Ethical And Legal Theorieswhat Are Ethics Ethics Are How You Should ✓ Solved

Ethical and Legal Theories What are Ethics? â– Ethics are how you should be acting. â– Ethics are not how you feel. â– Religion isn’t ethics, but there may be overlap. â– Ethics isn’t following cultural norms, but there may be overlap Ethical Theories â– Utility â– Rights â– Justice â– Common Good â– Virtue Utility Theory â– Doing the most good with the least harm. â– Began with Bentham, BAMF John Stuart Mill is best known for it. Rights Theory â– Respects the rights of all stakeholders. Justice Theory â– Justice as Fairness â– The idea’s leading thinker is John Rawls. â– You need to be able to articulate how each stakeholder is treated equally, or if unequally, a fair reason why. Common Good Theory â– Does it serve the community? â– Similar, but not identical to Utilitarianism.

Virtue Theory â– Would a person of good character do this? â– Various “professionals†have governing bodies that have ethical standards. â– If you violate them you can: â– Lose your license â– Be censured â– Be subject to other discipline Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) â– Similar in concept to Business Ethics So what is it? â– Some people believe that corporations have a duty only to their shareholders. â– Some people believe you owe a duty to something larger. This is corporate social responsibility. â– CSR has grown in popularity over the last ~15 years, especially after Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 3 P’s â– People â– Planet â– Profit People â– Paying a living wage. â– Locally sourcing. Or don’t. â– Giving back to the community.

Planet â– Avoiding deforestation. â– Saving animals. â– You name it. Profit â– Making money for the shareholders. â– Making money to grow the business. â– “Who is John Galt?†Ethical Decision Making â– Recognize the Issue â– Get the facts â– Evaluate Alternatives â– Make a decision by applying the theories â– Act and Reflect Presentation Rubric Group ____ Section ____ Pro or Con ____ Company: ___________________________ Excellent 9-10 Good 7-8 Satisfactory 5-6 Needs Improvement 1-4 Score Understanding of CSR You clearly understood the topic in-depth. You understood the topic. You seemed to understand the main points of the topic but were not as clear with other aspects. You did not show an adequate understanding of the topic.

Use of evidence to support CRS status You fully explained why the company is/is not socially responsible. You provided some explanation as to why the company is/is not socially responsible. The CSR status of the company was either not clear or not supported by evidence. Very few points were supported. Presentation Style You consistently used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.

You usually used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. You sometimes used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. You had a presentation style that did not keep the attention of the audience. Use of Ethical Decision- Making Theories Each team clearly describes the ethical decision- making theory used and fully explains how it applies to their dilemma. Each team names the ethical decision- making theory used and provides some explanation as to how it applies to their dilemma.

The ethical decision-making theory was not clear or not supported. Very few points were supported. Teamwork Presentation showed that everyone participated and practiced in advance Nice job presenting Did not seem like the team had practiced Presentation very disjointed Organization Presentation easy to follow Presentation mostly logically Presentation a little hard to Could not follow organized follow 0-8 Time – was it the length required (5-10 minutes)? Was the presentation persuasive? Were appropriate visual aids utilized?

Did the introduction catch the audience’s attention? Was the conclusion appropriate? Total ____ Team (list names and duties) BLAW CSR Presentation students will research one corporation and assess its Corporate Social Responsibility. Your group will research and present how your chosen corporation is or is not socially responsible. You may use PowerPoint, Prezi, video, and any other devices during your presentation that you feel will help your audience understand your message.

Your presentation should be between 5 and 10 minutes.Please print-out of your slides (maximum 6 to a page) at the beginning of the class in which you are presenting. Although each group member is not required to speak, each person should be contributing materially to the project (research, preparing PPTS, and/or speaking). You may first want to see if your company has issued a Corporate Social Responsibility Report. This is a great starting point for examining why a company thinks it is socially responsible and what measures it uses. If you are reporting against the company, you will still want to examine the report.

If you are pro – you will identify the categories in which the company is successful from a CSR perspective and provide examples. If you are con – you will identify the categories that the company is not successful in and provide examples. Remember that news reports tend to focus on the negative, so there should be plenty out there for you to choose from. Please see grading rubric for specific elements that you will be graded on. In presenting why you think the company is socially responsible or not, please choose 2 ethical decision- making formats (utility, rights, justice, common good, or virtue) and explain how they can be applied to support your conclusion.

1. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is defined differently by different organizations. You may use any definition that suits you so long as you make that definition clear during your presentation. Definition of CSR Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society, the environment and its own prosperity, known as the “triple bottom line†of people, planet, and profit. DEFINITION OF 'CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY' CSR may be defined by corporate initiative to assess and take responsibility for the company's effects on the environment and impact on social welfare.

