Now it is common knowledge that ethics and management go hand in hand. Through ethics, management is made more human. Although in the advent of management during the time of this is truly not the mindset. The focus was on production and output. The main concern regarding people is how to make sure that the workers are able to sustain the product or service demand—regardless of the means by which this was achieved. Nowadays, corporate ethics go beyond simply making sure that the employees are given what is due to them, the whole business environment should be created with “virtues and values” for the “good of all” (Flynn 360). This implies that all activities and transactions must be within the context of corporate and common ethics. Some authors even say that “good ethics is good business” (Joyner & Payne 297). From this statement, one may deduce that good ethics is a requirement for a business to be considered good or successful.
[...] The Evolution of Ethics in Management Through there are many literature involving ethical themes in management, it was Chester Barnard's The Functions of the Executive that remains to be enduring. Published in 1938, Barnard was years beyond his time when he spoke of the need to analyze elements in the company's environment prior to making business decisions. Among these elements, Barnard included he legal, moral, and social factors. Barnard also points out the importance of a leader who should possess qualities like good morals. [...]
[...] The industrial organization approach to the evolution of the corporate social contract consists of four phases. In the 1700s, when the earliest industries were created, it was the sole-proprietor who was in-charge. According to Adam Smith, it was the self-interests of this sole proprietor which “leads him to prefer that employment of (capital) which is most advantageous to society” (Brooks 117). This is the first phase; where the invisible hand ensures that the business functions to the best interest of its immediate community. [...]
[...] De George however tried to clarify this by claiming that business ethics (which he defined as the interaction of business and ethics) covers a “moral evaluation” of the various activities and behaviors involved in business (Joyner & Payne 299). The moral decisions and judgment made after the act of moral evaluation must be “universally acceptable” or what De George termed as objective morality (Joyner & Payne 299). The use of subjective morality or what one thinks is right or wrong is not solely considered in making business moral evaluation. [...]
[...] Communication regarding the corporate code of ethics must be encouraged within the company. Works Cited Brooks, Leonard J., Jr. "Corporate Codes Of Ethics." Journal of Business Ethics (1989): 117. Discovery. ProQuest May < http://www.proquest.com/> Daboub, Anthony J., and Jerry M Calton. "Stakeholder learning dialogues: How to preserve ethical responsibility in Networks." Journal of Business Ethics (2002): 85-98. Discovery. ProQuest May < http://www.proquest.com/> Fassin, Yves. "The Reasons Behind Non-Ethical Behaviour in Business and Entrepreneurship." Journal of Business Ethics 60.3 (2005): 265- 279. Discovery. [...]
[...] Making Ethical Codes Work Judging from various corporate ethical blunders like the Nike child labor scandal and the “beer girls” promoting beer in South East Asia (Daboub & Calton 85) wherein global social values become muddled because of cultural differences, clear codes of ethics must be implemented to address these issues. The fact that such controversies occurred means that there are some lapses in the corporate code of ethics within their respective companies. However, the corporate social codes and corporate codes of ethics are most likely effective—the problem lies on the implementation. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee