Personalizing Global Ethics, Faces, And Places Essay Assessm

Personalizing Global Ethicsfaces And Places Essay Assessment

The page, Personalizing Global Ethics: Faces and Places, hosts materials and videos that directly speak to the questions the comprise this essay assessment. Please click through to that page and review those materials before beginning the assessment. This short-answer essay quiz tests your understanding of the issues reported in Multimedia Activity: Personalizing Global Ethics: Faces and Places as they relate to managing operations in the global business environment. The expected length of an effective response is 200 to 400 words. Review Essay Quiz, Standards And Recommendations for a meaningful interpretation of the assignment. Additionally, reviewing Essay Questions, Samples And Standards, Multimedia Activities can help you understand ideal responses. The questions are geared toward evaluating your comprehension of the multimedia profile's features and broader ideas within the module. Operationally, the quiz comprises 5 questions. You may take it only once; there is no reattempt option. To enhance the activity’s usefulness, a model response to each question is provided as a standard for answer evaluation. Canvas will grant access within three days to review this model response relative to your submission, reflecting grading timelines.

Paper For Above instruction

International Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) operating in developing countries can wield significant influence to improve labor policies by leveraging their economic power and reputation to promote ethical standards. An illustrative example is Nike’s activism in Vietnam and Cambodia during the 1990s, where the company publicly committed to better working conditions and enforced supplier codes of conduct (Klein & Pincus, 2002). By demanding adherence to better labor practices from suppliers, and linking compliance to ongoing contracts, Nike exemplified how MNEs can positively influence local labor policies. Such strategies signal to local governments and other firms the importance of ethical labor standards, eventually encouraging legislative reforms or industry-wide improvements.

Companies are motivated to act ethically for multiple reasons, primarily because of stakeholder pressures, reputation management, legal compliance, and long-term sustainability goals. Stakeholders such as consumers, employees, and investors increasingly demand corporate accountability, influenced by social movements and awareness campaigns regarding human rights, environmental issues, and fair labor practices (Crane et al., 2014). Ethical behavior enhances a firm’s reputation and brand loyalty, especially as consumers become more socially conscious, thus supporting market competitiveness (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Additionally, proactive ethical practices can preempt legal penalties and sanctions, and ensure sustainability amid increasing global regulations (Matten & Moon, 2008). Collectively, these motivations demonstrate that ethical actions align commercial interests with societal values, fostering mutually beneficial outcomes.

The stark cost differential in manufacturing a denim shirt in Bangladesh versus the United States raises serious normative ethical questions. From a normative perspective, which is grounded in moral principles and standards of right and wrong, the low-cost production in Bangladesh reflects structural injustices embedded within the global trade system. Exploiting cheap labor and lax regulations to reduce costs perpetuates inequities and exposes workers to arduous, unsafe conditions (Crane et al., 2014). Such disparities challenge our moral duty to uphold human dignity and fairness, suggesting that businesses have an obligation to advocate for better labor protections, even if it increases costs (O'Neill, 2002). Allowing such practices to persist based solely on cost considerations compromises core ethical standards of justice and human rights.

From a relativist perspective, which asserts that moral standards are culturally dependent and context-specific, the cost differential can be understood within the norms and economic realities of different societies. In many developing countries, low wages and lenient labor laws are accepted norms, and companies operate within that framework, believing they are respecting local customs and economic conditions (Hofstede, 2001). Relativism contends that moral judgments should be adapted to each society’s context, thus permitting practices that might be seen as unethical elsewhere. This perspective might justify the exploitation of cheaper labor in Bangladesh as permissible within local norms, although it raises critical questions about global ethical standards and the universality of human rights (Schwarz, 2013). Recognizing this variation stresses the importance of balancing respect for cultural differences with advocacy for fundamental human rights, regardless of local contexts.

In the scenario involving an apparel executive defending the practice of importing items made with child labor, arguments could include that ethical standards are distinct from legal standards because they are voluntary, aspirational, and often based on moral principles rather than enforceable laws (Donaldson, 2015). The executive might argue that legal compliance is mandatory and objectively defined, whereas ethical standards involve personal or societal judgments that vary across cultures and contexts. Additionally, the executive could claim that enforcing strict ethical standards may impose significant costs and operational constraints that threaten business viability unless mandated by law (Crane et al., 2014). Moreover, the executive might suggest that market-driven initiatives, such as certifications or consumer awareness campaigns, are more effective in promoting ethical behavior than regulatory mandates, thus justifying a focus on voluntary compliance rather than legal enforcement of ethical standards.

References

• Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. J. (2014). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Donaldson, T. (2015). American Ethical Theories and Business Conduct. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(3), 321-347.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications.
• Klein, N., & Pincus, J. (2002). Stand Up and Be Counted: Business’s Assumption of Social Responsibility. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 79–88.
• Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). "Implicit" and "Explicit" Elements of Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Political Theory and Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 413–427.
• O'Neill, O. (2002). Some Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 165-180.
• Schenker, J. (2013). Cultural Relativism and Ethical Standards in International Business. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(7), 650–668.
• Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
• Schwarz, C. (2013). Ethical Imperialism or Respect for Cultural Diversity? The Dilemma of Corporate Social Responsibility in Haiti. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 283–297.
• O'Neill, O. (2002). Some Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 165-180.