RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘business ethics’

Meaning of Work: Life’s Identity

24 Mar

Work can have different meanings for everyone.  Each of those meanings are the result of factors ranging from feelings to actual life needs or requirements.  Upon first inspection, people seem to want work specifically for money; however, money or income is actually used to acquire goods or pay for services that ultimately generate happiness.  People also enjoy work for a feeling of personal satisfaction, personal achievement, and the pursuit of personal development.  Work can give people social status and respect in their communities while others get companionship and camaraderie with other co-workers.  Still others work to make a contribution to their community.  Work is interwoven into everyone’s lives and can become a part of a worker’s identity.

While each of these factors which contribute to the meaning of work are good, there are many ways for work to potentially dehumanize, oppress or manipulate workers.  One way work oppresses workers is through the threat of unemployment.  Unemployment can have many harmful effects on the worker including loss of self-esteem, depression, and anxiety.  Workers tend to use work to express themselves.  Separation from work can cause an inability to express themselves.  This causes workers to be at the mercy of employers.

Employers may even be able to require workers to perform jobs that do not serve any benefit except income.  These jobs could be very mechanical and artificial in nature.  An example is seen in assembly lines where a worker’s only job is to attach a screw or affix a decal on a product.  This job refuses to allow the worker’s ingenuity or ability to create to flourish.  These routine focused jobs force workers to act like robots who passively do their jobs and collect a paycheck.  Ultimately, these workers lose their autonomy as individuals.

Employers can dehumanize workers by paying low wages when there are no other jobs available.  Workers are forced to accept any job available even though the work entailed is difficult, might require special training or is dangerous in nature.  The workers are so desperate to attain a job to provide for their families they will demean or reduce their self-esteem.  The loss of self-esteem can lead to depression and stress which causes the productivity of workers to decrease which could lead to an injury in dangerous jobs.

I believe only one harmful effect may be avoidable while the others are hard to avoid.  The harmful effect of the assembly worker’s robotic job may be alleviated through variety of tasks.  Maybe the assembly line could institute a rotation of tasks to ensure no worker stays at the same station for an inordinate amount of time.  The threat of unemployment is not one so easily remedied.  To many workers, this effect is mentally generated and not a result of the employer.  I do recognize few occasions when the employer uses a scare tactic, but I do not believe this practice is commonplace.  Lastly, supply and demand can have terrible effects on the wage and job duty ratio.  This is a mechanic of business and the free market.  Minimum wage standards only help places where they can be instituted.  Workers in other countries do not get the same right to a minimum wage as those in the United States.

Overall, I believe the meaning of work stems from personal values.  I believe one works to provide income to feed and provide for their families.  Once those needs are met, people use work to provide a means to achieve satisfaction, social status and sometimes, even respect.  Those who have achieved those goals often choose to serve their communities or use work for companionship and camaraderie.  Work has become such an institution in our lives that we no longer seem to be able to have life without it.

+++++
Works Cited

Desjardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

Related Links:

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics/Social Topics

 

The Sustainability Model: Realizing Real Satisfaction

20 Mar

The distinctions between the narrow view of business’ environmental obligations and the sustainability model are numerous.  While the narrow view has definite roots in the classical model of Corporate Social Responsibility, the sustainability model has recently been accepted more by consumers and businesses.  I believe this trend will continue and the sustainability model will become more prevalent due to consumer demand for more economic, environmental and socially accepted business practices.  In order to properly examine these viewpoints, we need to illustrate the distinctions between each.

The narrow view reflects many of the ideas of Corporate Social Responsibility.  First, maximizing profit while remaining lawful is the only responsibility of the business.  The business can then maximize its role in the market system and serve the overall greater good by satisfying the preferences of the consumer.  However, this viewpoint can lead to environmental consequences causing future generations the inability to enjoy the same benefits of today’s society.  Also, this viewpoint does not give natural objects a value; but, recognizes the value people place on them.  However, that value is often slanted.

Consider a public forest area.  The narrow view will weigh whether to develop the area into something that makes money unless people place a value on the natural area which outweighs the value of the proposed development.  To put it another way, people are showing a willingness to pay more for the area than for the development.  When people are willing to pay for this area, the narrow view recognizes this as a business goal.

The sustainability model looks at this area in a different light.  First, this model ensures that development is economically, environmentally, and socially satisfactory.  Every practice in this model must adhere to the requirements of the present population and maintain the ability of future populations to meet their requirements.  While doing this, the biosphere must not lose its ability to sustain life.  Waste must be eliminated and used to replenish the biosphere or recycled into the production process.  This closed-loop idea forces businesses to rethink their processes and begin thinking of themselves as providers of service rather than providers of products.

Reexamining the earlier example of the public forest area can illustrate how the sustainability model might address the issue.  I believe people would be more willing to develop this area because the sustainability model would force the developer to build with the landscape and not just “clear” the land.  Trees would be preserved wherever possible and new trees would be planted.  Solar power would be incorporated to reduce the impact on the environment while plants would be used to properly address runoff and help insulate buildings from weather conditions.  Also, the people’s ability to enjoy a nice walk in the environment would be strictly enforced.

The narrow viewpoint is impacted by several market failures which make it environmentally unsound.  First, due to externalities, the optimal results of the free market cannot be guaranteed.  Externalities can be people who are downstream who actually end up with the problems from the development like water runoff issues or poor down-wind air quality.  These problems are outside of the economic exchange and cannot be measured accurately.  Another failure relates to the inability of the market to provide and/or create a price for wildlife or public goods.  This lack of prices causes the market to fail to preserve important public goods like animals, trails and endangered species.  The last major failure is due to the narrow view not realizing the effects of individual decisions on groups of people.  Desjardins asserts “what is good and rational for a collection of individuals is not necessarily what is good and rational for a society” (218).

