Question 1 . Greed Can Have Negative And Positive Impacts

1921 WordsMar 16, 20178 Pages
Question 1 Greed can have negative and positive impacts on a business and in one 's personal life. Greed can be positive because it can drive competitiveness and motivate people to be successful. When employees are motivated it creates a successful business that thrives in a competitive environment. Another reason that supports greed is it helps people develop goals. The need for money drives people to work harder so they can use money to reach their goals. For example if your goal is to travel the world or retire early, you need money to reach these goals. Greed helps humans fill their needs. It allows people to buy houses, buy food and build a family. Money is needed to do many things in life, greed causes people to work harder in…show more content…
The stakeholders are the business, executives, employees, borrowers/customers and society. Executive compensation allows company to find candidates that are qualified. It also causes executives to be more motivated and it creates successful business. When business is thriving it can benefit society. Without executive compensation it can harm society and the business. Without executive compensation under qualified CEOs could be hired, they might not be motivated which will only hurt the business. Executive compensation is ethical because has more benefits to all stakeholders. To determine if executive compensation during the economic crises was ethical we used utilitarianism. There are two major alternatives to have executive compensation and to not have executive compensation. The stakeholders are the executives, the business, employees, customers/borrowers and society. For alternative one, to have executive compensation, it is only a benefit to the executives. During the economic crises the entire world was harmed. Business shut down, customers went bankrupt and many employees lost their jobs. While everyone was losing money the executives were continuing to make large sums of money. It was almost like they were stealing from society. The second alternative would be to have no executive compensation. This could benefit companies and the society because the money could have been used to help them. The only cost in this situation
Open Document