The term generally applies to company efforts that go beyond what may be required by regulators or environmental protection groups. Corporate social responsibility may also be referred to as "corporate citizenship" and can involve incurring short-term costs that do not provide an immediate financial benefit to the company, but instead promote positive social and environmental change. 2. There are many categories that can be measured. Many rating companies include environmental impact, impact on community, fairness in advertising, quality/safety of products, treatment of employees, governance, and ethics. Other links:

Paper for above instructions

Ethical and Legal Theories: Understanding Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

What are Ethics?

Ethics is fundamentally concerned with principles that govern an individual’s behavior or the conducting of an activity. They represent the fundamental guidelines that describe how one should act in various circumstances. Ethicists argue that ethics does not stem from feelings or cultural norms but is established through rational principles and moral philosophies (Velasquez, 2014). The overlap of ethics with religion and culture provides a complex interplay; while ethics can be influenced by these elements, they are independent moral frameworks requiring logical scrutiny independent of subjective influences.

Ethical Theories

To navigate ethical dilemmas, several ethical theories come into play, each offering unique perspectives:
1. Utilitarianism: Rooted in the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this theory contends that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people (Mill, 1863). It focuses on the outcomes of actions and seeks to do the most good with the least harm.
2. Rights Theory: This theory emphasizes the respect for the rights of all individuals and stakeholders involved. It asserts that every person is entitled to certain rights, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which must be upheld regardless of the consequences (Dworkin, 1977).
3. Justice Theory: Associated with philosopher John Rawls, this theory frames justice as fairness. According to Rawls, a fair and just society is one that ensures equality and fairness for all participants, and where inequalities in distribution benefit the least advantaged (Rawls, 1971).
4. Common Good Theory: This approach stresses the interdependence of individuals within a community and suggests that actions should contribute to the health and welfare of the community as a whole (Brennan & Lomasky, 1993).
5. Virtue Ethics: This standpoint considers moral character and virtues as focal points of ethical behavior rather than rules or consequences alone. It questions whether a virtuous person would act in a certain manner (Hursthouse, 1999).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) requires businesses to consider the societal and environmental impacts of their actions. CSR can be understood through the lens of the "triple bottom line," which asserts that companies should not only focus on profits but also consider their effects on people and the planet (Elkington, 1997). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act highlighted the importance of accountability and ethical conduct within corporations, nudging businesses towards responsible practices.

Ethical Decision-Making Framework in CSR

Using ethical theories to evaluate CSR can provide clarity in assessing a company's moral obligations towards stakeholders. For instance, when analyzing a corporation's CSR practices, the following decision-making frameworks can be applied:
1. Utilitarian Perspective: Evaluating whether the company's actions yield the greatest good can elucidate its CSR standing. For example, if a company implements environmentally friendly practices that yield significant benefits for the community through sustainability efforts, it can be deemed socially responsible (Portney, 2005).
2. Rights Analysis: This perspective demands that a company respect the rights of its employees, customers, and the broader community. A firm that prioritizes employee welfare, fair labor practices, and consumer rights, while also engaging in transparent governance, exemplifies a commitment to CSR according to Rights Theory (Brennan & Lomasky, 1993).

Assessing a Corporation's CSR Practices

To assess the CSR of a corporation, several factors need to be evaluated, such as stakeholder treatment, transparency in practices, and the initiatives taken for social welfare. For the sake of this analysis, let us examine a corporation like Patagonia, known for its environmental activism and commitment to social responsibility.
1. Utilitarian Perspective: Patagonia implements numerous eco-friendly practices, such as utilizing sustainable materials, reducing carbon emissions, and contributing a percentage of sales to environmental causes. This approach maximizes benefits for the community by promoting environmental sustainability which aligns well with utilitarian principles (Patagonia, 2023).
2. Rights Perspective: The company has a robust commitment to fair labor practices, ensuring employees are treated with respect and dignity. By advocating for equitable wage practices and supporting worker rights globally, Patagonia aligns with Rights Theory (Patagonia, 2023).

Conclusion

Corporate Social Responsibility is essential not only for ethical business operations but also for maintaining a firm’s reputation and long-term viability. By applying ethical theories such as utilitarianism and rights, stakeholders can critically assess a corporation's impact on society and the environment. Businesses that actively engage in ethical practices are not only more likely to achieve enduring success, but they also foster trust and loyalty among consumers. In today’s climate, where corporate accountability is under continuous scrutiny, an organization’s commitment to CSR is not just good business practice; it is a moral imperative.

References

1. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1993). Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow. New York: St. Martin's Press.
2. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Gabler.
4. Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
6. Patagonia, Inc. (2023). Our Environmental & Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.patagonia.com
7. Portney, P. R. (2005). The Role of Business in Environmental Sustainability: A Practical Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 31-42.
8. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9. Velasquez, M. (2014). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
10. Weismann, I. (2020). Ethical Decision-Making in the TSA: Analysis and Application of Theories. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 44(1), 81-94.