Analysis Of Discussion Comments

Analysis Of Discussion Comments

Please review… Select 2-3 postings from your peers (attached) to analyze in your personal assignment response. For your personal assignment this week:

Connect with a professional writer in 5 simple steps

Please provide as many details about your writing struggle as possible

Academic level of your paper

Type of Paper

When is it due?

How many pages is this assigment?

Write a 1-2 page summary on your analysis of the discussion comments and how you believe this content has increased your ethical self-awareness. Please include alternatives, analysis, application, and action.

The assignment should be submitted as a Word document and APA format is required. The title page and reference page are not counted in the 1-2 page requirement.

Include your results from this assignment the ethics portfolio (attached); see example.

Ferrell, L, Ferrell, O.C., & Fraedrich, J. (2018). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (12th ed.). Cengage. ISBN: 9781337614436 Discussion 1:

During the case study video, I enjoyed listening to the efforts put forth to transition corporations into having a more holistic view of the environment as an asset and how their actions impact the environment. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an ethical dilemma due to conflicting unwritten obligations to society that go against contractual obligations of an organization (Knox, 2020). CSR is a double-edged sword when it relates to shareholder value and stakeholder value. What is good for one bottom line is not good for the other, and creating a balance between the two is key. On the one hand, Milton Friedman’s view of a business is that the bottom line for companies is to maximize shareholder value no matter the cost or impact decisions have on society (Ferrell et al., 2019). Mark Tercek does a great job of proving the contrary to Friedman’s point of view by partnering with DOW Chemical. In doing so, the engineers were able to determine that DOW’s major capital is dependent on nature, and the resources are being depleted. In turn, the efforts by Mark Tercek shifted DOW’s shareholder value focus towards increasing stakeholder value, which then created a more sustainable model to extend and maximize their shareholder value. The formation of business strategies that understand stakeholder orientation, and the strategic value of positive CSR has led to value creation (Yuan et al., 2020). I know that when I look to invest in a company, I look at their reputation. If an organization is more philanthropic, gives back to the community, and treats its employees fairly, and has decent earnings per share, I will invest.

 

The Microchip case study is not the first time I have heard of a company toying with the idea of an employee microchip. I feel like this can lead down a slippery slope when it comes to ethics violations. With the installation of a microchip, there is potential for breaches of the foundational values of integrity, honesty, and fairness to be in jeopardy. A voluntary means of implanting a microchip is okay if the person receiving the microchip understands the agreement, and there is full disclosure of what the chip does or can do. Even if a company drafted an agreement that covered what the microchip is allowed to do, can a company be trusted? The agreement could say they won’t track you or state what the microchip capabilities are, but in all reality, there is no way for you to know if that is the truth or not. There would be a clear violation of personal privacy if a company were to force a microchip program on their workers because the microchip could operate non-stop and track employees outside of the workplace during their own personal time. With all of the negative ethical issues surrounding microchipping employees, I do realize the potential positives for businesses. A microchip program can be beneficial for employers in reducing the number of ethical violations such as misuse of company time or prevent a breach of intellectual property. The chip could determine the idle time of employees or track the location of where a person should be to prevent the misuse of company time. In my opinion, a microchip to avoid the misuse of company time is a bit extreme and thwarted with proper management. Still, I can understand actions such as putting a GPS in a company vehicle. Another way the chip could reduce a violation of intellectual property is to act as a key or password that only allows people with the proper clearance to access what they are authorized to access. Overall, I would not personally volunteer for a microchip to be implanted. According to the “values assessment,” two of my highest rated values included honesty and integrity. I believe that my morals prevent me from violating my company’s trust by misusing time, spilling information, or trying to gain access to an area that I am not authorized.

 

References

Ferrell, L, Ferrell, O.C., & Fraedrich, J. (2019). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (12th ed.).

Knox, B. D. (2020). Employee volunteer programs are associated with firm-level benefits and CEO incentives: data on the ethical dilemma of corporate social responsibility activities. Journal of Business Ethics162(2), 449–472. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4005-0

Yuan, Y., Lu, L. Y., Tian, G., & Yu, Y. (2020). Business Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics162(2), 359–377. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3952-9

Discussion 2:

The case videos were some of the most interesting parts of this week’s information. While the aspect ratio was incorrect (bothersome) in the first video, it was filled with interesting pieces of information. As a side note, I hope there’s more of those types of assignments in the weeks ahead! The amount of personal buy-in that Mr. Tercek has towards the environment is amazing. I was left wondering that if he didn’t have such amazing financial freedom (assumed) opportunities to pursue conservation the way he has, would it still be such a huge passion? Regardless, Mr. Tercek has a firm grasp that partnering with organizations that have a big environmental footprint will offer the chance for the biggest environmental impact returns and could set the standard for smaller companies to emulate once social responsibility efforts are proven to lead to higher profits and better community relationships. Additionally, the larger the company the more likely it will be able to pursue the highest level of social responsibility (Ferrel, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2018) while continuing to work towards making their company profitable (p. 35). Companies should pay attention to Mr. Tercek and Nature Conservancy’s goals. Hwang, Cho, & Kim (2019) have found that philanthropic corporate social responsibility (PCSR) “positively affected consumer attitudes and brand preferences.” This positive effect could have a direct impact on the first level of social responsibility in a company – its economic.

I’ve heard of microchipping humans before with some companies and/or futurists believing its the future for humanity. The benefits are touted as a decrease in emergency response times by first responders because if you’re in a medical emergency it could be reported instantly. Ease of use by shopping without having to “check out” much like some Amazon stores are accomplishing now in Seattle. Looking at it in a time of this pandemic there would be less contact with surfaces and people so there could be a health factor there too. However, nothing is for free and all that data has to go somewhere. Companies already take the data they gather and profit from our information, sometimes without us even knowing. If our privacy is already at question today, what would a future with machines embedded in our bodies look like? Will they ever develop to a point they could sense our thoughts? Electronic monitoring at a place of work may even begin to request or demand access to your microchip during working hours to ensure you’re staying on task and time our bathroom breaks based on location data. Privacy implications could become so convoluted and so mainstream that its data release forms may take up most of the indoctrination at a place of business. In last week’s values exercise candor and exacting in truth were highly ranked. I think this plays directly into privacy. It’s important to know why a company wants my data, how it’s going to be used, and how I can stop them from accessing it or retaining it. Companies must be truthful and they must be candid about these policies. As we become more symbiotic with technology those values will become more important to people.

References

 

Ferrell, L, Ferrell, O.C., & Fraedrich, J. (2018). Business ethics: ethical decision making and cases (12th ed.). Cengage. ISBN: 9781337614436

Jinsoo Hwang, Sun-bai Cho, & Woohyoung Kim. (2019). Philanthropic corporate social responsibility, consumer attitudes, brand preference, and customer citizenship behavior: Older adult employment as a moderator. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 47(7), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8111

Discussion 3:

During the case study video, I enjoyed listening to the efforts put forth to transition corporations into having a more holistic view of the environment as an asset and how their actions impact the environment. Corporate citizenship plays a major role and is the basis in developing an organizations Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an ethical dilemma due to conflicting unwritten obligations to society that go against contractual obligations of an organization (Knox, 2020). CSR is a double-edged sword when it relates to shareholder value and stakeholder value. What is good for one bottom line is not good for the other, and creating a balance between the two is key. On the one hand, Milton Friedman’s view of a business is that the bottom line for companies is to maximize shareholder value no matter the cost or impact decisions have on society (Ferrell et al., 2019). Mark Tercek does a great job of proving the contrary to Friedman’s point of view by partnering with DOW Chemical. In doing so, the engineers were able to determine that DOW’s major capital is dependent on nature, and the resources are being depleted. In turn, the efforts by Mark Tercek shifted DOW’s shareholder value focus towards increasing stakeholder value, which then created a more sustainable model to extend and maximize their shareholder value. The formation of business strategies that understand stakeholder orientation, and the strategic value of positive CSR has led to value creation (Yuan et al., 2020). I know that when I look to invest in a company, I look at their reputation. If an organization is more philanthropic, gives back to the community, and treats its employees fairly, and has decent earnings per share, I will invest.

