Article 3 Response Sheet Questions According To The Views Ex

Article 3 Response Sheet Questionaccording To The Views Expressed In T

Article 3 response sheet question according to the views expressed in this article, the authors assert that the question of what is ethical for an agent of a business is too complex for that agent to answer because it depends upon how each employee regards the ethics of the job. Do you believe this is true? Why or why not? Why do academics, bankers, and consultants champion the stakeholder theory as the superior form of corporate governance? What motivations drive this preference? Does this make sense to you?

Paper For Above instruction

The assertion that determining what is ethical for a business agent is too complex for the individual agent to answer is a subject of considerable debate within corporate ethics and governance. The claim hinges on the idea that ethical judgments are subjective, context-dependent, and influenced by individual perceptions of morality, cultural norms, and organizational culture. While this perspective underscores the complexity and variability of ethical decision-making, it also risks undermining the notion of universal ethical standards that can guide business conduct.

In my view, this assertion holds some validity, particularly considering the diverse backgrounds, values, and experiences of employees within a corporate environment. For example, a sales manager in a multinational corporation operating across different cultural settings might face conflicting ethical norms. In such contexts, the subjective nature of ethics becomes apparent because what is considered acceptable in one culture might be deemed unethical in another. Moreover, employees’ personal morals and the compliance policies of their organization can further complicate ethical decision-making, making it challenging to establish universally applicable standards.

However, this does not mean that ethical decision-making should be entirely relative or casual. The existence of shared corporate values, codes of conduct, and ethical standards can provide a framework that guides employees toward morally acceptable choices, even amidst complex situations. The development of ethical awareness and training can also help employees navigate ambiguous situations more effectively, aligning their personal judgments with organizational expectations and societal norms.

The discussion on why academics, bankers, and consultants champion stakeholder theory as the preferable approach to corporate governance is instructive in understanding different motivations. Stakeholder theory emphasizes that companies have responsibilities not just to shareholders but to all stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and the environment. Many proponents argue that this broader focus leads to more sustainable and ethically sound business practices. Academics often support stakeholder theory because it aligns with evolving societal expectations for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development (Freeman, 1984).

Bankers and financial professionals, on the other hand, may favor stakeholder theory because it can enhance long-term value creation and risk management. By considering stakeholder interests, firms can build stronger relationships, reduce conflicts, and increase organizational resilience, which are attractive qualities from a financial perspective (Clarkson, 1995). Consultants also promote stakeholder theory because it presents a comprehensive approach that aligns with contemporary trends toward ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility, which can lead to competitive advantage and reputation enhancement.

The motivations driving this preference are multifaceted. Ethical considerations include a desire to promote justice and fairness, acknowledging that neglecting stakeholder interests might lead to social harm or economic inefficiencies. Practical motivations include risk reduction, reputation management, and ensuring long-term profitability. Additionally, societal and regulatory pressures increasingly demand greater corporate accountability, making stakeholder theory seem not only ethically appealing but also strategically advantageous.

From my perspective, understanding that stakeholder theory offers a more inclusive and socially responsible framework makes sense, especially in today’s interconnected world where corporations operate within complex societal systems. While there are challenges in balancing seemingly competing interests, the stakeholder approach encourages corporations to think beyond short-term profits and foster sustainable practices that benefit a broader array of stakeholders.

In conclusion, the complexity of ethical decision-making in business is undeniable, influenced by individual perceptions and contextual factors. Nonetheless, establishing shared ethical standards, training, and organizational values can help navigate this complexity. The advocacy for stakeholder theory by scholars, bankers, and consultants is motivated by a combination of ethical commitments and strategic considerations, aimed at fostering sustainable and responsible business practices. As societal expectations evolve, embracing such comprehensive frameworks appears increasingly prudent for contemporary corporate governance.

References

Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 36(1), 4-27.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.

Hill, J. & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder agency theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3), 325-339.

Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B. A., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on stakeholders. California Management Review, 45(1), 32-52.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.

Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (Eds.). (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context. Routledge.

Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 501-525.

Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance for the twenty-first century. Brookings Institution Press.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268-295.