Each of these failures can be corrected by an aspect of the sustainability model.  The externalities failure can be corrected by closing the loop in manufacturing and developing an “ecoefficiency” with the environment.  If this is done, externalities will not be harmed or hampered by issues related to development.  The sustainability model corrects the inability of the market to provide a price for public goods by believing that all areas and living things are important and future generations should be able to enjoy them.  The third failure is corrected by almost all of the aspects of the sustainability model.  Future generations must be able to meet their needs while addressing the needs of the people in the present especially those who are impoverished.  Also, development must not harm the biosphere’s ability to sustain itself and life.

In my opinion, the sustainability model’s acceptance in the minds of people is increasing.  I believe many businesses will see the benefits and others will be forced into sustainable practices.  Consumers are becoming more and more globally minded while looking for sustainable ways to live.  Many are realizing the potential to provide future generations the ability to enjoy today’s benefits while living full and exciting lives.  When we work together, this  idea can be realized.

+++++
Works Cited

Desjardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics/Social Topics

 

Consumer Autonomy: The Advertiser’s Wrinkle

16 Mar

Americans hold dear their right to be free to make choices and not be forced to buy or use any product.  Consumer autonomy refers to this belief.  Consumer autonomy can be defined as the aptitude and character to choose products rationally while being able to review and reject them based on a person’s feelings or research.  People should not accept blindly and unconditionally an advertiser’s claims.  However, many advertisers “toe the line” in trying to convince people to buy their products and infringing on the autonomy of their prospective customers.

It can be hard to determine without question whether an advertisement violates consumer autonomy.  However, I believe violations happen more often than consumers would like or even notice.  Mostly, the violations occur on a subliminal level and cater to those who may not have the faculties available to discern the truth.  Examples of those unable to discern the violations are children, the mentally ill or the uneducated.  However, anyone can be susceptible to violations to consumer autonomy.

One specific practice advertisers use often relates to the perception that their product projects a specific aura around the user.  One such advertiser is Apple.  Apple’s recent commercials depict two people in different lights.  One person is a cool, hip looking young man who does not appear to have a worry in the world.  The other is an awkwardly dressed, non-cool looking guy who is often abnormally trying to accomplish a less than desirable task.  The cool person uses an Apple computer while the non-cool person uses Windows.  This example is an obvious attempt by Apple to convince consumers their products are in vogue and can make your life easier while making you cool.  Windows users are people who are abnormal and not worthy of imitation.  Individuals who cannot recognize the unlikeliness of suddenly becoming cool or hip due to the type of computer they use are at risk of losing their autonomy.  I agree people generally want to be seen as cool; but, Apple’s assertion about the type of computer you use actually having anything to do with a person’s status or acceptance is false.  This violation ultimately relates to Apple’s attempt to control the behavior of consumers: Buy our product or be a nerd.

Another example of a practice I believe violates consumer autonomy relates to advertisers attempting to generate a need for the consumer.  In my opinion, the cosmetic industry attempts to do this most often.  Many cosmetic companies attempt to make women believe they have a need for various creams and moisturizers to fight off the effects of aging.  But, the amount of different products needed to maintain a youthful appearance is staggering.  My wife is a Mary Kay consultant who sells cosmetics and skin care directly to consumers.

I asked her to list the products Mary Kay promotes for just the face.  I was amazed.  Remember, a woman “needs” all of this stuff if she wishes to keep her face looking young: Cleanser to clean the face, toner to neutralize free radicals, mask to remove dry skin cells, moisturizer to keep the skin supple, eye cream to prevent wrinkles and crow’s feet, micro-derm-abrasion to refine skin and remove dead cells, night cream to help with moisturizing, oil control lotion to minimize oil, eye revitalizer to minimize puffiness of the eyes, lip mask to remove dead skin from the lips and lip balm to moisturize the lips.  One word:  WOW!  I believe the cosmetics industry has created the need for all of these products and portray women who do not use them as destined to look like an old worn baseball glove.  Clearly, this is a violation of consumer autonomy.

These violations of consumer autonomy can be avoided by changing the overall tone and message of each advertiser.  In Apple’s case, I think it would be best to actually show the consumer why their product is superior.  I like the idea of showing me how making a quick movie is easier on an Apple.  Show me how music is easier to manage and how I can save time through the use of their products.  In other words, show me comparisons of the operation of an Apple computer opposed to the operation of a Windows computer.  Doing this will allow the consumer to decide which product is better.

Cosmetic companies can avoid violations by showing data relating to the use of their products.  I believe consumers are smart enough to understand time elapsed pictures and videos illustrating the effects of their products.  Also, consumers can judge if the effects seen on a variety of women actually warrant the expense of their products.  These changes illustrate a way to allow the consumer to decide if they want or need the products based on their own values and needs.

I believe these measures are fair to the businesses.  However, I am afraid the businesses would not agree.  I believe if every product’s true measure of quality and capabilities were the main focus on many products would be deemed not needed or too expensive for the benefits.  I can see the frowns on the faces of advertisers who feel the need to generate a need for their products and control the behavior of consumers.  However, I am happy to keep autonomy and a couple of wrinkles.

+++++
Works Cited

Desjardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

Related Links:

 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics/Social Topics

 
« Older Entries