MGMT 3308_ Business Stewardship Weekly Discussion Board Posts

.docx

School

Houston Baptist University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3308

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperSheep21

Weekly Reflection: Each student will post a weekly reflection on the course discussion board. The reflection pertains directly to the course content, including service-learning experiences, conversations in class, course content, and conversations with fellow classmates. The student will reflect on those aspects of the course that they find meaningful in answering the question(s): What stood out to me this week in class? What was new or helpful information? What information do I disagree or agree with? What information will be helpful in the workplace? What information helped me grow as a person? Each response should consist of two well-developed paragraphs that have no less than 150 words no more than 300 words and not more than 500 words total between the two responses. Week 1: During the first week of this course, we discussed the concept of corporate social responsibility which our textbook defines as a “responsibility among firms to meet the needs of their stakeholders and a responsibility among stakeholders to hold firms to account for their actions.” Another more simple definition of CSR is “good business” for “good society.” Overall, the idea of CSR should answer the question of what is the purpose of a for-profit firm. We also learned about the CSR hierarchy, which encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations. As a class, we discussed each of the responsibilities on the hierarchy and the possible reasons why they were placed in that particular order. For example, I learned that economic responsibilities are at the bottom because it is a foundational requirement in business that must meet all laws and regulations, as well as the demands of shareholders. This hierarchy remains relevant today and is becoming increasingly necessary due to the changing environment within which businesses operate. We were also introduced to the underlying ethical, moral, rational, and economic arguments for CSR. The ethical argument is based on two forms of ethical reasoning—consequentialist (utilitarian) and categorical (Kantian). The moral argument is an argument of moral reasoning that reflects the relationship between a company and the society within which it operates. The rational argument focuses on the benefits to the performance of avoiding external constraints. And lastly, the economic argument is that of economic self-interest for business. This topic then lead to the strategic CSR debate, in which the motion was: “There are no absolute ethical and moral standards; all values, norms, and laws in society are socially constructed and evolve over time.” The class then discussed the motion, bringing about several arguments I found to be interesting. For example, when debating whether there are absolute ethical and moral standards

because of religious beliefs or of moral principles that everyone follows, the rebuttal to each argument further made me reconsider the other side of the argument. Personally, I have not made up my mind on which side I’m on, but the class discussion did make me examine both sides, each with its own considerations to keep in mind. Replies: Hi Dillon, I agree that the economic responsibilities in the CSR hierarchy serve as the foundation upon which all other responsibilities rest. As the textbook states “Fundamentally, a firm’s economic responsibility is to produce an acceptable return for investors.” In addition, the economic responsibility of companies is to survive and support society in the long term. I understand your point when you say that businesses would be wasting their time on legal responsibilities if they are not fulfilling their economic ones first, but it's important to note that legal responsibilities are an essential component of pursuing economic gain within a law-based society. As mentioned in class, businesses operate in compliance with the law to make a profit. Therefore, it is the legal responsibility of a business to act within the framework of laws and regulations drawn up by the government and judiciary. In regards to your discussion about morality, I liked how you made a distinction between absolute and rational morality. Overall, I found your opinion on this particular topic to be insightful! Hi Danny, I too found it interesting that CSR could be defined in several different ways! According to the textbook, there is variance in the definition of CSR across different countries and cultures over time. Therefore we can consider CSR to be a fluid concept since it could mean different things to different people. However, this can also lead to some debate around this essential subject. In regards to the class discussion we had about absolute morality, I agree with you when you say we are born knowing right from wrong, and where you are from and how you have been raised heavily influence our opinions on this topic. Like you, I’m also in between both sides simply because the arguments raised during the discussion made me reconsider any preconceptions I had of this topic. Like Professor Webb mentioned in class, we shouldn’t receive anything uncritically, we should always be open to interpretations. Week 2: This week we watched a video of three panelists answering the age-old question of “what is the purpose of business?” The panelist I most agreed with was Dr. Samuel Gregg. He presented his thoughts and opinions in a clear and concise manner that made them easy to understand. He began his discussion by asking the question of what type of organization a business is and what

is it about a business that allows it to make its distinct contribution to the overall flourishing of individuals and communities in a given society. In order to identify this question, he identified several different criteria. The first is that businesses have voluntary associations. Second, the scope of their activity is determined but also restricted by the goal that's specific to the business as a voluntary association. Lastly, businesses serve this wider common good by pursuing what happens to be their particular common group. He then developed the argument that voluntary associations should not pursue goals or objectives that are more properly the responsibility of other groups. He states businesses should not act like “chess clubs or political parties.” To avoid this problem, it is necessary to identify what is the specific good that's served by business. Economic benefits are the good that is primarily realized through business associations and the good that binds all people together. Overall, I agree with Dr. Samuel Gregg’s view that businesses are responsible for driving the type of economic growth that overtime raises living standards and provides for society's material needs. And it is in this way that a business contributes to a society's common good and the purpose of business serves society as a whole. The panelist I most disagreed with was Professor Amelia Miazad. Throughout her discussion, she conveyed her views using extensive wording and phrases that made it difficult for me as a viewer to follow her argument and understand some of the points she was trying to make. Nonetheless, from what I was able to understand, she took an institutionalist approach to corporate law and examined the purpose of business debate not from the perspective of theoretical frameworks, but by observing what's actually happening in the business and investment community. Later on, she finally answers the initial question of what is the purpose of business by directly borrowing a definition from Jonathan Charkham and Anne Simpson, in which they state is that the “purpose of business is to meet society's needs and wants ethically and profitably.” Moreover, I found one point that Professor Miazad said to be interesting and that was when she said topics such as race and gender inequality are economic issues and not social issues. I think her view is shared by many other companies who are selective when choosing which social issues to take a stance on so as to not cause any economic tensions with their business connections. Overall, I think Professor Miazad made some interesting points throughout her discussion regarding her view of the purpose of business. Replies: Hi Prosper, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I also agreed the most with Dr. Samuel Gregg. I liked how you mentioned his argument that businesses should pursue the specific good they are designed to fulfill. He illustrates this more clearly by using the example that “Judges don't fight wars and generals don't administer justice for civilians.” Therefore, it’s important to identify the good that a business serves in order to develop clear goals and objectives. Similarly, I also mentioned in my discussion that I has some difficulty following the argument Professor Miazad

