The Case Of Enric Duran

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

What is ethically responsible management? How can a corporation, given its economic mission, be managed with appropriate attention to ethical concerns? These are central questions in the field of business ethics. There are two approaches to answering such questions. The first one is Milton Friedman’s shareholder theory of management and the second one is Edwards Freeman’s “Stakeholder” theory of management, two different views about the purpose and aims of a business.

It is easy to understand Solomon’s argument that unethical practices destroy the business and its key people. This has been proven by so many companies, such as Enron case, whose scandals have been unveiled to the public and the people who used to amass great wealth out of unethical practices are now behind bars. Even if they get out of prison, it will be difficult to imagine how they can recover from the negative image that the public already has on them.

Ethics in business addresses the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviours of business practises, and how these practices impact the employees, shareholders, the general public and the environment.

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

The business world is an interesting environment that is often described as heartless and cutthroat. However, while it is described that way, ethics do still apply to the business world. Companies and corporations are expected to adhere to the ethical code that has become engrained in business world. Unfortunately, however, despite the existence of that expectation, some companies and corporations do not always act in an ethical manner. Enron is an example of one of those ethically challenged corporations. In this paper, a brief summary of the Enron scandal will be provided and an analysis utilizing the principles of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) will be conducted. Through the analysis, it will become apparent that Enron’s actions definitely conflicted with several CST principles.

The corporate world has an unfavorable view of itself by being selfish, evil, and against the average American. Companies market themselves and their products in certain ways that makes them and their products appealing to everyone and if not everyone then a certain group of people. Every company has a mission to follow and values to go by, but some companies lack ethics and morals. In this paper I am going to talk about one company that engages in ethical behavior and another that doesn’t.

According to Johnson (2012) leaders are powerful role models, and policies will have a little effect if leaders do not follow the rules they set. In Enron case, corruption and ethical misconduct were deeply embedded in their business culture where profitability was more important than ethics. In this paper, I will address the factors that had led to the development of the culture of profit before principle at Enron. Also, I will create my personal code of ethics that will guide me in my professional and personal decision making and doing the right thing when faced with ethical challenges.

In this paper, I will argue that ethical dilemmas, like outsourcing labour, are best approached using the algorithm suggested by Thomas Donaldson; showing that businesses can engage aboard within an ethical manner. To begin I will examine how Donaldson’s “guiding principles” and “core human values” (Donaldson 173) can exist despite different values across cultures. Next, I will consider his premise of ethical leadership and its use in the multinational firm. Having defended these positions, I will then compare his work to that of Ian Maitland. I will specifically address how Maitland’s arguments do not successfully defend the human rights of international employees. This will demonstrate that Donaldson’s argument is more suitable for ethically-driven corporations and sets a positive precedent for future ethical conduct.

This essay will aim to investigate the ethical treatment of shareholders and workers in a traditional, capitalist corporation; The Ford Motor Company and compare and contrast the findings with the treatment of these stakeholders in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. The structure of this essay will be as follows; firstly the fundamental differences between the two contrasting organisations will be examined and how these differences impact the ethical treatment of the relevant stakeholders; secondly, the ethical treatment of shareholders in regards to corporate governance and the executive’s accountability and control will be investigated, and lastly, the ethical treatment of workers within the two contrasting organisations will be

Enron’s ride is quite a phenomenon: from a regional gas pipeline trader to the largest energy trader in the world, and then back down the hill into bankruptcy and disgrace. As a matter of fact, it took Enron 16 years to go from about $10 billion of assets to $65 billion of assets, and 24 days to go bankruptcy. Enron is also one of the most celebrated business ethics cases in the century. There are so many things that went wrong within the organization, from all personal (prescriptive and psychological approaches), managerial (group norms, reward system, etc.), and organizational (world-class culture) perspectives. This paper will focus on the business ethics issues at Enron that were raised from the documentation Enron: The Smartest Guys

This paper will have a detailed discussion on the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman and the stakeholder theory of Edward Freeman. Friedman argued that “neo-classical economic theory suggests that the purpose of the organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and their shareholders and that only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large”. On the other hand, the theory of stakeholder suggests that the managers of an organisation do not only have the duty towards the firm’s shareholders; rather towards the individuals and constituencies who contribute to the company’s wealth, capacity and activities. These individuals or constituencies can be the shareholders, employees,

The topic of this paper is business ethics within Gap Inc., a multinational retail – clothing company. The foundation of its corporate ethical approach is summarized in the Code of Conduct . This paper outlines the ethical problems Gap Inc. faced in the last years and more important, the solutions they found in order to remain a successful company. It shows how large companies deal with common issues like child labour and sweatshops.

The idea that morally dubious goals may be legitimate inside capitalism will be discussed in light of a tax avoidance case study. Apple, a multinational technology company, has avoided paying its fair amount of income tax for years. This paper will consider the structural embeddedness of Apple’s legitimised goal—the maximisation of profit—through the ‘Double Irish Dutch sandwich’ tax haven model. Durkheim’s theory of collective conscience was used in explaining the legitimisation of the company’s profits-driven goal, and how its amorality becomes apparent outside the economical sphere. This paper will also discuss the interconnected nature of the harm and benefits in the deal made between Ireland and Apple. The association between legitimations of Apple’s conduct and its socially challenging behaviour has been analysed to be ambiguous in the letter of the law. The conclusion will shed light on the morally grey area of a company’s responsibility to its shareholders versus the needs of the community.