 

The Microchip case study is not the first time I have heard of a company toying with the idea of an employee microchip. I feel like this can lead down a slippery slope when it comes to ethics violations. With the installation of a microchip, there is potential for breaches of the foundational values of integrity, honesty, and fairness to be in jeopardy. A voluntary means of implanting a microchip is okay if the person receiving the microchip understands the agreement, and there is full disclosure of what the chip does or can do. Even if a company drafted an agreement that covered what the microchip is allowed to do, can a company be trusted? The agreement could say they won’t track you or state what the microchip capabilities are, but in all reality, there is no way for you to know if that is the truth or not. There would be a clear violation of personal privacy if a company were to force a microchip program on their workers because the microchip could operate non-stop and track employees outside of the workplace during their own personal time. With all of the negative ethical issues surrounding microchipping employees, I do realize the potential positives for businesses. A microchip program can be beneficial for employers in reducing the number of ethical violations such as misuse of company time or prevent a breach of intellectual property. The chip could determine the idle time of employees or track the location of where a person should be to prevent the misuse of company time. In my opinion, a microchip to avoid the misuse of company time is a bit extreme and thwarted with proper management. Still, I can understand actions such as putting a GPS in a company vehicle. Another way the chip could reduce a violation of intellectual property is to act as a key or password that only allows people with the proper clearance to access what they are authorized to access. Overall, I would not personally volunteer for a microchip to be implanted. According to the “values assessment,” two of my highest rated values included honesty and integrity. I believe that my morals prevent me from violating my company’s trust by misusing time, spilling information, or trying to gain access to an area that I am not authorized.

 

References

Ferrell, L, Ferrell, O.C., & Fraedrich, J. (2019). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (12th ed.).

Knox, B. D. (2020). Employee volunteer programs are associated with firm-level benefits and CEO incentives: data on the ethical dilemma of corporate social responsibility activities. Journal of Business Ethics162(2), 449–472. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-4005-0

Yuan, Y., Lu, L. Y., Tian, G., & Yu, Y. (2020). Business Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics162(2), 359–377. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3952-9

 

Discussion 4:

Question 1

Many people put their own company’s bottom line profit above the environment. A prime example is how the environment was on a downward spiral, however, with the recent pandemic and the spread of coronavirus and everything been shutting down – things have been looking better. You can tell things for the environment are getting better as air pollution in China has tremendously decreased and even the waterways in Venice have been clearer than they have been in decades. The Nature Conservancy looks to work with any businesses to support their causes and moving forward on making the environment better. Unfortunately, sometimes businesses use The Nature Conservancy for publicity and advertising more than they really want to do business with them. By big companies contributing to The Nature Conservancy, this helps the company get valuable name recognition and increasing consumer familiarity (Griffith, Knoeber, 1986).  – “free” advertising by donating to their environmental causes and riding their tails on doing good for the world even if they do not necessarily believe. This will build their reputation in the eyes of the media and consumers. Companies do this for their corporate citizenship, which is the extent to which businesses strategically meet the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities placed on them by various stakeholders (Ferrell, Ferrell, Fraedrich, 2018).

Question 2

As this video mentions, it most definitely reminded me of an episode of Black Mirror on Netflix. I can relate this to something that happened in my country years ago. One of the executives running for office was for putting GPS systems in county employee’s work cars. By knowing their location and if they are even working. This became a big debate and I could honestly see both perspectives. If I put myself in the executives’ or the business owners’ shoes, I would explore the options of GPS systems and microchips. You are trying to maximize as much efforts as possible for your business. On the other hand, from the employee’s perspective, there should be some form of trust. Chapter 3 discusses honesty, integrity and fairness. Growing up in martial arts, I learned Integrity is “doing the right thing even when no one is looking”. Therefore, even if the employee does not have a microchip, it is only fair for the employer to trust that the people they hired are doing their job to their maximum effort. Integrity should go hand in hand with business ethics and it really contributes to a person’s character (Audi, Murphy, 2006).

Audi, R., & Murphy, P. E. (2006). The Many Faces of Integrity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20061615

Ferrell, L, Ferrell, O.C., & Fraedrich, J. (2018). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (12th ed.). Cengage.

