibid.). Even if Bart doesnt act against his companys interest, he
could still be tempted to do so and the conflict of interest will still exist (283-284).
Employees should try to avoid significant conflicts of interest by staying away from situations
that could tempt them from being disloyal, but it is difficult to decide when a conflict of interest
is significant and its not always clear what employees should do when they are faced with a
conflict of interest besides trying to resist the temptation to be disloyal.
Abuse of official position
The use of ones official position for personal gain is often an abuse of power. This abuse can
exist when a conflict of interest leads to disloyalty, such as Bart Williams use of his job to help
his brother-in-law. Examples of abuse range from using subordinates for non-organizationalrelated work to using a position of trust within an organization to enhance ones own financial
leverage and holdings (285). Common abuses of power include insider trading and stealing
proprietary data. I will discuss both in more detail.
Insider trading
Insider trading is when one person has access to information thats unavailable to the public and
will likely have an impact on stock prices (ibid.). For example, employees might know that their
company is going bankrupt before the general public and sell all their stock before it becomes
worthless. People who buy the stock will be deceived into thinking its worth more than it really
is. In fact, its also insider trading for the employees to encourage family and friends to sell their
stock using such inside information.
Insider trading involves difficult moral issues. Its not clear exactly when employees can buy or
sell stock from their own companies; its not entirely clear how much information a company
should disclose to stockholders about the firms plans, outlooks, and prospects; its not entirely
clear when such information should be disclosed; and its not entirely clear when a person is an
insider (286).
Shaw does not tell us how we can try to resolve these issues.
Proprietary data
Companies often have secret information called trade secrets that they dont want to be leaked
outside the organization, and employees would be disloyal to use such information to advance

21

the interests of competing organizations (287-288). Patents and copyrights are publicly available
and protected by the law, but theres still a chance that many people can get away with breaking
copyright or patent laws. Companies have trade secrets to assure that the information isnt used
by competitors, but it is possible for others to discover the trade secret on their own and use it.
For example, the formula for Coca-Cola is a trade secret, but anyone who discovers the formula
can use it for their own soda company (288).
There are at least three arguments given for why some people think trade secrets should be
protected by the law (ibid.):
They are intellectual property.
The theft of trade secrets is wrong.
Employees can steal trade secrets from their companies, but that would violate the confidentiality
owed to the company.
Additionally, employees often get jobs working for the competition and can be tempted to use
trade secrets to benefit the competitor (288-289). This is a difficult moral issue because people
have a right to seek employment and we cant always separate proprietary information from a
workers acquired skills and technical knowledge (289). [T]rade secrets that companies seek to
protect have often become an integral part of the departing employees total capabilities (ibid.).
Bribes and kickbacks
A bribe is a payment made with the expectation that someone will act against their work duties,
and bribes can be very serious when it leads to neglect or reckless behavior that can injure people
(289). For example, a judge is supposed to rule impartially based on what good judgment and the
law requires in order to decide what punishment to give to criminals. A judge who takes a bribe
from a private prison to give people guilty of crimes long sentences and send them to that private
prison have compromised their impartiality and good judgment. Moreover, the people guilty of
crimes would be harmed from the bribery because their punishment would be unfairly severe as
a result.
Kickbacks are a form of bribery that are attained after a person uses their work position to
benefit someone (290). If the judge gets paid after sending a person to the private prison, then the
bribe is a kickback.
The foreign corrupt practices act
US companies have often bribed foreign officials for favors, and such favors could harm people.
For example, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation was commonly bribing foreign officials and paid
$22 million to get aircraft contracts with foreign governments (ibid.). Such bribes can harm
governments by getting them to pay too much for goods and services (aircrafts in this case), and

