Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility for the win
People don’t realize but their so called “ethics” change once they get exposure to the business world. Morals ethics are different from business ethics. Moral ethics are the principles or habits taught by our parents/guardians to understand and state what is the right and wrong choice to make or do. While business ethics falls under different standards; it is mostly the rules of conduct that a company gives to their employees which usually affect their morals because sometimes we are unwilling to do the tasks of what the company we work for ask us to do. We ask ourselves why do we follow these unethical rules the reason is why we want to keep our jobs and keep supporting our families. The effects of telling the company we work for that we will not follow these unethical rules will end in either getting fired or told that there will be changes but most likely lose the job.
In the business world we won’t hear too much about business ethics, though another term we do hear is corporate social responsibility which is somewhat like ethics just a more narrowly concern about the company’s obligations. CSR plays an important role in every firm or company in the United States. CSR and business ethics go hand in hand if either of them are tampered with or in another terms, people change the rules and make it their own so their business would prosper. Word gets out when businesses do not perform well and lack in any of the four axes such as being a committed employer, build relationships with our customers, serve civil society, being an environmentally friendly player. I believe that the CSR is like an insurance for business ethics, CSR is there to provide people with guidance on how to act within the firm with everybody. However if CSR starts to lack no customer will seek guidance from that firm/company again because of how their service lacked. This effects the business tremendously for example if customers stop recommending others to come to our firm we can not make profit and worse run of out business. That is why having the right kind of ethics is important and should always be looked upon and checked every now and then.
According to a study made my Peter Arlow a journalist who wants to find out which group of people would be more likely to cheat and be negative orientated towards social responsibility. He made tests with the following information: first off he included the major whether they were business majors or non business majors, second he included the sex male or female, third their age either under the age of 24 or equal/over the age of 24. Arlow decided to conduct this test with surveys and then using t tests and correlations to figure out which group was more reliant to follow the rules. Overall the nonbusiness majors scored higher on all five ethical dimensions. Each ethical dimension were based on (Aldag and Jackson, 1977): (1) Traditional Orientation – sees efficient production as the key social responsibility and profit maximization as the corporate goal. (2) Negative Orientation Toward Alleged Social Responsibility – sees social responsibility as a gimmick and a cover for mismanagement. (3) Demander Orientation – calls for diversion of shareholder resources to society in general. (4) Constrainer Orientation – favors tightened control of government over business. (5) Negative Orientation Toward Adequacy of Corporate Social Efforts – sees current corporate social effort in a negative light and sees negative consequences of a lack of social effort. This data was determined under all five of these dimensions of social responsibility and then followed through to which was one would be the most adequate to choose from depending on the score. These were the measurements to access business ethics based on the work of Miesing and Preble (1985): (1) Machiavellianism – moral actions are justified to serve some purpose, (2) Objectivism – the focus is on rational self-interest and avoiding ethical judgements based on feelings, (3) Social Darwinism – accepts percepts of “survival of the fittest, and the strong are morally superior, (4) Ethical relativism – ethical judgements are based on social convention and that which is sanctioned by group norms at a given time and place, (5) Universalism – rules of behavior are absolutes, and apply equally to all places and times. Within the process there were two measurements to be measured it was the business ethics and social responsibility.
As for the results Arlow figured out that business students may not be as self centered, selfish and opportunistic as the stereotypical view of individuals. Within the business ethics of Meising and Preble the two were Machiavellianism and Darwinsim. Which meant that these business students are willing to do business but with a purpose however they would do anything to get to the top, survival of the fittest. When the business and nonbusiness students were compared using the social responsibility measure of Aldag and Jackson there was a significant difference found on the dimensions of Negative Orientation Toward Social Responsibility and the Demander Orientation. These results suggest that nonbusiness students are more negative toward current efforts at social responsibility, seeing it as a cover for mismanagement, and the lack of upholding and keeping any company they work well connected.
Sex wise the data showed that females were less likely to do commit fraud or do anything that would be considered as unethical. The results say that females would want to keep the company from falling and keep it balanced but the males seemed like they didn’t care if the company would collapse as long as they would make profit and have something to live from. That’s why females are considered more passionate and considerate other than males.
While the age group of higher than the age 24 were considered to show a greater negative orientation because of their lives being more ahead of the other people. Older people are considered the most target audience to commit any type of business crime because of them considered to have a family to take care of without a great income it would totally be impossible to maintain a family.
The people who were surveyed mostly students are determined to be influenced by peers from the exposure of the larger socio-cultural norms than by education in specific disciplines.
Work Cited
“Ethics vs Morals.” Ethics vs Morals – Difference and Comparison
“How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off.” Long Range Planning, Pergamon, 26 Feb. 1999.
Arlow, Peter. “Personal Characteristics in College Students’ Evaluations of Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 10.1 (1991): 63. ProQuest.
Rowan Counterintuitive 