Ethics-and-Corporate-Social-Responsibility---Guida

EthicsandCorporateSocialResponsibility–GuidanceNoteFive.Thequestionofethicsinsocietyisfullofcomplexitiesanddifficultchoices,andtheinternationalbusinessenvironmentisbesetbythefullrangeofethicaldilemmas.Inlectureswediscussedtheconsequentialist(teleological)approachtoethicaldecisionmaking,wheretheoutcomesofanactionaretakenintoaccounttoconsiderwhetheraparticularethicalchoicecanbejustifiedonthegroundsthatitdeliversthe‘greatestgoodforthegreatestnumber’–wherethe‘endjustifiesthemeans’.Thealternativetothisapproachisthenon-consequentialist(deontological)approachtoethicaldecisionmaking,wherechoicesareseeninabsoluteterms–anactioniseithermorallyjustifiableornot,irrespectiveoftheoutcome.Thustherewouldbesomeactionswhichshouldneverbetaken,nomatterwhat.Thisleadsusintoconsideringwhetherthereareabsolutemoralchoiceswhichapplyinallcontexts–arethereethicalchoiceswecanallagreeon,inallsocieties.Forexample,canweallagree,theworldover,thatchildrenshouldhavetheirchildhoodandaneducationandshouldnotbeforcedtoengageinwork?Eventhissimplequestionthrowsupmanydifferentconsiderationsindifferentsocio-economiccontextsaroundtheglobe,andhighlightsissuesofethicalrelativism,whereethicalnormsmayvaryindifferentsettings.Perhapsthemostpressingissueforustodayistheincreasedinfluenceofgiantcorporationsandtheirtransnationalactivitiesthroughglobalproductionnetworks,particularlywherepracticesinsomepartsoftheglobalproductionnetworkwouldnotbetoleratedinanother.Theimageofcapitalas‘mobile’,inthesensethattodaycorporationshaveaccesstofinanceandtechnologywhichcanincreasetheirabilitytomovearoundtheglobewhereverconditionsaremostfavourableforprofitmaximisation,givesgiantfirmsleverageovergovernmentseagertoattracttheirinvestment.AsCrouch(2011)pointsoutsowell,thisdoesn’tnecessarilymeanthatcorporationswillbehavebadlyorengageinageneralloweringofstandards–frequentlytermedthe‘racetothebottom’–intermsoftheirpoliciesandpractices,butitdoesgivethemaprivilegedpositionin‘settingtherulesoftherace’.Theunderlyingreasonforgiantfirms’privilegedpositionaspowerfulpoliticalactorsisthat:‘itistheirmarketstrategythatdetermines(oratleaststronglyaffects)whetherparticulargovernmentpolicieswillbe‘rewarded’withinvestmentornot,whetherthesearepoliciesformakingavailableapopulationtoworkatlowwagesoronewithhighskillsandsecurelives…’(Crouch,2011:127).Thesefactorsarebroughtintosharpfocuswhenweconsiderdifferentattitudestowardsbusinessethics.Theneoliberalcontextforourcurrentphaseofcapitalistdevelopmentputsforwardastrongcaseforbusinessesbeingfreeofpoliticalinterference.Neoliberaltheory,youwillrecall,seesthestateasananticompetitiveandpotentiallycorruptinterferenceinthemarket.Neoliberalprinciplesarethereforefoundedonthebenefitsofprivateenterpriseandthefreeoperationoftheforcesofsupplyanddemand(competitivemarkets)indeliveringthebesteconomicoutcome.Anincreaseinthesizeoftheeconomyisseenasabenefitforall,asthecreationofwealth,evenifconcentratedinthehandsofanelite,willeventually‘trickledown’toalllevelsofsociety.Inourstudieswehavediscussedtowhatextentthistheoryissupportedbyconcreteevidence,inaworldwherethewealthgapappearstobeincreasingeverywhere.Puttingthatissuetoonesideforamoment,whenconsideringissuesofethicsandcorporateresponsibility,weneedtokeepinmindthepotentialfortransnationalcorporationstousetheireconomicstrengthtoaccesspoliticalpower.Whilewehaveestablishedinotherareasofourstudyonthemodulethattheworldretainsitssocialandculturaldiversity,theabsenceofpowerfulinternationalorglobalregulatorybodieswithpowertoenforcerulesandregulationsmeansthatitispossiblefortransnationalorganisationstomanipulatestandardsforrulemakingandenforcementoflegalregulationacrossgeopoliticalborders.Itfollowsthatitisverypossiblefortheretobewidelyvaryingstandardsofpracticewithinaglobalproductionnetworkandperhapsmostcrucially,whilecorporationswantpoliticstostayoutofitsaffairs,thebusinesslobbyisitselfaverypowerfulactor.Inthecaseofethicsandcorporatesocialresponsibility,thedesirebycorporationstoavoidstateregulationthrowsupsomeinconsistenciesaswelookatcorporateattitudestowardssocialresponsibility.Thebasicneoliberalpositiononsocialresponsibility,mostnotablyexpressedbyMiltonFriedman,isthatthecorporation’sonlyresponsibilityistoitsshareholders.Beyondthatresponsibility,thecorporation’sonlymoral/ethicalresponsibilityistoabidebythelawofthesettinginwhichitislocated.Fromthisperspective,theresponsibilitytoensurespecificminimumstandardsofsocialandenvironmentalpracticelieswiththestate,byestablishinggoodlegalprovisions,andanyadditionalsocialresponsibilityundertakingsbythefirmcouldonlybejustifiediftheybenefittheshareholder.Perhapsthroughanon-consequentialistapproachtotheirethicalposition,butperhapsinresponsetoadvancementsininformationtechnologiesthathaveledtoconsumersofgoodsbeingmadeawareofunethicalpracticeswithinglobalproductionnetworks,manyfirmshaveengagedwiththeirowncorporatesocialresponsibilityagenda.Inlinewiththeneoliberalhostilitytogovernmentregulation,firmsgenerallypromotetheirownvoluntarycodesofsocialresponsibilityassuperiortolegalregulation.Thekeywordhe