Kant
Kant would completely reject the idea that a business' main responsibility was to its shareholders. This would be treating humans (the workers) merely as a means to an end. In Kant's ethical framework, you need to imagine yourself as a law-making member in a kingdom of ends. In other words, you need to consider all stakeholders.
Kant would reject espionage, saying we have a perfect duty not to spy on others. Spying is self-contradictory. It's one of those ideas that works if only some people do it, like not paying a tv licence. Imagine if, rather than developing your own products, everyone just relied on someone else to do it, and then tried to steal their ideas. It wouldn't work, because there would be no ideas to steal.
The same idea applies to a whistleblower. The consequences, losing her job and the subsequent suffering of his family, are irrelevant. If someone is acting unethically, you have a duty to expose them. Put another way, if you were being scammed, you would want somebody to say something. If a factory was leaking dangerous materials and you lived nearby, you would want someone to alert the authorities. As such, you are duty bound to act this way yourself as well.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarians would have high expectations of businesses. It isn't enough to merely consider shareholders - in fact, each shareholder's happiness is worth no more or less than the happiness of each worker. As there are usually far more workers than stockholders, Utilitarianism will protect workers rights, ensuring fair pay, safe working conditions, sociable hours etc.
People in business might misuse Utilitarian arguments. For example, imagine I am a buyer for a company. I am placing a large order - worth £50,000. I know that one company will send me a free family holiday worth £2,000 if I place my order with them. If they happen to also give the best quote, who am I harming if I take the holiday? The pleasure my family gets lying on the beach makes it ethically right to take the bribe. An Act Utilitarian would have to agree, but a Rule Utilitarian may say that taking bribes generally leads to bad decisions being made, with negative consequences. Can I really be trusted to make an unbiassed choice if a free family holiday is involved? It is a common criticism of Utilitarianism that people cannot be trusted, and are likely to make a selfish decision and then try to justify it afterwards with Utilitarian arguments.
Enron lied about the state of their finances, and shareholders lost $11 billion when Enron went bankrupt. Lying was wrong because it didn't work. If it had worked, a Utilitarian would seem to have to say it was an ethical action. Preference Utilitarians may disagree, as being lied to would go against the preferences of all of the shareholders.
Natural Law
One of the purposes of human life is to live in an ordered society. As such, businesses need to be regulated to prevent them mistreating workers. Another Primary Precept is education, so Natural Law would be against child labour - it prevents a child fulfilling his God-given purpose.
People who support Natural Law take an absolutist stance on the sanctity of life, and would not work for or invest in businesses that benefitted from experiments on embryos. They would also avoid businesses that produced pornography, encouraged gambling etc. Natural Law provides absolute, deontological secondary precepts against all forms of exploitation and human rights abuse.
Some companies look to save money and cut corners to increase profits. Money here is an efficient cause for business - it is the thing that fuels the business, or provides the drive to do business. However, Aristotle said that the final cause was more important. Monsanto genetically modified soya to make it resistent to RoundUp, their herbicide. This increases the yield of the soya crop, because you can spary the crop liberally with RoundUp, and there are no weeds at all. However, this kills off lots of other wildlife, directly and indirectly. The final cause of a farmer is not to make money, and focussing on the effecient cause alone here is disasterous.
Situation Ethics
Publically owned utilities can be criticised for not running efficiently. The argument is that by selling off, say, water, you end up with a number of different providers, all competing for business. This competition makes them try harder, keep prices low and work more efficiently. This leads to lower costs for water, and this appears pragmatic - it seems to work to bring about the interests of the consumer. However, take Bolivia as an example. As well as making a good plot for the most recent Bond film, the story of the privatisation of water in Bolivia has caused many charities, like Christian Aid, to run awareness-raising campaigns. Parts of Bolivia that are isolated, such as mountain-dwelling communities, now have no clean running water. Private companies compete for big business in the cities, and make millions, but have no interest in running water up to the remote mountain communities, as the cost outweighs the benefits.
There are strict rules for immigrants into the UK, and if someone hasn't got an appropriate visa, it would be illegal to employ them.Some asylum seekers might have made it into the UK illegally, fleeing persecution. A business that employed them, putting people before rules (Personalism), may be acting ethically according to Situation Ethics. This is open to debate, as many people believe that the best way to protect workers is with strict rules about how workers are treated.
Situation Ethics is relativist, so its approach to business ethics is flexible. Love is the only norm, so a situationist would reject rules like 'Never spy on other companies'; 'Don't take bribes' etc. Many people see business as a 'survival of the fittest' arena, and would agree with a situationist approach - whatever works. They may look at the domination of large corporations and argue that small businesses should cut any corners they can to compete, if the situation requires it.
Virtue Ethics
Aristotle talked about two types of business:
- