Abstract

Business ethics helps businesses and organizations to determine the rightness or wrongness of
their actions. With the right and wrong depending on the perspective of the deciders, the study of
business ethics provides views and theories on how businesses can judge whether their actions
are right or wrong. Thus, to help the two chosen organizations of this study, World Vision
International Singapore, and Conservation International Singapore, to improve their business
ethics, this paper examined the practices, philosophies, and programs of the two organizations
and determined the current views and theories of business ethics that they applied. Consequently,
the study found that World Vision International Singapore follows a non-consequentialist view
on business ethics, which focuses on the motivation of an action rather than its outcomes, while
Conservation International Singapore, on the opposite, follows a consequential view on business
ethics, which focuses on the outcomes, rather than the motivation of the actions. (150)

1. Introduction

According to Crane & Matten (2010), business ethics is defined as the study of certain situations
and decisions, where businesses are faced with issues of right and wrong (Crane & Matten,
2010). Usually concerned with laws and morality (Mehrdad, et al., 2012), business ethics allows
businesses to identify whether their practices and philosophies are legally and morally right, and
whether these practices and philosophies follow the standards set under corporate social
responsibility (Gheraia, et al., 2019). In doing so, businesses are guided in their decision making,
which would help them avoid committing malpractices that would harm the society.

Thus, seeing the importance of business ethics, this paper would look at two real life global
organizations based in Singapore, to examine their predominant business ethics philosophies and
practices, and determine how these philosophies and practices impact their stakeholders.
Consequently, the objectives of this paper are as follows: (1) identify the views, theories, and
practices applied by the chosen organizations; (2) determine and explain how these view,
theories, and practices affect the decision making of these organizations as well as their behavior,
and compliance with corporate responsibility rules; (3) assess and analyze the major challenges
faced by these organization which hinders them or makes it hard for them to decide ethically,
legally, and morally; (4) identify actions that the government, consumers, employees, and
stakeholders could do to help the said organizations sustain their corporate responsibilities; and
(5) recommend further actions the said organizations could do improve their business ethics.

Failure to do this study would not only be detrimental to the said organizations as they would not
be able to improve their business ethics, but more importantly to the society in which these
organizations belong, which in this case is Singapore, as business malpractice could bring about
grave harm to the society (i.e. unfair labor practice).

2. Background/Business Case

In this paper, the two real life global organizations that were analyzed are: (1) World Vision
International Singapore; and (2) Conservation International Singapore. Founded in 1950, the first
global organization is a Christian humanitarian non-profit organization dedicated to improving a
child’s life by tackling the root causes of poverty, social inequality, and injustice to help
children, their families, and communities all over the globe to reach their full potential (World
Vision, n.d.). On the other hand, the second organization has been fighting to protect nature for
people, since 1987 (Conservation International, n.d.). Both non-profit organizations, the
priorities of both organizations in addressing ethical issues are defined by their vision and
mission which for World Vision International Singapore is for every child to live a full life
(World Vision, n.d.), while for Conservation International Singapore is to build a healthy,
prosperous world where societies value nature (Conservation International, n.d.). To be able to
understand these two organizations better and consequently analyze their business ethics, it is
important that we first examine their practices and the philosophies they embody.

World Vision International Singapore

Revolving around its mission to give every child a full life, the business ethics of World Vision
is largely dedicated to the eradication of inequality, and injustice in communities worldwide in
order to provide better opportunities for a child. This stems from the organization’s belief that to
help a child, the communities where the children live, should not be improved through reduction
or elimination of inequality and the provision of better living conditions. This belief is shown
through the various efforts of made by the organization: (1) providing education to children
around the world; (2) helping children in crisis; (3) providing a disaster response to communities
worldwide; and (4) helping with the communities’ economic development, health, food security,
and sanitation (World Vision, n.d.). As one can observe, instead of just providing programs that
would directly benefit and help the children, World Vision also provided programs that would
help the children’s families, as well as the communities they belong to. From these, it can be
inferred that World Vision International Singapore applies two ethical theories in their business
ethics, both traditional in nature and non-consequentialist. These are: (1) the ethics of rights and
justice by John Locke; (2) the theory of justice by John Rawls; and (3) virtue ethics.

Under the ethics of rights and justice by John Locke, Justice is defined as “the simultaneously
fair treatment of individuals in a given situation with the result that everybody gets what they
deserve” (Crane & Matten, 2010). Here there are two types of justice tackled: (1) fair procedures
(procedural justice); and (2) fair outcomes (distributive justice). On the other hand, under the
theory of justice by John Rawls, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they
are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; and attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” (Crane & Matten, 2010).

Both described as non-consequential ethical views, the said theories judge the rightness or
wrongness of an action not on their outcomes or results, but on the motivation and purpose of the
actions. Thus, in the case of World Vision International Singapore, the rightness and wrongness
of their mission and their subsequent efforts, should be judge not on the basis if their mission
was successful or if they have indeed made the life of children full, rather on the basis of their
motivation, if the purpose for their mission and actions, are right or wrong in the first place.

Thus, with these views in mind, the accountability report of World Vision focuses on how they
allocated the donations given to them and not on the outcomes or results made from these
donations. Instead of providing their donors (one of their stakeholders) with a comprehensive list
containing exact outcomes (i.e. the exact number of children they were able to help enter school
or graduate), the organization prioritizes giving them a financial breakdown of all the donations
received (World Vision, n.d.). The only way for their donors to know the outcomes of the
mission is through the news and updates the organization provides in their website, which
although shows certain outcomes, is not comprehensive. Although this does not harm the donors,
it could cause dissatisfaction in them, which would lead them to not donate again. This in turn
would indirectly affect the children and communities who are beneficiaries in the program.

Conservation International Singapore

With its mission focusing on building a healthy, prosperous world for the people, through
undertaking the commitment of taking care of the environment, the business ethics, philosophies,
and responsibilities of Conservation International is largely geared towards and reflective of the
outcomes of their actions. With the belief that a healthy and prosperous nature would benefit the
entirety of people, including future generations, Conservation International has the following
programs: (1) protection of forests by storing carbon through partnerships with businesses and
government; (2) conservation of oceans through securing and monitoring waters, enabling
inclusion of coastal habitats, and disrupting damaging practices in the seafood sector; and (3)
promotion of self-sustaining economies [ CITATION Con \l 13321 ]. Compared to the programs and
advocacies held by World Vision, one can observe here that the programs Conservation
International have are more geared towards directly protecting, conserving, and replenishing the
environment. Instead of establishing programs that would target the environment tangentially,
Conservation International made sure to provide programs that would produce the outcomes they
wanted immediately. From these, it can be inferred that Conservation International Singapore
follows a consequential view, as compared to World Vision which follows a non-
consequentialist view. Instead of judging the rightness or wrongness of their actions based on the
motivation or purpose of their advocacies, Conservation International judges the rightness or
wrongness of their decisions and actions through the outcomes they are able to produce.
Following this, it could be said that Conservation International applies the following ethical
theories in their business ethics, which are both traditional in nature and consequentialist. These
are: (1) utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill; and (2) ethics of duties by
Immanuel Kant.

Under the theory of utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, “an action is morally
right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the
action” [ CITATION Cra10 \l 13321 ]. In the case of Conservation International, they justify their
actions of controlling the food sector and limiting the options of people to sustainable objects, as
these simple limitations provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
On the other hand, under the ethics of duties by Immanuel Kant, there are three maxims to justify
the rightness and wrongness of actions, for Conservation International, they apply maxim 2
where humanity is treated always as an end and never as a means [ CITATION Cra10 \l 13321 ].

