Topic Summary - Ethics, Sustainability, CSR

Topic Summary: corporate social responsibility, sustainability and ethics Topic Summary Learning Goals 1) Define why corporate
social responsibility and sustainability are relevant for organizational behavior 2) Discuss the differences between the shareholder and stakeholder perspectives. 3) Explain the business case and ethical mandate case for corporate social responsibility and sustainability. 4) Describe the triple bottom line, corruption, and integrity and how they factor into corporate social responsibility. Key terms Applied ethics Benefit Corporation Corporate social responsibility Corruption Ethics General ethics Globalization impact on ethics Human sustainability Integrity Instrumental values Morals Normative ethics Ombudsman Pay to play schemes Shareholder value approach Stakeholder approach Sustainability Terminal values Triple bottom line Values
Contemporary OB in Action: Topic Summary: Corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics
Corporate Social Responsibility This topic summary reviews social responsibility, which has become an important consideration for all types of organizations. For-profit enterprises, not for profit, as well as governmental organizations show increased awareness of the impact of their activities on society and the environment. Two major considerations go into an organizations actions around corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability: 1) The business case approach which emphasizes strategy, stability and survival 2) The ethical mandate approach which emphasizes values, ethics and integrity
Corporate social responsibility Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the expectations society holds of an organization and how the society chooses to uphold the organization to those expectations. Although it is popular to say that a companys primary responsibility is to make a profit, there are other expectations for companies in addition to making profits. Organizations have responsibilities to society, the environment, the community in which
they operate, and to their employees.1 This diverse set of goals are called the triple bottom line which includes 1) on economic viability including profits; 2) environmental concern which focus on minimal impact on the natural environment; and 3) concern for the health of its community which includes fair treatment of employees.2 Essentially, calls for greater corporate social responsibility suggest that all organizations, and corporations in particular, have a responsibility to consider their impact on society that goes beyond simply following the rule of law. Sustainability is referred to as the set of voluntary actions that an organization takes to demonstrate its environmental and social responsibilities. 3 When an organization takes action in order to minimize its impact on the natural environment and takes care to insure the long-term maintenance of the environment, we call this environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability In 1968, an ecologist by the name of Garret Hardin published an essay in Science magazine4 that described a situation that has come to symbolize the current state of the environment and the way it was managed. He a time when all the cattle owners who lived in a small villager shared a common grazing area called the commons. In these conditions, each owner had an incentive to maximize his number of cattle because he had no restriction on the amount of grass his cattle could eat. But there was a problem. If all the cattle owners took advantage of this incentive, then soon the entire pasture would be overrun with cattle and the common land would no longer be sufficient to sustain the cattle. This scenario, where common resources are shared, but the incentive to exploit these common resources for individual gain, has become known as the tragedy of the commons. Organizations have become more aware of their impact on
the environment and have begun to realize how their own actions look similar to the cattle ranchers who try to take advantage of the shared resources. Due to this growing concern about the impact that on the environment, organization have begun to demonstrate their concern for preservation of the natural environment. Examples of organizational actions that show responsible use of resources include recycling, use of renewable resources, minimizing use of hazardous chemicals, and water and energy conservation efforts. Human sustainability Another approach to sustainability focuses on broader concern for human factors such as the need for medical insurance, working conditions, work life balance, stress, and inequality. Human sustainability or social sustainability is the voluntary actions that an organization takes to focus on the well being of people within the organization and those who belong to the greater community in which it operates. Organizations can choose to focus on both environmental sustainability and human sustainability or choose to focus on one area over another. For example, Wal-Mart, the largest employer in the United States has developed a focus on environmental sustainability, while at the same time, it paid its employees 15% lower than other retailers. In addition, 46 % of children whose parents worked at Wal-Mart remained uninsured.5 Advocates of human sustainability are often concerned with unfairness and the concern that many organizations take advantage of workers, suppliers and customers for the benefit of the company. For example, where organizations charge high fees for certain transactions or engage in lending that overburdens the borrower or failing to pay health insurance to workers. Other proponents of human sustainability offer that
Contemporary OB in Action: Topic Summary: Corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics 4
organizations have the knowledge and resources to effect social change in their communities and should do so. In this instance, and organization operating in a developing country might offer education programs to develop the basic skill set of their workers. With growing globalization, organizations increasingly have access to new pools of labor in developing countries. Many companies are attracted to these labor pools because they can pay these workers a fraction of the wage of a worker in a developed country like the US, developing countries dont hold organizations to the same work standards such as allowing for breaks, time off, and clean working conditions, and because workers are less likely to object to poor working conditions. Critics have argued that in fact, most workers choose to work under certain conditions and that these conditions provide better options than the worker would otherwise have.6 The Role of Organizational Behavior: Shareholder vs. Stakeholder Both arguments for CSR and sustainability hold merit in studies of contemporary organizational behavior. Ethical scandals have been widely reported. While the actually causes of these ethical lapses are varied, business schools and their students have not been immune to criticism. Some of the blame for these scandals has been assigned to higher education. Some critics have specifically pointed to the fact that business schools in particular ignore the human and environmental concerns and instead focus on profits. Because of this, students have an inadequate understanding of the need for organizations to do more than what is legally mandated. Some observers believe that the values taught by business schools as a primary driver of ethical lapses by organizations. One commonly cited problem, thought to encourage unethical behavior is the predominance of the
shareholder value perspective in education. Perhaps the most commonly cited advocate of shareholder value perspective is economist Milton Freedman. He wrote that: "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. There is one and only one social responsibility of business -- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud"7 Increasing shareholder value essentially means increasing the price of the stock. The predominance of the shareholder approach, according to the critics, focuses on the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of other values. The predominance of shareholder value and its focus on shareholders at the expense of other groups who benefit or are harmed, shows the influence that economic thought has had on thinking in business schools. Courses in organizational behavior have begun to expand discussions from only focusing on the business case for CSR to identify a more complete understanding of an organizations responsibilities, including the ethical mandate to shareholders. Critics of higher education often cite a study conducted by the Aspen institute. It surveyed 2,000 masters level business students and found that those who believed that maximizing shareholder value was the primary responsibility of a corporation increased from the time they entered school to the time the completed their first year. This trend may be changing, however, as more students report that companies should value customers, another stakeholder group, above shareholders.8
Dissatisfaction with the Shareholder model The contemporary movement for a more complex argument for CSR grows out of dissatisfaction with narrow definitions of business offered by Milton Fridman.9 The specific calls for CSR vary from concern for the environment associated with sustainability, calls for corporations to consider their impact and their potential exploitation of developing countries, or for corporations to consider following higher ethical standards, or even the more radical notion that capitalism itself should be transformed. Stakeholder approach An important challenge to Milton Friedmans shareholder approach can be found in the idea of a stakeholder approach.9 The arguments for CSR emerges primarily from pressure from stakeholders such as the community, employees, regulators, customers, suppliers, as well as shareholders.10As interest in alternative forms of corporations arise, many corporations are reevaluating their impact on the environment, communities in which they do business, their employees, and the larger society. One alternative approach is the benefits corporation or a flexible purpose corporation, which is a legal entity that holds a corporation legally accountable for a broader set of stakeholders than simply shareholders. Although only a few states recognize Benefits Corporations, there is growing interest in this form of business. Under a Benefits Corporations charter, company directors must consider not only profits of the businesses, but will consider the companys broader impact as well.11 Researchers remain skeptical and argue that organizations efforts at corporate social responsibility are no more than public relations stunts designed to hide corporate goals which involve unrelenting pursuit of profits and
economic driven activities.12 Some universities have responded by encouraging their students to sign codes of ethics or asking students to promise they will do well when they enter the work world. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: A Business Case Several perspectives offer a business case for organizations to promote corporate social responsibility. These include organizational strategy, stability and survival. Organizational Strategy Some people have argued that greater social responsibility can be a good organizational strategy because it aligns the organizations social efforts with its overall mission. Strategy professor Michael Porter offers a remedy to address the perception that corporate social responsibility is simply a faade. He argues that a corporations efforts at social responsibility should be aligned with its corporate strategy.13 An example that Porter provides is when a multinational corporation that does business in Africa, and works to solve the AIDS problem as part of its strategy. This multinational corporation will be able to have access to the African workforce, and it has a business case to work to alleviate the AIDS crisis, because lowering the rate of AIDS infections expands the pool of healthy labor for the corporation. Organizational stability and survival Another important perspective that makes a business case for considering social responsibility in organizations comes is the organizational stability and survival argument. When organizations fail to pay attention to their impact on the human and natural environment, they can find themselves at risk. There are several examples where ethical lapses have resulted in the total collapse of the organization. For example, Barings
Bank in 1995, Britains oldest commercial bank, collapsed due to the risk behavior of one of its employees. Arthur Anderson, one of the most respected and largest accounting firms in the world, went out of business due to its perceived complicity misrepresenting financial statements at Enron, one of the biggest bankruptcies of all times. Other issues related to organizational survival and stability focus on product safety, health and safety, environmental concerns.14 Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: An Ethical Mandate A business case perspective is not enough to justify corporate social responsibility in organizations. Many see CSR as an ethical mandate where organizations should be concerned with ethics, values and integrity. Ethics Ethics is the general study of behaviors and judgments. Ethics is an attempt to describe the rational for engaging in certain behaviors and about the appropriateness of these behaviors and rational. According to one ethicist, Discussions of ethics begin when people find their code of prevailing rules [provide] unsatisfactory for explain events.15 Discussions of ethics fall into three basic categories: General ethics seeks to describe general moral standards. Of particular interest are the origins of these standards and what they suggest about the culture that follows them. Normative ethics is an attempt to find universal principles about what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior to measure right from wrong.
Applied ethics focuses on areas of interest and how to make practical judgments about moral issues where there is either great disagreement about what constitutes right and wrong or where right and wrong are not at all clear.
Concerns about ethics are not with businesses alone. Governments too can be the source of concern. One commonly used tactic seen in government is a so called payto-play scheme where an organization pays a government official in order to gain access to influential officials or win a contract with the government. Globalization One reason that interest in corporate social responsibility from an ethical mandate approach has increased is the result of globalization. Increased globalization offers organizations the ability to dodge undesirable regulations in one jurisdiction and set up operations in another jurisdiction where they can dodge oversight. As such, nations have less ability to impose regulations that may support human rights values, environmental values or cultural values. Companies can avoid ethical and legal implications of corrupt or questionable business practices by moving operations to countries that have laws that prove more favorable to business.16 Since, ethics cannot always be enforced, organizations have to define and create standards of moral behavior, judgment and decision making as part of their organizational culture. What people value in an organization impacts this culture as well. Values Values are distinct from ethics, although ethics and values may be interrelated in some cases. Values describe an individual or organizations beliefs. Where ethics are generally more about distinguishing right from wrong, values describe a broad set of
10
priorities around what is important. Ethics follow rules and since ethics can be tied to rules, there are formal approaches to defining ethics and ethics codes in organizations. Values focus on the choices that are made. Typically, values are considered within a system of beliefs know as a values system. Values Clarification Values clarification is the process of clarifying or become more aware of ones own individual values. Values clarification involves understanding and evaluating ones own values where the goal is to increase self-awareness and confront inconsistencies or uneasiness with ones own values. The values clarification process is useful to understand person and organizational fit and person and job fit. If an individuals values are in conflict with the values in the organization or even the requirements of a job, it may not be an optimal work situation. The Rokeach values survey offers a list of two sets of values terminal, or values that serve as goals to be achieved, and instrumental values, values that serve in the process of achieving those values.17 Terminal values are the destination we hope to achieve and Instrumental values describe our internal motives and how we attempt to achieve certain outcomes in life.