22

the harm can then be done to citizens who have to pay the bill in taxes. In this case knowledge of
the bribes caused a crisis in the Japanese government.
The FCPA forbids US companies from bribing foreign officials and the punishment for bribes
includes fines and imprisonment (ibid.). It also requires that companies adhere to accounting and
auditing controls to help assure that bribes arent being made. However, the FCPA doesnt forbid
grease payments that are made to assure that government officials do their jobs because
companies are often benefited when government officials do their jobs properly.
Finally, the FCPA treats extortion as bribery, so companies are not allowed to pay extortion
money. Extortion is when a foreign official attempts to coerce a company to pay money (290291). For example, sometimes the official threatens to violate the companys rights, perhaps by
closing down a plant on some legal pretext, unless the official is paid off (291).
Gifts and entertainment
Gifts and entertainment can be used to reward and encourage certain behavior from employees,
and can cause a conflict of interest as a result. Entertainment is often provided as a gift, but
entertainment isnt as likely to be morally wrong because it usually occurs within the context of
doing business in a social situation (294). In extreme cases gifts and entertainment can be
equivalent to bribes. For example, there was a former General Services Administration (GSA)
official who pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of accepting free lunches from a subsidiary of
the BellSouth Corporation, which was seeking a telephone contract with the GSA (ibid.).
When deciding whether gifts and entertainment are appropriate, the following considerations are
relevant (293-294):
The value of the gift. Gifts worth thousands of dollars or more are likely to be taken as bribes.
Most companies define infrequent gifts worth $25 or less to be nominal but anything more to
cross the line.
The purpose of the gift. It could be meant to be used for palm-greasing to encourage someone
to do their job, used for advertising, or used as a bribe.
The circumstances under which the gift was given or received. A gift given at a celebration,
store opening, or during a holiday season is different than a gift not attached to a special
occasion, and a gift given openly is less suspicious than a gift given in secret.
The position and sensitivity to influence of the person receiving the gift. A person in a
position to reciprocate the gift in the form of business decisions more likely to be taking a bribe.
The accepted business practice in the industry. Gifts in the form of tips are part of our
custom of having a waiter or waitress, but not part of being a CEO of a company. Gifts that are
part of a cultural custom are much less suspicious than gifts that arent.

23

The companys policy. Some companies have stricter rules concerning gifts than others, and we
have some reason to refuse gifts when our company forbids it.
The law. Gifts that violate the law are almost always morally unacceptable, but the law doesnt
always forbid immoral forms of bribery or gift giving.
Obligations to third parties
Sometimes an employee has obligations to the general public that can conflict with their loyalty
to the company. For example, a dishwasher can find out that the restaurants chef typically
reheats three- or four-day-old food and serves it as fresh and she might have a duty to alert the
public, and a consulting engineer could find a defect in a structure that is about to be sold and
she might have a duty to tell the customer about the defect (294). In some cases an employee
could find out about negligent and reckless behavior of a company that puts the public in
eminent danger, such as when a company dumps toxic waste without taking proper precautions.
How should employees behave when their job duties, personal obligations, and personal interests
conflicts with the interests of others? When a person is morally obligated to alert others about
dangerous and deceptive business practice is not obvious, but employees should consider the
importance of their job duties and personal interest compared the importance of the interests of
others who are involved. Additionally, it can be morally preferable to alert the relevant third
parties about immoral and illegal business practices, even if its not a moral obligation to do so.
The fact that business decisions can harm some people isnt enough to prove the decision to be
morally wrong. Decisions made by companies often harm the interest of competitors, and some
people might argue that pollution violates our right to noninjury when it is likely to hurt people,
but both of these business practices are often considered to be morally permissible. There are
unfair trade practicesthat can illegitimately harm the competition, and there are illegal levels of
pollution, but such practices arent always considered to be significantly wrong. Thats not to
say that harming people is never significant. Businesses arent allowed to deceive their
customers or do anything that would violate a persons right to noninjury, and its often morally
preferable to alert the relevant third parties about such violations.
Shaw suggests two ways to try to help us avoid rationalizations when engaging in moral
reasoning to decide what to do when we face moral dilemmas:
First, we can ask ourselves whether we would be willing to read an account of our actions in the
newspaper are the contemplated actions ones that we would be willing to defend publicly?
Second, discussing a moral dilemma or ethical problem with a fiend can often help us avoid bias
and get a better perspective. People by themselves, and especially when emotionally involved in
a situation, sometimes focus unduly on one or two points, ignoring other relevant factors. Input
from others can keep us from overlooking pertinent considerations. (296)

24

Whistle blowing
Whistle blowing is the act of going public with what one has reason to believe to be significantly
immoral or illegal acts of an organization one is part of. Someone is not a whistle blower for
telling the public about embarrassing or rude behavior (297), and being a whistle blower doesnt
involve sabotage or violence (298).
Many employees refuse to be whistle blowers because it is likely to damage their relationships at
work, lead to dismissal, and even lead to being blacklisted from an industry. In fact, some whistle
blowers have faced illegal forms of retaliation such as harassment, and sometimestheyve even
been murdered.
Whistle blowers must often have courage to be willing to endanger their own well being, and
many of our unsung heroes are whistle blowers. However, its not always the right thing to do.
Whistle blowing can be reckless and endanger the well being of an innocent company when its
done from a hunch of wrongdoing rather than from a reliable method. Normal Bowie, a
professor of civil disobedience, argues that whistle blowing isnt justified unless the following
criteria is met (298-299):
The motive must be appropriate. The employee must want justice because the organization
committed a significant immoral or illegal act. The motive must not be to get revenge or to attain
fame. However, this criteria is controversial. An inappropriate motive might still help cause
appropriate forms of whistle blowing. As long as the company has done something significantly
wrong or illegal, its morally preferable for the public to find out about it one way or the other.
The employee should usually seek less harmful ways to resolve the issue first. Employees
should usually alert management and executives of wrongdoing before making the wrongdoing
known to the public. Management or executives should usually be given a chance to rectify the
situation, and alerting the public should usually be a last resort. The reason that this rule isnt
absolute is because there are situations when its impractical. For example, if peoples lives are in
immediate danger, then there might be no better option than to go public with the information
right away.
The whistle blower needs compelling evidence of wrongdoing. Its reckless to accuse a
company of wrongdoing when theres a good possibility that the company is innocent.
Additionally, accusations against a company are likely to harm the whistle blower rather than the
company when the public doesnt have good reason to agree that the company did something
wrong. An employee could be dismissed or sued for defamation.

25

The organizations wrongdoing must be specific and significantly wrong. To accuse a

corporation of wrongdoing involving rude behavior can be a violation of employee privacy, and
the whistle blower must have specific examples of wrongdoing by the company.
The whistle blowing has a chance of being successful. If whistle blowing has no chance of
success, then the whistle blower is going to be likely harmed by the act without a worthwhile
payoff. However, Shaw objects that whistle blowing can occasionally bring attention to a
practice that will eventually lead to reforms sometime in the future even if it wont be a solution
to the specific wrongdoing done.
The question of self-interest
Whistle blowing and complaints can be dangerous for whistle blowers because they are
exposing themselves to charges of disloyalty, disciplinary action, freezes in job status, forced
relocation, and even dismissal (299). Again, whistle blowing is often also met with illegal forms
of retaliation ranging from harassment to murder. It seems reasonable to ask ourselves if we
should be whistle blowers or complain about business practices on the job when doing so can
require us to endanger our own well being. I will discuss the relevance of self-interest to our
moral decisions and obligations.
Are we obligated to protect the interests of others by reporting misconduct to management or
alerting the public of significant immoral acts committed by companies we work for when doing
so significantly endangers our own well being? There are two common responses to this concern.
One, some people argue that prudential reason (rational self interest) can override our moral
obligations (300). Its possible that we are justified to neglect our moral obligations when doing
so would likely harm us. Two, some people argue that prudential reasons are relevant to morality
and that we are not morally obligated to help others when doing so is likely to significantly cause
us harm (ibid.). In that case we wouldnt be morally required to be whistle blowers, but it could
still be morally preferable and supererogatory (above the call of duty) to be a whistle blower.
If employees have an excuse to refuse to be whistle blowers, then we have a serious problem
many people will get hurt when no one is willing to take a stand (301-302). Its not enough just
to hope that some heroic individuals will try to protect our interests. Shaw suggests that it might
be a good idea to restructure business and social institutions so such acts no longer carry such
severe penalties. Just as laws currently exist to protect whistle blowers in the public sector from
reprisals, so comparable legislation is needed in the private sector (302). Although the laws
protecting federal whistle blowers is actually inadequate and Obama has promised to strengthen
the protection, improved legislation is a solution worth considering.
We should not use self-interest to rationalize the wrongs we or our companies do. Each of us
has a tendency to magnify potential threats to our livelihood or career. Exaggerating the costs to
ourselves of acting otherwise makes it easier to rationalize away the damage we are doing to
others. In the business world, for instance, people talk about the survival of the firm as if it were

26

literally a matter of life and death (301). Additionally, we have a tendency to over-value
obedience and many people will obey leaders to the point of harming others.
We should think rationally and impartially regarding morality, but that can require changes in our
personalityan attempt to be morally virtuous. One way to improve ourselves is to perform a
kind of character or personality audit (ibid.). We can think about our life and ask ourselves
questions, such as the following (ibid.):
Do we follow authority blindly?
Do we suffer from moral tunnel vision on the job?
Do we mindlessly do what is demanded of us, oblivious to the impact of our cooperation and
actions on outside parties?
Have we given enough attention to our possible roles as accomplices in the immoral undoing of
other individuals, businesses, and social institutions?
Do we have a balanced view of our own interests versus those of others?
Do we have substantial evidence for believing that our livelihoods are really threatened, or is that
belief based more on an exaggeration of the facts?
Conclusion
Morality demands that we consider the interests of everyone who can be effected by our
decisions, and that we consider the situation we are in. Our job and position in society can give
us unique obligations and what we should do depends on all these factors. When considering our
moral duties, the most commonly cited moral principle is the right to noninjury. No matter what
moral theory we agree to, everyone seems to agree that noninjury is relevant to morality and
employees have a duty not to cause significant harm to innocent people. This is why its often
morally preferable to be a whistle blower when a company is causing significant danger or harm
to the public.

Q-8:
Discrimination
Employment discrimination is a form of discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national
origin, physical or mental disability, and age by employers. Earnings differentials or
occupational differentiation is not in and of itself evidence of employment discrimination.
Discrimination can be intended and involvedisparate treatment of a group or be unintended, yet
create disparate impact for a group.

27

In neoclassical economics theory, labor market discrimination is defined as the different

treatment of two equally qualified individuals on account of
their gender,race, age, disability, religion, etc. Discrimination is harmful since it affects the
economic outcomes of equally productive workers directly and indirectly
throughfeedback effects. Darity and Mason [1998] summarize that the standard approach used in
identifying employment discrimination is to isolate group productivitydifferences (education,
work experience). Differences in outcomes (such as earnings, job placement) that cannot be
attributed to worker qualifications are attributed to discriminatory treatment.In the nonneoclassical view, discrimination is the main source of inequality in the labor market and is seen
in the persistent gender and racial earnings disparity in the U.S Non-neoclassical economists
define discrimination more broadly than neoclassical economists. For example, the feminist
economist Deborah Figart [1997] defines labor market discrimination as a multi-dimensional
interaction of economic, social, political, and cultural forces in both the workplace and the
family, resulting in different outcomes involving pay, employment, and status. That is,
discrimination is not only about measurable outcomes but also about unquantifiable
consequences. It is important to note that the process is as important as the outcomes.
Furthermore, gender norms are embedded in labor markets and shape employer preferences as
well worker preferences; therefore, it is not easy to separate discrimination from productivityrelated inequality. The key issue in the debate on employment discrimination is the persistence of
discrimination, namely, why discrimination persists in a capitalist economy.
Evidence
here are two types of evidence that can be used to prove discrimination: direct and
circumstantial.
Direct Evidence
Direct evidence is the best way to show that discrimination occurred. Direct evidence of
discrimination includes statements by managers or supervisors that directly relate the adverse
action taken against you to your protected class status.
For example, if your employer tells you that you are being let go because you are near retirement
age and the company wants to go with a younger image, you have direct evidence that your
protected class status was the cause of your termination. This evidence can be in the form of
verbal comments or statements written in letters, memos, or notes.
Circumstantial Evidence
The likelihood of obtaining direct evidence of discrimination is extremely slim. Supervisors and
other company personnel are too sophisticated and too well-trained by their own attorneys to
openly express their biases and prejudices. In almost every case, an employee must rely on
circumstantial evidence to create a presumption of discrimination.

28

Affirmative action
Executive Order 11246, which is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, is an
attempt to eliminate the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups on account of
gender and race. It requires contractors to observe their employment patterns. If there is underrepresentation of women and minorities, goals and timetables are created to employ more of
the disadvantaged groups on account of gender and race. The pros and cons of affirmative action
have been discussed. Some believe discrimination does not exist at all or even it does,
prohibiting it is enough, and affirmative action is not needed. Some agree that some affirmative
action is needed but they have considerations regarding the use of goals and timetables as they
might be too strict. Some think strongaffirmative action is needed but they are worried if there
would be really sincere effort to hire the qualified individuals from the vulnerable groups.
The Civil Rights Act aimed to blind organizations to gender and race and similar distinctions
removed from merit. The idea behind the law is an ideal, a theoretically perfect society where
discrimination in the invidious sense doesnt exist. Unfortunately, the real world rarely lives up
to ideals.Affirmative action enters here, at the realization that things wont be perfect just
because we make laws saying they should be. What affirmative action doesas its name
indicatesis act. Its not a requirement that organizations stop discriminating; its a set of
preferences and policies that aggressively counter discrimination, usually in ways that
themselves hint at discrimination. There is, even ardent defenders admit, a troubling element of
fighting fire with fire where affirmative action operates.
In practice, affirmative action comes in various strengths:
In the strongest form, quotas are employed to guarantee that individuals from disadvantaged
groups gain admittance to an organization. A number of slotswhether they are seats in a
classroom or posts in an officeare simply reserved for individuals fitting the criterion. Since
quotas inescapably mean that certain individuals will be excluded from consideration for certain
posts because of their race, gender, or similar trait, theyre relied on only infrequently.
In strong form, significant incentives are deployed to encourage the participation of minority
groups. In universities, including the historically black Alabama State University, special
scholarships may be assigned to attract whites to campus. In private companies, bonuses may be
offered or special accommodations made for targeted individuals. A mentor may be assigned to
guide their progress. Statistics may be accumulated and care taken to ensure that salary hikes and
promotions are being distributed to members of the aggrieved demographic.
Moderate affirmative action measures typically mean something akin to the tie goes to the
minority. Whether a university is admitting students to next years class or a business is hiring

29

new sales representatives, the philosophy here is that if two candidates are essentially equally
qualified, the one representing a disadvantaged group will be selected.
Weak affirmative action measures refuse to directly benefit one or another identity group. Steps
are undertaken, however, to ensure thatopportunity is spread to include minority candidates.
Frequently, this means ensuring that the application pool of candidates for a post or promotion
includes individuals from across the spectrum of genders, races, and similar. A commitment to
implement his policy was part of the Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination lawsuit settlement. The
company in essence said theyd been doing too much recruiting at overwhelmingly white
fraternities and sororities, and they promised to branch out.
====================================================================
Q-9:
Strict Liability
Liability without or irrespective of fault
Thus, a defendant is liable even though s/he did not intend to cause harm and did not act
recklessly or negligently
Basic for product liability cases
Imposing strict liability is a social policy decision that risk associated with an activity, especially
an abnormally dangerous activity, should be borne by those who pursue it, rather than by
innocent persons who are exposed to that risk
We originally had a legal doctrine of caveat emptorlet the buyer beware because consumers
were expected to know if the products they purchased were of sufficient quality (355). This
doctrine was eventually phased out, which was clearly seen after the 1916 landmark court
case MacPherson v. Buick Motor Car embraced the view that manufacturers could be sued rather
than merely sellers, and it marked a change in law where manufacturers were seen as having a
duty towards customers despite not always having a direct contractual relationship with them
(ibid.). This duty is what can be described as being based on due care, the view that
consumers interests are particularly vulnerable to being harmed by the manufacturer, who has
knowledge and expertise the consumer does not have (354-355).
In 1916 the doctrine of due care at the time assumed that (a) companies were innocent until
proven guilty and (b) that manufacturers arent responsible for harming consumers after taking
sufficient precautions (355). It was the customers job to prove that the manufacturer had
been negligent, but it can be very difficult to prove that a company is negligent and products
could be very dangerous even when many precautions are taken.

30

However, we now use the legal doctrine of strict liability and companies are now liable even
when they take precautions, so consumers no longer have to prove negligence. Companies have a
duty to have safe products and taking precautions can no longer get them off the hook (ibid.).
Strict liability isnt absolute liability because the product must be defective and consumers
must use caution.
The justification for strict liability is utilitarian. Its a good source of motivation for companies to
take every precaution possible because any harm a defective product causes can cost them a lot
of money from legal battles .Taking some precautions is no excuse for a defective product
because more precautions can often still be taken.
paternalism
Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior by an organization or state which limits some person or
group's liberty or autonomy for what is presumed to be that person's or group's own
good. Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person,
or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.The word paternalism is from the
Greek pater (, ) for father, though paternalism should be distinguished
from patriarchy. Some, such as John Stuart Mill, think paternalism to be appropriate towards
children: "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to
human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young
persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood." Paternalism
towards adults is sometimes thought to treat them as if they were children.
soft and hard paternalism
The terms soft and hard are used in two quite different senses in this context. Philosophers,
following Joel Feinberg's influential book Harm to Self (1986), usually use "soft paternalism" for
paternalism towards a person whose action or choice is insufficiently voluntary to be genuinely
his or hers. Hard paternalism in this usage means paternalism towards a person whose action or
choice is sufficiently voluntary to be genuinely his or hers. Soft paternalism in this usage may
also refer to interference with a person aimed to establish whether or not his or her action or
choice is sufficiently voluntary. In contrast, economists and lawyers usually use "soft
paternalism" for mild paternalism, that is paternalism that is not coercive, or not very "heavyhanded". For example, libertarian paternalism is soft paternalism in this sense. Hard paternalism
in this usage is coercive paternalism.
Consumer obligations
Consumers rights are not limitless and the consumer guarantees do not require you to provide a
remedy unless one of the guarantees has not been met.
For example, you may not be required to provide a remedy if a consumer:

31

simply changes their mind, decides they do not like the purchase or has no use for it
discovers they can buy the goods or services more cheaply elsewhere
has damaged the goods by using them in a way that was unreasonable.
Compensation for damages & loss
Your customers can seek compensation for damages and losses they have suffered due to a
problem with a product or service (in addition to any other remedy provided) if you could have
reasonably foreseen the problem. In other words, customers can also recover losses that would
probably result from your failure to meet a guarantee.
Damages include the cost caused to the consumer as a result of the problem with the product or
service. This is usually financial, such as costs of repairing damaged carpets as a result of a
faulty leaking washing machine, inspection and transportation. It can also include lost time or
productivity.
You do not have to pay for damages or losses that:
are not caused by your business or the goods you supplied
relate to something independent of your business and outside your control, after the goods left
your control.
Fixing something that is the manufacturers fault
Some goods may fail to meet one or more of the consumer guarantees due to a manufacturing
defect or issue that would otherwise be the manufacturers fault. The consumer can ask the seller
to provide a remedy, and the seller is required by law to oblige.
In this situation the manufacturer must reimburse the seller. The reimbursement amount can
include any compensation paid to the consumer for reasonably foreseeable consequential losses.
A supplier has three years to ask the manufacturer for reimbursement, from the earliest of the
following dates:
the day they fixed any problems with the consumers goods
the day the consumer took legal action against the supplier.
Refunds and returns signs
Signs that state No refunds are unlawful.
The following signs are also unlawful:

32

No refunds on sale items

Exchange or credit note only for the return of sale items.
However, signs that state No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind are
acceptable.
Dealing with customer complaints
If a customer complains to you about a purchased good and demands a remedy, your business is
legally obliged to provide the appropriate remedy under the consumer guarantees provisions of
the ACL.
If you do not comply, the customer can:
report the problem to the ACCC or their local consumer protection agency, or
have the matter heard in their local small claims tribunal or magistrates court. The Magistrate or
tribunal members decision is legally binding.

Q-10:
Key environmental issues affecting business include industrial waste, sustainable development of
raw materials and water and air emissions. These issues affect business because laws require
businesses to change equipment and procedures to meet imposed standards, which costs
businesses money. Many businesses undertake stricter changes in an effort to preserve the
environment .These businesses pay for the protective and proactive environmental measures and
attempt to recoup the expenses through consumer good will or the added consumer base gained
from an environmentally friendly policy.
Waste
Businesses that manufacture products create, at some point in the manufacturing process,
manufacturing waste. Environmental laws and good environmental citizenship prohibit the
indiscriminate dumping of manufacturing byproduct, so businesses must decide how best to
dispense with it. Many implement recycling programs, others sell what they can of the waste to
other manufacturers who use it in their own manufacturing processes as raw material. Either
way, the effect is additional cost to the business in man hours, procedures, equipment and
handling all specific to moving the waste products out of the business's manufacturing
process and facilities.
Sustainable Development of Raw Materials

33

All manufacturers use raw materials to put together their goods. When these raw materials are
natural, such as wood, laws and good environmental citizenship require that the business take
measures to replace what it uses. Christmas tree farms are a prime example, as sellers buy from
growers who harvest and replant in order to keep from depleting entire forests of naturally
occurring pine trees. Again, the affect on business is cost in terms of higher raw materials costs,
which usually include the supplier's cost to “replant” or
“restock” the natural raw materials.
Emissions
Manufacturing processes often generate air and/or water emissions, which include particle or
chemical-filled smoke, ash and particles and chemicals that seep into ground water through runoff. Environmental protection laws require businesses to protect the environment from exposure
to these emissions. Remedial process include placing screens of specified gauges over smoke
stacks, filtration of waste water and lining of retention ponds with clay and poly liners. New
regulations are implemented frequently that require retrofitting of manufacturing facilities with
increased protections, such as screens of even finer gauges and pond liners of newer and safer
materials. All of these measures are costly to business and affect businesses first by decreasing
profit margins.
Environmental Business looks at ways in which businesses can operate in an eco-friendly way
and still remain profitable.
Achieving a green economy involves transforming what we produce and how we produce it,
responding to changes in both supply and demand. We need a balanced and
environmentally sustainable economy that will support strong business investment and new
opportunities in order to be able to meet long term challenges.
It is crucial for natural assets to be managed sustainably and used efficiently across all sectors of
the economy. It is important to reflect their value in all production and consumption decisions.
In order for this transition to take place, business and consumers must take advantage of the
benefits of resource efficiencies. The economy will need to grow, but this must be within the
context of reduced environmental impact and a greater resilience to future environmental
challenges, which will include climate change, material scarcity and any emergencies related to
securing energy supplies and food security.
From a business point of view going green might not always appear to be economically efficient,
but in many cases companies will have no option since government policy and subsequent
legislation will compel them to follow certain lines of action.
There will obviously be costs involved. Buying eco-friendly equipment, packaging and materials
can be expensive. Initial costs can be higher, even if the variable costs work out cheaper in the

