Many companies have adopted codes of ethics and joined the UN Global Compact on Corporate Ethics, many after having a dubious track record on 'right and wrong'. Is this an indication of responsible business or just another PR strategy?
From my point of view, this is probably a PR strategy, as Dr. Turner suggests. But, we still have a hope with it: being a marketing strategy, stakeholders, consumers etc... can press on that, showing what hasn't been acomplished or lobbyng to take the "make up operation" further than that. The dark side is that, if we "buy" this, companies even feel that they are doing the right thing and will keep on that hypocresy forever!
In her essay, one of my masters students found that there is a fundamental difference between what is said to internal stakeholders in terms of ethics and CSR and what is said to external stakeholders. The difference corresponds to the gap between discourse (and espoused values) and conducts/behaviours (enacted values). To external stakeholders, companies present what image they want to be associated with. So documents such as ethics codes are PR documents. Whereas when it comes to internal stakeholders, mainly employees, many companies forget to talk about ethics; when they do, their documents are mostly about discipline ("do as you're told or else"), revealing a whole new image. My student's findings are consistent with previous findings (see papers by Gary Weaver in particular where he presents codes of ethis as domination instruments). They clearly highlight the fact that when companies talk about ethics, they do so especially as a matter of looking good.
Doesn't the usual corporate charter (globally) preclude a commitment to the societies within which the corporation exists over profit? I recall reading a piece a few years ago that discussed the notions of corporate ethics internally and the absence of ethics externally.
The Directors of limited companies and PLC's have a legal obligation to maximise returns to shareholders. I don't think there are any other obligations in law except not to break the law. As such, a director who pushed their company to follow an ethical code which they knew would reduce profitability would be in breach of their legal obligations. Since the focus is purely on profit, ethical stances and statements can only be justified if they contribute towards profitability. As such, they have no value if they are not in the public view unless they reflect something else which enhances company profitability, such as an internal productivity improvement. It is possible they can be both good PR and genuine ethical comittments, but the final and only responsibility of companies in capitalist societies is to make profit. Under such a setup, ethics are irrelevant except in so far as they affect financial performance. "General human welfare" is not something we have learned to monetize (yet).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude