Connect with us

Business

CSR: What are the reasons of so much skepticism?

Published

on

Consumers are suspicious of business ethics – especially corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs.  What are the counter-arguments and managerial solutions to address this skepticism?

Arguments Against CSR

First up, the hidden agenda behind business ethics and CSR programs is often called into question. A recent survey by the Center for Business in Society shows over 80% of those interviewed (around 500) believe at least 70% of CSR initiatives are purely cosmetic programs to support corporate reputation.

Offsetting this perception is hindered by most of these programs being run by marketing and communication departments.

Secondly, too many CSR programs are designed at the consumers’ expenses. In other words, firms get the good reputation, consumers get the full cost. An example is the “keep the bed linen” program. Hotels ask us to consider whether we really want to have our beds changed every day. Officially the program is aimed at reducing environmental damage. But, we know very well the underlying objective is cost reduction at the expenses of a lower quality service for consumers.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s article The Social Responsibility of Business is to Create its Profit, published in The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, pointed out three important issues:

  • Managers’ responsibility lies in the interests of shareholders. In other words, managers are hired and paid to maximize the profits of each stakeholder. They are not entitled to spend corporate profits on CSR or charitable initiatives.
  • Social issues are the government’s responsibility – not lower level institutions such as firms. That’s why we pay taxes. Isn’t it?
  • Moral responsibilities belong to the individual. Pinning responsibility on organizations makes no sense.

Finally, Albert Z. Carr likened economic transactions to poker back in 1968 in his Harvard Business Review article “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?”. You cannot expect other players to tell you the truth. Bluffing is an intrinsic part of this game. Truth and ethics are not. This way, business ethics can be viewed as just another trick cooked up by smart managers ready to steal even more money from your pocket.

Arguments in Favor

Let’s start by looking at it from a legal perspective. Since the start of the 21st century, lawyers and policy makers have agreed that laws should favor business when business favors the community and society. It’s not about profits. It’s about people and serving the community.

There is no service without attention to ethics and social responsibility!

Utilitarian though it may seem, business ethics and CSR are essential for maintaining a minimum level of trust in consumer–firm relationships. No trust, no business. Even street markets in areas plagued by mafias and organized crime guarantee some minimal level of trust (such as product quality).  So, there is no way to escape from business ethics and CSR.

Recent empirical studies show our global society’s expectations of corporate practices is on the up. Our grandmothers’ expectations of firms’ production procedures, carbon emission, labor conditions, etc. were much lower. Business ethics and CSR address stakeholders’ ethical expectations. They can also be leveraged to develop a sustainable competitive advantage.

Strategic or operational strategies based on irresponsible or even immoral assumptions are unsustainable. Immoral or illegal acts are always bring with risk, i.e. the risk of legal action, consumer boycotts, strikes, etc. Don’t underestimate the power of responsible consumers!

Several multinational companies, such as Nike and Nestlé have paid enormous reputational, operational and financial costs for this error. Remember: the more ethically problematic practices a firm pursues, the higher the probability of stakeholders reacting. Also, we know very well that managers should stay away from any immoral or unethical temptation Whenever someone in an organization starts playing dirty, the snowball effect is almost unstoppable!

Finally, recent studies prove a firm’s business ethics and CSR performance directly affects employees’ happiness. And happiness is in turn a main driver of creativity, innovation capabilities and the individual willingness to improve corporate efficiency. So, business ethics and CSR have a positive mid to long term impact on corporate performance.

Some Pointers for Managers and Policy Makers

The discussion above provides some important indications for managers and policy makers:

  1. Be authentic! CSR initiatives should aim at making a real impact on society. Employees, consumers and other stakeholders expect your company to be fully and authentically committed to making a better society. Several studies show if your CSR effort is genuine, consumers and employees are more willing to support your initiative.
  2. Design win-win programs. If you ask consumers to keep the bedlinen, you have to give something back. For example, the money saved going to an environmental NGO.
  3. Be transparent about your mission and commitment towards social issues. Shareholders have the right to know how you plan to use corporate profits. And which percentage will be used to achieve socially-oriented objectives.
  4. Remember that “our” people must always be the center of business: consumers, employees and the community where we operate.

“The business of business is the human person,” the rest is irrelevant.

Prof. Lloyd Sandelands

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

How much does it cost to be ethical? What is the cost of corruption?

Published

on

By

The opposite day, my 10 year-old son requested me how a lot it prices to be moral.  Not likely a shocking query for the son of an ethics professor, however one which has no straightforward reply. So, how can we measure the impression of doing the correct factor?

Contributing to the welfare of others and your individual is frankly, a priori, a broad query.  If I had been to reply my son’s query in a easy manner, I’d attempt to flip the query round and as a substitute ask, what occurs if I don’t do the correct factor? What’s the price of corruption?

Stop Corruption, by kmillard92.
Cease Corruption, by kmillard92.

On the one hand, anybody can communicate freely about variations in notion, and there are research in regards to the notion of corruption.  But once we attempt to apply statistics and actual numbers to this phenomenon, its very nature impedes us from accessing these numerical values; its obscurity and lack of transparency leaves no path to comply with, typically because of the varied and inventive means corruption has of additional selling different corrupt practices past the financial (presents, journeys, particular favors, and many others.).

So what prices does corruption incur?  The price of corruption is far more than monetary; it’s also social, political, environmental and human:

  • Monetary: Corruption has a direct impression on the wealth of countries, diverting funds to “non-public” functions, as a substitute of to the frequent good.  It additionally generates an underground economic system, dissuading overseas funding (in accordance with Transparency Worldwide, dropping one index level results in dropping the equal of 0.5% of GDP in overseas funding) and inspiring capital flight.
  • Social: It additionally corrodes belief, not solely in establishments, but additionally in individuals.  It generates frustration, apathy, discourages the entrepreneurial spirit, accentuates social inequities and promotes organized crime.
  • Political: Corruption is likely one of the biggest obstacles to democracy and the rule of legislation.
  • Environmental:  Unacceptable practices in developed international locations are additionally carried out in creating international locations, along with the overall pillaging of pure sources.
  • Human: It damages human nature and creates a rift between human beings and their final objective.

If we focus simply on the monetary value, within the Nineties Enterprise Week printed the outcomes of a College of California examine that exposed the precise value of corruption.  For instance, accepting a bribe or giving in to extortion to hurry up licensing procedures or to acquire a public contract led to a 3 to 10 % improve in charges.  In the long run, the products and companies topic to corruption had been 20 -100% dearer.

In 2003, the U.N. signed the primary worldwide anti-corruption treaty.  At the moment the Related Press gathered quotes that illustrated the extent and gravity of corruption in lots of international locations:

Corruption … has ruined our colleges and hospitals [..] It has destroyed our agriculture and industries. It has ‘eaten up’ our roads and jobs. … It has destroyed our society.”  Justice Minister, Kenya.

Anthony Value, The U.N.’s prime anti-crime official, made the next observations:

“Zaire and Nigeria, two of Africa’s hardest-hit states, have misplaced some $5 billion every in the previous couple of years to graft, most of it spirited out of these international locations.”

“In Pakistan, an estimated 30 % of the value of all public works initiatives goes to kickbacks and bribes.”

“In Bangladesh, corruption eats up a whopping 50 % of overseas funding.”

In 2004, Daniel Kaufmann, the World Financial institution Institute International Governance Director, revealed that all through the world multiple trillion U.S. {dollars} ($1,000,000,000,000) had been paid yearly in bribes, not together with misappropriation of public funds or embezzlement.  This determine estimates bribes paid each in wealthy international locations and creating international locations.

Did You Say "Bribe"?, by Chris Potter (StockMonkeys.com)
Did You Say “Bribe”?, by Chris Potter (StockMonkeys.com)

Kaufmann noticed that the whole financial sum of corrupt transactions was only one a part of the whole value of corruption, which in and of itself is a serious obstacle to the discount of poverty, inequality and toddler mortality in rising economies.  Different insights that got here out of this examine included how in the long term the nationwide incomes of nations that battle corruption and enhance the rule of legislation can improve as much as 4 occasions. On the identical time, the examine discovered that such efforts would result in a 75% lower in toddler mortality.

In 2009, Transparency Worldwide printed a report that discovered that corruption in Eire value the state three billion kilos.  In the meantime, in Italy the Court docket of Auditors confirmed that authorities corruption value 60 million euros per 12 months.  Within the U.Okay., the Nationwide Fraud Authority quantified fraud at 73 billion GBP in 2012.  On the European degree, in 2013 the E.U. estimates that corruption all through the 27 member states prices 120 billion euros per 12 months. In Spain, a current examine positioned the social value of corruption at 40 billion euros.

Whereas it’s troublesome to understand corruption’s monetary impression, these numbers do assist to make clear the gravity of the phenomenon.  Fascinated about the price of corruption in relative phrases can also be enlightening.  For instance, if we refer again to the determine cited by Kaufmann – $ 1 trillion USD – and we evaluate it with the $150 million USD in worldwide assist provided for catastrophe aid following the current storm within the Philippines, the pressing have to fight corruption is kind of evident.

Going again to my son’s query, and with out dropping sight of the bigger and better motives past the financial that justify working in direction of good, the figures cited earlier do certainly assist me to reply his query: Many good issues rely on our doing good.  By making brave and trustworthy selections, we are able to rework actuality and create not only a extra simply world, but additionally a happier one.