Griffith, J. J., & Knoeber, C. R. (1986). Why do corporations contribute to the Nature Conservancy? Public Choice, 49(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163531

Discussion 5:

QUESTION 1

As I conducted the reading and watched the video I closely related to the importance of business and the role it plays in nature.  For a business in the current state of the world and the economy it is imperative for business to make decisions not only based on its bottom line but also based on corporate citizenship and social responsibility.  As defined in the text corporate citizenship has four interrelated dimension which encompass rigorous compliance, sustained economic performance, ethical actions beyond law and voluntary contributions to advance corporate reputation (Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L.; 2019).  Looking at these aspects it directly feeds the social responsibility of corporation which is defined as organizations obligation to maximize stakeholder positive impacts and minimize negative impact (Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L.; 2019).  Exploring these two aspects being mutually supportive both stakeholder profits may be maximized if corporation was to take on a management philosophy to utilize corporate citizenship which will support social responsibility overall.

As we move forward with this line of thinking we find that there is much disagreement between environmentalists and businesses.  This disagreement is prevalent in many ways from political views to demonstrations across the globe.  While some of these disagreements are warranted it is something business must overcome.  Business can overcome these disagreements utilizing two socially responsible techniques.  First business needs to work with government to enact effective policies (Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature; 2013).  Second business must actively invest in the environment(Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature; 2013).  In my opinion, if business takes an active role in conducting these activities it will display their interest in corporate citizenship thus raising their social responsibility which directly impacts their socioeconomic impact.

Continuing this debate regarding corporate social responsibility we find that it is based on two questions.  The first question is under what condition will firms adopt corporate social responsibility policies, and what conditions or policies will enhance the corporate social responsibility social/environmental and financial performance (Prakash, A.; 2007)?  If businesses can answer these questions positively and play an active role in its individual corporate citizenship.  If businesses can take active roles in its corporate citizenship and make active investments in its corporate social responsibility it will result in becoming more profitable eventually.  This outlook in the short term may appear to be drastic to stakeholders therefore it is on the business leaders to assist them in seeing the outcome which will be positive income in the future.

 

QUESTION 2

As I watched the case study on the microchip implantation into the body I found it initially to be a bit drastic.  Although as I contemplated a bit more I found that it would ease some things in an individual’s life but would have drawbacks.  For example, I use a smart watch, heart rate monitor and a smart phone with the uses of theses at what level do I really have the privacy I think I have.  It is most likely not as much as I or anybody considers due to all these things being synced together.  Therefore, what type of privacy or security do we have.  The microchip scenario would have many positive impacts if used appropriately.  On the other hand, if misused it could have large and growing implications on the way we live our lives in general.  For example, it could assist employers in determining the productivity of its workforce although if hacked it may cause false readings which could lead to false terminations.  This could lead to very strong ethical issues and place the company in a bind.  As discussed in the text, ethical issues arise when decisions or actions are determined on different spectrums as either right or wrong (Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L.; 2019).  This spectrum differs by individual and business, some businesses may think the microchip is a required evil to check productivity while its employees may be apprehensive about many aspects of medical or ethical implications.  I personally am not solely against the idea of the microchip although there would have to be numerous safeguards and allow me some form of control to the chip.  We as an incorporated society already have numerous ways to track and evaluate people.  For example, as a new hire goes through the hiring process many organizations utilize social media, in-person interviews, psychological assessments and boards to hire new people.  This trend has come into effect over the course of the past decade and has become more prevalent.  How would the microchip effect the actions of society if it were a requirement?  It may clean up society but on the back side it may allow big government to track its citizens with the data which is aggregated at large server farms, which may play into the negative aspects required if an individual wants to use the data in a negative manner.

 

REFERENCES

Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. (2019). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and        Cases, Twelfth Edition. Cengage, 20 Channel Center Street, Boston, MA 02210.

Nature’s Fortune: How Business and Society Thrive by Investing in Nature. (2013). Publishers    Weekly, 260(4), 163–164.

Prakash, A. (2007). Environmental Protection and the Social Responsibility of Firms./ Corporate             America and Environmental Policy: How Often Does Business Get Its Way?/Nature’s      Revenge: Reclaiming Sustainability in an Age of Corporate Globalization. Global     Environmental Politics, 7(3), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2007.7.3.130