34

long run. Light bulbs are a good example. Environmentally friendly bulbs can cost three times as
much as conventional bulbs, but they last much longer. The initial cost can be offset by longterm savings, provided the company stays in business for long enough to reap the benefit.
Most consumers claim to be really environmentally conscious, with a genuine belief in the need
to reduce their carbon footprint, but product cost is often uppermost in their minds. If for
instance, they have a choice of an organic all-natural bar of soap that costs twice as much as a
standard bar, many will instinctively opt for the cheaper one.
Businesses must consider very carefully how much of their market research represents genuine
consumer willingness and how much is simply lip service. Consumers can be very fickle, having
different standards for different products. Someone who would only buy organic food might not
be at all concerned that their car was not eco-friendly.
Effective marketing is very important if a company wishes to sell green products. Well informed
sales staff are also necessary because customers are not always equipped to recognise what
makes a product green.
The traditional manufacturing process never considered the disposal of products once they had
come to the end of their useful lives. In this environmentally conscious age that is all changing.
The simple dumping of unwanted goods and materials is no longer acceptable. Packaging is
being made recyclable and many products are now being made in ways that make recycling very
much easier.
It is also important to look at supply chains when considering environmental business issues. A
garment made of organic cotton might appear to be very environmentally friendly, but this would
definitely not be the case if it was made using child labour in a far eastern sweatshop.
On a much larger scale it is possible for major companies to save money by taking
environmentally friendly action. The Chinese global shipping company COSCO cut the number
of its distribution centres from 100 to 40. Service levels to clients remained the same, but costs
were reduced by 23% and CO2 emissions fell by 15%, equating to 100,000 tonnes a year.
In another example, in 2000 IBM set targets for saving water in its various microelectronic
manufacturing operations. Within eight years the company had achieved a 2.4% savings rate,
equivalent to 1.2 million cubic metres of water.
Not only are these savings good for the environment, but they can make sound economic sense
for a company. Organisations worldwide, from government agencies to retailers and financial
institutions are now looking at the current and future impact of their activities.
Areas under consideration include:
energy management;

35

waste management;
carbon management;
water management;
sustainable procurement of raw materials;
ethical labour standards within the supply chain;
product composition
eventual disposal at the end of the lifecycle.
Although the majority of companies might express enthusiasm for most of these areas, the reality
is that for quite a number of them the balance sheet and the potential for profit and loss are still
the overriding factors.
In a highly competitive world, if savings can result from more efficient management
of energy or waste, this is more likely to find favour than the procurement of raw materials from
a sustainable, but more expensive source since that will simply lead to an increase in the cost of
the finished product.
Of course not all companies take that view and there are a great many who take their Corporate
Social Responsibility (CRS) very seriously. In fact many companies take the view that promoting
themselves as being socially responsible gives them a significant commercial advantage.
Although consumers can be very fickle and the price of a product is often a major factor, when
given a choice, many consumers will opt for a product that is environmentally friendly.
As time moves on and the world gets more used to a greener lifestyle, consumers and producers
alike will have to make adjustments. Many businesses have already adopted the environmental
agenda with great enthusiasm, but there remain a significant number where progress has been
slow. These businesses will need to review their policies if they are to survive.
Government action can only do so much. It can produce policies, drive forward a ''zero waste''
agenda, support development to reduce environmental impact and pass laws, but the only way
that businesses can remain viable is by meeting consumer demand.
The combined effects of climate change and decreasing world resources are leading to an
increase in environmental awareness. Customers are responding to this and businesses must take
note and act accordingly.

36