Continue Reading

Business

General Management Standing its Ground

Published

on

By

IESE Business SchoolOne of the most valuable legacies that the founders of IESE created is the institution’s general management focus, both for teaching and other business activities.  Long before, Chester Barnard, a prominent pioneer in the field of management who brought together executive experience and humanistic training, alluded to a similar focus, emphasizing that in the management process “the sensing of the organization as a whole and the total situation relevant to it,” is indispensable.

The general management perspective views an organization as a whole, integrating strategy , finance, operations, and marketing in addition to all the other functions of a company.  This approach requires stepping away from narrow perspectives centered solely upon one area – whether strategy, finance or marketing – and the factors characteristic to each.  The result is running the risk of overlooking the company as a whole.

Within this perspective, business ethics, as I discussed in Business Ethics in Action, views the general manager’s role as that of someone managing a community of people who provide products, create wealth and serve society, doing so fairly and justly.  Promoting human excellence and efficiency as an approach to organize, act and interact with others, business ethics, above all, guides senior management, encouraging it to always seek the common good in business and society through all of its actions.

This general management and business ethics perspective is not unique to IESE.  However, opposing tendencies have been prevalent in the international realm for some time, especially in business schools, particularly “Strategic Management courses displacing “General Management” courses.

748px-Eisenhower_d-day
General Dwight D. Eisenhower addresses American paratroopers prior to D-Day.

Inspired by military lingo, the notion of “strategy” was introduced into business schools more than 50 years ago.  Later it gelled into courses on “Strategic Management” and in the creation of the corresponding academic departments.  The argument that justified the resulting exclusion of “General Management” courses and departments (which had formerly incorporated strategy) was that strategic management was at the core of general management, or at least it was its main function.  In some business schools the process took place merely to mirror what some prestigious U.S. institutions had done.

Although there are diverse emphases and definitions, generally, strategic management refers to all of the aspects that affect the company, taking the competitive context in which the organization exists into consideration.  The approach attempts to adapt the business organization to its surroundings, seeking opportunities and confronting competitors and possible competitive threats.  Strategic management, then, tends to be the compass for all of senior management’s and the entire organization’s activityThis tendency places businesses at risk of reducing general management to one of its components, and in this way, substituting the whole with one of its parts.

The problem is that strategy is always a means; it is a strategy “to achieve” an ends, generally financial.  What is important is to be successful in attaining the particular objective that the strategy is targeting.  Often there is a tendency to step back from other business elements.  For example, there are strategy books that examine the strategy Madonna implemented to achieve success or how companies like Wal-Mart have succeeded.  For some strategic management professors, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War makes the top of the reading list, characterizing competitors as the enemies to defeat.  Others may not go to this extreme, yet they do see strategy as the essence to achieve financial gain wherever it may be.  Fortunately, there are still plenty of reasonable people – here at IESE amongst them – who know that strategy has a place within a larger context , and in practice, they maintain their general management bearings.

Does ethics have a place within strategic management?

With some good will, indeed, but as an add-on.  It can be included, ethically evaluating the ultimate purpose of the strategy or resolving ethical dilemmas that its implementation presents.  But it can also easily be omitted, perhaps leaving ethics to the business ethics course alone, saving the discussion about strategy from scrutiny.

Ricardo Currás (Dia) at IESE
Ricardo Currás (DIA)

Fortunately, today there are plenty of leaders who understand strategy’s role within a broader contextRicardo Currás, Executive Director of DIA, a Spanish company that began as a family-run shop and today is a multinational with 44,000 employees, is one of them.  In his November 15 visit to IESE he declared that he “didn’t believe in strategy” and that, “strategy is a word that has become a bit stale because it confines you to a straitjacket. Today you can’t predict the impact you will have on your company’s future. I do, however, believe in direction, in the path that may be the best to take. In addition to sketching strategic plans, we need to continually remind ourselves where we are and where we are going.”

Another great executive, Bill George, CEO of the successful high-tech medical company Medtronic based in Minnesota, defined his company as “a mission-driven company, a values-centered organization and an adaptable business strategy.”

This, I believe, should once again become the general management perspective.  Certainly we should not forget strategy.  Instead, we should emphasize a well thought-out mission centered on enduring values that can solidify over time .  Strategy should support this endeavor, not hold general management back.

Continue Reading

Business

Machiavellian Management Ethics: 500 years of “The Prince”

Published

on

By

What is more important for business success: behaving ethically or earning a good reputation?  What then is the role of ethics in the context of business management?

For quite some time “business is business” was en vogue.  Yet the financial crisis and other scandals led us to a situation where social responsibility, sustainability and good reputation are appealing and part of any successful business. But this new trend does not give by itself an answer to our question. The point —some will say— is what we understand by success. And the answer to that takes us back to Renaissance Italy.

Until the Italian cinquecento the common assumption in Christian Europe was that eternal salvation was way more important than earthly success (power, money, pleasure). So no one dared to give a clear answer in public to our question, although almost everybody knew the unpleasant truth.

Niccolò Machiavelli, Business Ethics IESE Blog
Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccoló Machiavelli, a Florentine diplomat, gave his own response in The Prince —a little treaty written five hundred years ago and published posthumously in 1532. Antony Jay translated it into contemporary business management language in his acclaimed book Management and Machiavelli (1967).

The Prince is popularly known as an apology of fraud and manipulation in political action. But we should read it carefully. Carl Schmitt, a well know follower of Machiavelli’s political realism, once wrote: “Machiavelli, had he been a Machiavellian, would sooner have written an edifying book rather than his ill-reputed Prince.”

For sure, Machiavelli always thought religion and morals were crucial for political life. But he broke with the moral teachings of Christian tradition, stating that leaders had to learn (unlearn) how to violate morals to obtain good political results. He thus cut the link between political prudence and ethics, considering politics the science of power. This was not a mere apology of immorality, but something needed for the greater or basic good of peaceful social life: “The ends justify the means.

Weber rationalized this moral approach as the politician’s “ethics of responsibility,” opposed to the saint’s “ethics of conviction.” This has some features in common with what English philosophy called utilitarianism (closely linked to economic logics); Americans later labeled as consequentialism (so many times invoked in security and defense issues); and Germans significantly call Erfolgsethik (ethics of success).

Leo Strauss, a remarkable and original interpreter of Machiavelli, wrote “Economism is Machiavellianism come to age.”  At the end of the day the paradigm of individuals as maximizers of utility is based on the self-interest centered man of Machiavelli .

Cover page of 1550 edition of Machiavelli's Il Principe
Cover page of 1550 edition of Machiavelli’s Il Principe

But Machiavelli was aware of the importance of moral reputation. He thought that a leader should be believed as morally trustworthy if he wanted to gain and preserve power. Moreover, he fought against corruption and in favor of civic virtue. But this ancient virtue was for him only the shell of Christian virtues: He viewed the strength of the lion and the astuteness of the fox as models to be followed.

So in fact an immoral business culture is not Machiavellian at all. The current lack of trust and widespread corruption is even less Machiavellian than we think . On the contrary, social responsibility, sustainability and reputation are a perfectly Machiavellian response to the crisis. This is actually Machiavellianism at its best: successful.

So The Prince is not to be read as a handbook for political maneuvering, or as a mere defense of arbitrariness. That approach would make us incapable of understanding the lasting and deep impact of Machiavellianism in contemporary politics, and by the way, in the practice of Business Management.

Summing up, there are three elements of Machiavellianism in our current ethical landscape:

  • The stress on reputation, with no real care for actual moral behaviour
  • The centrality of success as practical criterion, and the utility of strength and astuteness for achieving that goal.
  • The narrow materialistic approach to human action (economism).

What is more important for business success: behaving ethically or earning a good reputation? What then is the role of ethics in the context of business management?

Image courtesy of Nutdanai Apikhomboonwaroot / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Image courtesy of Nutdanai Apikhomboonwaroot / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Machiavelli was right in many senses. The mere appearance of virtue is enough for achieving certain goals by taking advantage of necessitá (opportunities) and weathering the unforeseeable random factors of Fortuna. Aquinas himself knew that, and warned against the moral danger of corrupted forms of prudence (fraud, astuteness, deceit, etc.) precisely because they were compatible with apparent success. And classical wisdom reminds us, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion,” since good reputation is a moral good and even a right of the person.

So the answer to our original question depends on our definition of success. In the first instance, ethics is about defining success.

Make no mistake: We still live within a Machiavellian framework . For many of us business success is the material, measurable, earthly outcome that requires certain management abilities and the adequate administration of social legitimacy. For that reason Business Ethics should focus on re-defining success , placing management and business activity in the broader context of individual, corporate and social life considered as a whole.

Otherwise we will be assuming the Machiavellian definition of success. And that will limit the role of Ethics to an extrinsic moralizing code that has nothing to do with practice.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Language Edu News

php shell hacklink php shell seobizde.com hacklink okey oyna sohbet ankara güneş enerjisi süperbahis pancakeswap sniper bot elitbahis metroslot betgram metroslot betgram instagram takipçi satın al cialis bodrum escort mecidiyeköy escort viagra gabile sohbet