Thus, with this view in mind, the accountability report of Conservation International focuses on
the outcomes of the advocacies, and provides the tangible results of the donations [ CITATION
Con1 \l 13321 ], unlike that of World Vision. For example, for it 2019 accomplishments,
Conservation International provided in their report that they were able to: (1) protect 3.7 million
acres of savanna, wetland and rainforest; (2) generate 68% of verified carbon credits; and (3)
help 12,000 people who live in or near project sites. In doing this, the donors would be able to
see where their donations are going and would be encouraged to continue donating. However,
what these lack is the motivational aspect for people who have yet to accept the importance of a
healthy environment. Thus, although their activities and actions could sustain their programs,
they will have difficulties in generating new donors and volunteers. This would be detrimental to
cause in the long run.

Comparison of the Business Ethics of World Vision and Conservation International

In terms of business ethics views applied by the two global organizations, World Vision follows
the non-consequentialist view, while Conservation International follows the consequential view.
With this, World Vision focuses more on the motivation of their actions and programs, which is
to combat injustices, following the theory of justice, while Conservation International gives more
value on outcomes, such as the number of people they have helped all together, following the
theory of utilitarianism. As for the impacts to their stakeholders, following the non-
consequentialist view, World Vision is more focused on sustaining and satisfying their donors as
well as providing means to help reduce inequality, as compared to directly helping each child.
On the other hand, following the consequential view, Conservation International focuses on
outcomes and lesser on promotion of environmental awareness to encourage new supporters,
volunteers, and donors.

3. Analysis
World Vision International Singapore
The World Vision International Singapore believes that the rightness of an action is determined
not by the action itself but by the intention and motivation behind it. It is with this non-
consequential philosophy that their business ethics fully revolve around not on how many
children were helped but on how many donors are willing to do their part in helping these
children. Thus, their key challenges are not focused on the outcome but are concerned with how
they can attract and sustain donors for their movement.

Both challenges are related to one another, but both will need different methods to achieve.
Reeling in new donors to join the cause is easier compared to sustaining them for the latter will
require continuous time and efforts to ensure that donors remain motivated and engaged with the
movement.

Thus, in this perspective, the World Vision International Singapore expect the government to
help them entice donors in joining their cause through governmental policies such as tax
deduction. Currently, Singapore only has policies on tax deduction for those who donate to local
NGOs. To this day, there are no policies regarding donations to global and international NGOs
which the World Visions International Singapore is a part of. Nonetheless, an organization like
them should be included in such policies since they, too, help build a better community within
the country. The government can even take it a step further in ensuring that such movements
receive continuous support from their donors by implementing incentivised schemes to keep
them engaged with the organization’s cause.

In the part of the recipients, they can help attract more donors by spreading their own stories on
how their lives are impacted by the organization. This can appeal to the hearts of those willing to
listen and push them to act on helping more children get the same success stories as the previous
recipients. They can also use these stories to inspire those who have already donated and make
them feel that they have made a difference in the world. This can further spur them to continue
supporting the cause. Recipients can also give back to the organization by doing volunteer works
as well.
Donors, too, can have a part in encouraging more people to donate to the organization by
demanding transparency and accountability from them. By showing off the fruits of their
generosity and the labor of the volunteers, more people can be made aware of their vision. This
can attract others to start donating to the cause as well. Likewise, donors can build communities
within them to push one another to continue supporting the cause and keep each other engaged
with the program.

Conservation International
Following a consequential view, Conservation International are more geared towards obtaining
results from their actions instead of focusing on the motivation behind them. It is because of this
that their challenges are more outcome-based compared to World Visions International
Singapore. This means they are more concerned with reaching their goals through the various
outcomes of their movement and how they can ensure the sustainability of these results.

Hence, the government can help the organization achieve their goals by being more lenient with
their policies involving NGOs. An example of which is by hastening process of giving permits
for NGOs such as Conservation International in going to rainforests, preservation sites, etc.
Doing so will allow them to immediately put their plans into action into conserving the
environment. The government can also tie up the organization with the appropriate ministries
and have them work hand in hand in achieving common goals.

For donors, they can ensure that the organization does not lose sight and track of their goals by
instilling a sense of accountability on them. By constantly checking up on the progression of
their projects and plans, this ensures that the appropriate attention and actions are given to the
movement.

The affected communities near the areas that the organization are working on can also help
overcome such challenges by doing their own parts in maintaining and sustaining their
environment. With their joint efforts, the organization can reach their goals faster and also ensure
that their outcomes are sustained in the long-term.
4. Recommendations

As mentioned above, what World Vision International Singapore lacks is priority towards
outcomes, as it follows a non-consequentialist view. What happens therefore is although World
Vision is able to provide many programs to help the children, their families, and communities,
the results are only temporary as they are not sustained. Focused on getting more donors, and
helping more communities, World Vision needs to develop a monitoring system to monitor their
specific outcomes as well as develop sustainable programs to help ensure that their programs and
projects are continued by the locality they helped. They could partner with the local government
departments of the communities they are in which focuses on children welfare, clean water,
education, and all their other programs, and they could also teach the beneficiary communities
and families of the importance of sustaining the said programs, and train and teach them on what
they could do as a community to help sustain them. In doing this, World Vision could focus on
new localities because the locality they were from is already self-sustaining.

On the other hand, for Conservation International Singapore, what it lacks is promoting
awareness about the importance of conservation and protecting the environment. Following a
consequential view, contrary to World Vision, Conservation International focuses on the
outcomes of their programs and actions and less on the motivation for such actions. In doing so,
they forget to encourage new people to join their advocacies. What Conservation International
could then do is: (1) implement awareness programs; (2) coordinate and lead environmental
campaigns; and (3) provide environmental conferences.

5. Conclusion

Concerned with laws and morality, the study of business ethics helps businesses and
organizations to judge the rightness or wrongness of their actions, and consequently improve
their decision-making by determining what business ethics views and theories they subscribe to,
what challenges they face, and what expectations they have or help they need in their
environment to be able to fulfill or meet their goals. In lieu of these, this paper was able to meet
all its objectives and found that World Vision International Singapore follows a non-
consequentialist view on business ethics, as it subscribes to the theories of justice, and ethics of
justice and right, while Conservation International follows a consequential view, as it subscribes
to the theories of utilitarianism and ethics of duties. Consequently, the challenges the two global
organizations faced are, for World Vision, the challenge of encouraging donors and sustaining
their support, while for Conservation International, the challenge of meeting their goals to
produce the outcomes they envisioned, as well as sustaining the results they achieved. On the
other hand, in terms of what the two organizations need to improve or enhance on their business
ethics, that is focusing on the outcomes for World Vision, and giving priority to the motivation
for Conservation International. Consequently, this paper recommends that World Vision provide
sustainable programs, while Conservation International should allocate resources for the
promotion of environmental advocacy and to inspire and give awareness on the said advocacy.

References:

Conservation International, n.d. 2019 Accomplishments. [Online]

Available at: https://www.conservation.org/about/annual-report

Conservation International, n.d. About Conservation International. [Online]

Available at: https://www.conservation.org/about

Crane, A. & Matten, D., 2010. Business ethics: managing citizenship and sustainability in the age of
globalization.. s.l.:Oxford: Oxford.

Gheraia, Z., Saadaoui, S. & Abdelli, H., 2019. Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility: Bridging
the Concepts. Open Journal of Business and Management,, Volume 7, 2020-2029.( doi:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.74139).

Mehrdad, S., Saeidinia, M. & Aghaei, M., 2012. Business Ethics. International Journal of Scientific and
Research Publications, Volume 2(Issue 2).

World Vision, n.d. About Us. [Online]

Available at: https://www.worldvision.org.sg/en/about-us/who-we-are