11
Table: Terminal and Instrumental Values Terminal Values A comfortable and prosperous life An exciting life (Stimulating) A sense of accomplishment (last contribution) A world at peace (free from war and conflict) A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts) Equality (Brotherhood, equal opportunity) Salvation (eternal life, saved) True friendship (close companionship) Instrumental Values Ambitious Broad-minded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative
Values Orientation Another values orientation framework describes the values systems in Western Culture. This framework falls into three distinct categories: pragmatic, intellectual, and human values.18 This framework suggests that peoples values from a Western Culture can be sorted into three categories. Values orientation clarification helps people integrate their values with others. An example of this conflict might occur if an employee (who held to a human value of loyalty) was asked by her boss (who held to a pragmatic value of cost saving) to fire an employee. This conflict could be resolved as both the employee and boss express their values and work together toward a common goal.
12
Table: The values categories of Western culture Pragmatic usefulness and utility of an idea. Intellectual rationalism and strengths of ideas in the abstract Human specific close personal relationships such as family, friends and acquaintances and how things impact these relationships. Values in this category emphasize effort, the desire to maximize output, with a focus on measurement of output and ways to determine relative value across different perspectives. Values in this category emphasize the intellectual value and emphasize perception of reality and a set of concepts that explain it. The intellectual values orientation relies on logical coherence, contextual relevance, and meaning and a well thought out argument. Values in this category emphasize loyalty and consistency as they relate to personal relationship.
Morals Morals, like values, are individual or collective sets of preferences, but are more likely to be judged as right or wrong. Morals are often thought of as the inner direction of
13
ethics19 Morals describe an individuals rule around what is acceptable (right) versus unacceptable (wrong). Organizational Integrity Organizational corruption occurs when an entire system engages in unethical behavior. Whereas ethical lapse and moral decisions are often isolated events that can be attributed to the actions of individuals, corruption implies the system itself is bad and that unethical behavior cannot be attributed solely to an individual or individuals. Like ethics, what is considered corrupt practices differs across countries and cultures. Corruption often is associated with the illegitimate use of power in organizations. One way to think about corruption is through a metaphor. This metaphor is that corruption is a disease that must be cured and absence of corruption is a healthy, functioning organization. Another challenge with defining corruption is that practices that constitute corruption differ across cultures and countries have not only different practices but also different laws that define and govern corruption.20 The idea of integrity has been offered as an alternative to the negative focus on corruption.21 Organizations that demonstrate integrity track their risk relative to ethical lapses by employees, have oversight, a culture of compliance and have a system in place to report ethical breaches as they occur. Carter, a researcher at Yale, gives three criteria for an organizational culture of integrity: 1. People in the organization clearly understand what is right and what is wrong;
2. People in the organization act on what they discerned to be right, even at personal cost; and 3. People openly link actions to understanding of right and wrong.22
14
One system that organizations put into place to increase integrity is an organizational ombudsman. An ombudsman is a person or group or people where employees can go if they believe they have seen an unethical practice or a practice that is not consistent with the organizations values. The ombudsman is then responsible for following up on the concern and investigating to see if there is a problem. The ombudsman may be an employee of the organization, or work outside the organization. The ombudsman allows the organization to: Build awareness of what constitutes ethical and unethical behavior, and understand the ethical implications of decisions Clarify values of the employee and the organization Develop structural supports such as an ethical ombudsman who listens to whistleblowers, institute clear rules to follow when ethical issues arise, Foster a culture of openness and trust Include strict oversight and compliance by third parties
15
OB Feature: Why is making ethical decisions difficult? Ethical decisions are often difficult to make. Ethical decision making often requires unsatisfactory choices, rational-economic models are not sufficient to solve a problem, the ethical rules are often confusing and ambiguous, and we live in a society, world with multiple competing values systems. When a decision has ethical implications and some or all of these exist, a person is said to be in n ethical dilemma, described as a situation where taking an action requires taking into account multiple ethical considerations. Leadership often requires taking decisive actions in ambiguous situations. While leaders must weigh options and make choices, many times those choices are between competing but equally important demands. This requires not only taking action, but also being able to provide compelling reasons for those actions. Competing values Difficult to ascertain correct answer What may be viewed as right by one group is wrong by another (moral incommensurability) require making difficult and often unsatisfactory decision often rational-economic models are not sufficient to solve a problem confusing and ambiguous outcomes live in a society, world with multiple competing values system Some have argued that ethical decisions are difficult because most decisions often involve an ethical dilemma, a complex situation where two or more competing choices. When a person faces an ethical dilemma, no choice is completely desirable. Applied
16
ethics helps people in organizations make decisions when they are faced with an ethical dilemma. Applied ethics guides leaders and managers as they integrate ethics into their day-to-day behavior as they try to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Applied ethics offers five distinct tests to a behavior. Each test is a question that a person should ask themselves before or during the ethical decision making process. New York Times test. Ask your self: How would I feel if my actions were printed in the front page of the New York Time for everyone to read? This questions helps you determine how your actions would appear to the average person. If you answer the question, No, I would not like this on the front page of a major news paper because I would be embarrassed or ashamed, then you should not do the action. The compliance test. This compliance test asks you. Would my actions break any regulations or written policies? If you actions break regulations or policies, then you should not participate in the activity. The legal test. The legal test asks a similar question to the compliance test but it asks whether or not you are breaking any laws. You should ask, does my action break any laws? The culture test. The culture test asks are my actions consistent with the culture in which I work or among my coworkers. What would my peers say? In many cases your actions may not break a law, a regulation, or a specific company policy, but it may threaten the culture of the organization nonetheless. The values test. The values test asks: How does this relate to my values? Will I be able to live with myself if I engage in these actions?14
17
Applied ethics also looks at the governance structure of organizations to see if certain types of governance structure make more or less ethical decisions. The role of corporate governance has been of increasing interest in light of several high profile ethical challenges by members of boards of directors at major companies. What to do to improve your values ethical decision making Recognize and describe personal values and their influence on decision making Account for multiple competing demands inherent in decision making Develop a Personal Ethic of Leadership
18
OB at work: Mike McLaughlin shows how corporate social responsibility is the business of every employee Mike McLaughlin spends time each day considering the health and well being of his customers, his employees, and his community. In the morning, he analyzes the impact a new product may have on the environment. In the afternoon he speaks with a supplier that might adopt a new farming practice to boost yield. How does this effect his companys aspiration for organic products? Before he heads home, he sits down with one of his employees to discuss staffing. It turns out that the company is sponsoring the employee to perform volunteer work for the community, while still on the companys payroll and a short-term replacement may be needed. With all the time he spends thinking about human, organization, and environmental sustainability, you might think he is the head of Human Resources or perhaps even the Chief Corporate Responsibility Officer in his company, but he isnt. He is the Vice President of Operations for a company that manufactures and sells energy bars and other food products. A key part of Mikes job is to ensure that the raw materials that go into those products come from reliable sources. To ensure that the farmers and other suppliers meet the companys high standards, his company has instituted a rigorous review process. The standards vary by product and may include the use of organic materials, no use of hormone supplements in animals to boost output, and trying to achieve maintaining minimal impact on the environment. Of course, the products must also taste good and meet customer needs. Perhaps the most important job he has is to ensure product safety. In the food business, he argues for a dedicated focus to food safety and a focus on the
19
long-term health of the business, not simply short-term profits and production. An ethical business factors day to day decisions into the long term goals of the business, he says. Mike feels lucky to work for a company that considers social responsibility part of its mission. Ive always been attracted to companies that have a strong culture directed towards more than simply short term profits, Mike says. He likes to say that the energy bar company is hard on results but soft on people. This kind of organizational culture provides a great ethic for running an organization, especially a high growth business. The company is engaged in an intense effort to do good, do well, and is passionate about its brand, he notes. Many organizations focus on one bottom line: profits. A few inspired companies may focus on the triple bottom line consisting of profits, community, and environment. The energy bar company focuses on five bottom lines, what the company calls The Five Aspirations. These include an aspiration for business, for the brand, for its people, for the planet, and for the community. In fact, each of these five aspirations are measured and factored in when bonus time comes around. The important thing from a management or leadership perspective, says Mike, is to confront all five aspirations in every decision I make, but to realize that not all aspirations will be achieved in every decision. This may seem like a surprising set of goals for a company whose intention is to make money. The company represents a small, but growing trend among businesses that see themselves as playing a larger role in society and the environment. The mission moves beyond the simply goal of making profits. Mikes employer has joined with other companies in the region that hold similar values. The collaboration focuses the efforts of
20
up to 20 companies on something of importance and might include cleaning up the oceans or building affordable housing. These companies and the mindset of their employees are representative of a new mindset among businesses that adopt practices of corporate social responsibility. Whether identifying new suppliers of protein, ensuring the safety of his products, supporting the community through volunteer activities performed on company time, or further considering the impact on the planet, Mike McLaughlin represents a new kind of company leader whos concern goes beyond profits, to building a better world.
21
Spotlight on Research: Does goal setting lead to unethical behavior? Can people in organizations be so motivated to achieve a goal that the goal encourages them to engage in unethical behavior? Recent research reveals that, under certain circumstances, goals can motivate unethical behavior. A group of researcher had noticed a trend in organizations. Some organizations were so focused on achieving shortterm goals, that they set policies that motivated unethical behavior. For example, one case found that Searss auto repair shops routinely overcharged their customers, conducted unnecessary work, and often delivered less than acceptable work. The motivating force: a $147 per hour sales goal. It seemed that sales goals overshadowed other factors like customer service, quality, and honesty. But were goals really to blame for this nationwide problem? To find out, the researchers created an experiment controlled environment to find the effects of goals and incentives as motivators of unethical behavior. The researchers relied on an anagram task to first determine what was an appropriate performance goal. In an anagram task, participants in the study are asked to take 7 letters and create as many words as they possibly can using these letters. For example, if given the letters a, t, c, m, e, r, o, the participants in the study might create words such as to, at, come, . . . For the study, the participants were divided into three groups. Researchers provided each of the three groups with different instructions. Group one was told simply to do your best. For the second group, researchers set the goal for each participant to make nine words from the list of 7 letters. A third group was given the same goal as group 2, make nine words, but this group was given $2 each time they achieved the goal. Each group went through several rounds of anagram tasks. Prior to the experiment, each
22
group was paid to participate in the experiment. Group one and two were each paid $10. Group three was provided an envelop of $1 bills and told to take out $2 for each word that was done correctly. At the end of the experiment each participant recorded his or her own success rate on the task, essentially tallying the number of correct words they produced for each anagram. This is where the researchers identified the unethical behavior. Because in some cases, there was a great discrepancy between what the participants reported as their score and what they actually scored. The results appear to be influenced by the type of goal and the rewards. The first group, do your best took their 10 dollars, with no goal; they were simply paid to do the work. The second group, which was directed to meet the goal of nine words per task were given no money. The third group, which was offered a monetary award for meeting goals, was instructed to take out $2 for each word that met the goal, returning the remaining money in an envelope. As confirmed by prior research, the participants instructed to do your best scored the lowest, the goal setting group with no incentive scored second, and the goal setting with incentive scored the highest on actually production. However, the researchers found no statistical difference between the actual performance between these three groups. For statistical purposes, each group produced about the same number words. In terms of what members from each group reported however, there were significant differences from actual production. The table below summarizes the three groups. As can be seen, the group instructed to do your best overstated actual production by about 10 %, the group with a goal, but no incentive overstated by about 22 %, and the group with a
23
goal and a monetary incentive overstated actual production by 30 %. The research supported the notion that goals and incentives increase unethical behavior as demonstrated by over-reporting of production. Interestingly, it wasnt only the group that had a financial incentive to misrepresent their production (eg. Group 3), even the group with no financial incentive, but who had been instructed to meet a high goal (e.g., Group 2), that misrepresented their production. Group Instructions Reward cheating index How much the group on average overstated actual productivity 10. 5 % 22.7 % Average # of words per round
1 2
do your best set goal of creating 9 words per round set goal of creating 9 words per round
$10 simply for doing the task no payment received $2 per word
5.46 5.83
30.2%
6.17
The study revealed something else. Those people most likely to misrepresent their production were those who missed the mark by just a little. In other words, the closer the person was to accomplishing the goal, but had not reached it, the more likely they were to misrepresent their production. The study suggests that falling just short of your goal actually increases unethical behavior. The study has several implications for managers. It suggests that some managerial practices, like goal setting, can actually be harmful to the organization and to fostering an
Contemporary OB in Action: Topic Summary: Corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics 24
environment of ethical behavior. Also, managers need to consider not just about motivating employees, but what exactly are they motivating employees to accomplish. This research reveals that managers need to consider, more fully, the unintended consequences of goal setting and other managerial motivation techniques. *Based on the articles: Ordez, L.D., Schweitzer, M.E., Galinsky, A.D., & Bazerman, M.H. (2009). Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6-16 and Schweitzer, M., Ordez, L. D., & Douma, B. (2004). The Dark Side of Goal Setting: The Role of Goals in Motivating Unethical Behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 47, 422-432. References
1
From A. B. Carroll 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505. P. 500. Paddy Ireland "corporate social responsibility" The New Oxford Companion to Law. by Peter Cane and Joanne Conaghan. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. George Washington University. 29 November 2011 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entr y=t287.e486. Campbell, John L. 2007. An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 3, 946-967.
see John Elkington 1997. Cannibals with forks: the Triple Bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone. See also: http://www.johnelkington.com/TBL-elkingtonchapter.pdf.
Marrewijk, Marcel Van 2003. Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44
25
(2/3):95 - 105. Mark Starik, Gordon Rands, Alfred Marcus, & Timothy Clark, 2010. Special issue on sustainability in management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 3.
4 5
Garret Hardin, 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science Magazine, 162. Jeffery Pfeffer 2010. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 1, 34-45.
M. Zwolinski. 2007. Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 4, 689-727. Jeremy Snyder, 2010. Exploitation and sweatshop labor: Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 2, 187-213.
Friedman, Milton. 1993. Why government is the problem Milton Friedman: Essays in public policy, 39. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace Stanford University.
Lynnley Browing, 2003. Ethics lacking in business school curriculum study, students say in survey. New York Times, May 20, 2003. See also Center for Business Education. The Aspen Institute, www.apsencbe.org. In particular see document: A closer look at business education: MBA student attitudes. May 2008. 10 See also, David Henderson, 2001. Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
Edward R. Freeman. 1984. Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. See also Mitchell, R. K. , Agle B. R. , and Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principles of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886. Edward
26
Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks. Managing for stakeholders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11
The story of Patagonia and its quest for a new corporate status can bee seen at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/patagonia-road-tests-newsustainability-legal-status.htmlr. For more on the B-corporations seehttp://www.bcorporation.net/why
12
Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
13
Michael E. Porter & Mark R. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
14
See for examples, Robert F. Hartley, 2005. Business ethics: Mistakes and successes. 1st Edition. New York: John Wiley, & Sons. Ian I. Mitroff, 2004. Crisis leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. New York: John Wiley, & Sons.
15
William K. Frankena 1973. Ethics. 2nd Edition. Prentice-Hall, p. 13. Available at www.ditext.com/frankena/ethics.html.
16
Andreas Georg Scherer, Guido Palazzo, & Dirk Matten 2009. Introduction to the
special issue: Globalization as a challenge or business responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 3, 327-347.
17 18
M. Rokeach 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Richard Boyatzis and Anne McKee, 2005. Resonate leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
19
Frankena, 1973.
27
20
For more on difference in definitions of corruption across cultures see. Donaldson, 1996. Values in tensions: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review, 4862. J. H. Davis & J. A. Ruhe, 2003. Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 4, 275-288.
21
D. Christopher Kayes, T. M. Nielsen, and D. Stirling 2007. Building organizational integrity. Business Horizons, 50, 61-70. 25Michael E. Palanski, Francis J. Yammarino, 2007. Integrity and Leadership: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion, European Management Journal, 25, 3, 171-184.
22
Stephen L. Carter 1996. Integrity. New York: Harper Perennial.
28

Topic Summary - Ethics, Sustainability, CSR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic Summary - Ethics, Sustainability, CSR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic Summary: corporate social responsibility, sustainability and ethics Topic Summary Learning Goals 1) Define why corporate

Stephen L. Carter 1996. Integrity. New York: Harper Perennial.

You might also like