Before jumping on the cultural relativism bandwagon, stop and consider the potential economic consequences of a when-in-Rome attitude toward business ethics. Take a look at the current statistics on software piracy: In the United States, pirated software is estimated to be 35% of the total software market, and industry losses are estimated at $2.3 billion per year. The piracy rate is 57% in Germany and 80% in Italy and Japan; the rates in most Asian countries are estimated to be nearly 100%.
Information security professionals are in urgent need of effective and pragmatic guidance for developing data privacy protection standards for two major reasons. The first is that the information security function in a technology-driven information-intensive environment becomes more complicated due to new risk (e.g., socio-techno risk); the second is that data privacy protection becomes a primary concern to information security management as privacy infringement occurs frequently and attracts wide coverage in the media. Viewing privacy from the perspective of ethics can help enterprises establish and improve their code of conduct. Considering privacy from an ethical point of view and establishing a code of conduct makes all individuals in an organization, not just security personnel, accountable for protecting valuable data.
business ethics a canadian perspective 3rd pdf free
Download File: https://tinurll.com/2vG5gx
Furthermore, businesses may engage in CSR for strategic or ethical purposes. From a strategic perspective, CSR can contribute to firm profits, particularly if brands voluntarily self-report both the positive and negative outcomes of their endeavors.[9] In part, these benefits accrue by increasing positive public relations and high ethical standards to reduce business and legal risk by taking responsibility for corporate actions. CSR strategies encourage the company to make a positive impact on the environment and stakeholders including consumers, employees, investors, communities, and others.[10] From an ethical perspective, some businesses will adopt CSR policies and practices because of the ethical beliefs of senior management: for example, the CEO of outdoor-apparel company Patagonia, Inc. argues that harming the environment is ethically objectionable.[11]
Proponents argue that corporations increase long-term profits by operating with a CSR perspective, while critics argue that CSR distracts from businesses' economic role. A 2000 study compared existing econometric studies of the relationship between social and financial performance, concluding that the contradictory results of previous studies reporting positive, negative, and neutral financial impact, were due to flawed empirical analysis and claimed when the study is properly specified, CSR has a neutral impact on financial outcomes.[12] Critics[13][14] questioned the "lofty" and sometimes "unrealistic expectations" in CSR.[15] or that CSR is merely window-dressing, or an attempt to pre-empt the role of governments as a watchdog over powerful multinational corporations. In line with this critical perspective, political and sociological institutionalists became interested in CSR in the context of theories of globalization, neoliberalism, and late capitalism..mw-parser-output .toclimit-2 .toclevel-1 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-3 .toclevel-2 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-4 .toclevel-3 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-5 .toclevel-4 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-6 .toclevel-5 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-7 .toclevel-6 uldisplay:none
Milton Friedman and others argued that a corporation's purpose is to maximize returns to its shareholders and that obeying the laws of the jurisdictions within which it operates constitutes socially responsible behavior.[124] Friedman argued each person should be free to spend their own money on social causes if they wished, but that business owners should avoid putting a "tax" on consumers as "unwitting puppets" of socialism by raising prices to support business practices with social goals unrelated to profit.[125][126]
182. An assessment of the environmental impact of business ventures and projects demands transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views. On the other hand, the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.
In the United States, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits US companies from paying bribes to foreign government officials to gain business favors and advantages. Other developed countries don't have similar restrictive laws, and their companies are perfectly free to pay such bribes, putting US companies at a disadvantage. Germany, for example, recognizes bribes paid to foreign government officials and allows these payments as tax deductions.
2ff7e9595c
Comments