was trying to make. As you mentioned, she believes that certain topics we perceive as social issues are actually economic issues to businesses. In my opinion, this correlates with Dr.Gregg’s point about how companies such as Apple are selective when it comes to expressing their stance on a particular social issue. He states “in the end, economic self-interest will override what you are parading to be your moral concern for a particular problem.” I agree with Dr. Gregg that businesses should be consistent in the way that they talk about these types of issues. Hi Stephen, I also agreed the most with Dr. Samuel Gregg and disagreed with Professor Miazad. Dr. Gregg was able to formulate an argument in a concise manner and made several good points. For example, a good point made was one that you mentioned of the importance of businesses being consistent in the way that they express themselves about social issues. The example of Apple is a great representation of how the inconsistency in the way a company talks about these types of issues can be problematic. Moreover, I agree with your thoughts on Professor Miazad. Similarly, I think many companies do share her view on the purpose of business and business ethics. In my opinion, Dr. Samuel Gregg did a great job in discussing that the purpose of business is to drive economic growth that overtime raises living standards and provides for society's material needs. Serving the wider common good allows businesses to make their distinct contribution to the overall flourishing of individuals and communities in a given society. Week 3: Dr. Brent Waters provides two arguments in defense of economic globalization in light of Christian ethics. The first one is that the world is part of God’s good creation, and it serves as the source of abundant goods that may be enjoyed by humans. Goods are not easily obtained at hand, rather they must be developed. For this reason, humans must develop the potential to create not only to meet their basic needs and wants but to fully enjoy and share the goods of creation. Dr. Waters states that this is all “part of our calling to exercise God’s mandate of limited dominion and stewardship.” He firmly believes that the global-market-based exchange offers at present the best possible means for both developing and distributing these material goods. The second argument is that globalization offers at present the most realistic and promising way of exercising a preferential option for the poor. The liberalization of trade and capital investment over the last two decades has helped lift a billion people out of dire poverty and create a global middle class. The best way to help the poor is to love them as neighbors and enable them to participate fully in new and expanding markets. In addition to these two main points, Dr. Waters’ underlying defense for economic globalization is based on his central argument that globalization and capitalism are not inherently incompatible with some central theological and moral convictions. He believes that much of Christian social teaching needs to recontextualize Scripture in order to align it with what’s going on in

contemporary circumstances. Hence, his goal in writing his book was to provide a conceptual understanding of globalization, through which Christians may both critically and constructively engage in this phenomenon. Lastly, Dr. Waters discusses his plea for not retreating from globalization. He explains that the poor would suffer the demise of globalization and it's important to acknowledge the benefits that globalization and capitalism offer, despite the troubling issues they may possess. Overall, I agree with several points Dr. Waters made in his defense of economic globalization. In particular, I agree with his claims that globalization is flawed and in need of repair, but nonetheless, serves as a “powerful force for good in our world that must be reckoned with” and that it is a “means for achieving human flourishing, and not an end in itself.” Replies: Hi Sofia, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I also mentioned that one of Dr. Waters’ arguments in defense of economic globalization was that the world is part of God’s creation and serves as the source of abundant material goods that can be enjoyed by humans. This argument helped bring about another point that humans must develop the potential to create material goods in order to meet their basic needs and wants and to be able to enjoy and share the goods of creation. I also agree with your point that without globalization, our lives would be difficult to live. The life we lead today has been shaped and impacted by globalization. Moreover, it’s important to note that globalization and its underlying capitalism have troubling issues that need to be addressed, but have benefits that need to be acknowledged and strengthened. Hi Christian, I enjoyed reading your discussion post! I liked how you considered and explained his viewpoint on an integrated global economy to be a central argument for his defense of economic globalization. I agree with your point that exchange is necessary for sustaining human life. To really flourish, we need everyday commercial exchanges, that we often take for granted. However, it’s important to note that market-based conditions are necessary, but won't help us flourish. They serve as a means, and not an end. I also agree when you say that we cannot enjoy goods if the country/place you live in isn’t developed. This ties well with Dr. Waters’ point that it is necessary for humans to develop and create material goods in order to meet their needs and wants, and fully enjoy and share the goods of creation. Week 4: The Friedman Doctrine, also known as the stakeholder theory, is the concept developed by the economist Milton Friedman that states that a firm's sole responsibility is to maximize its revenue

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help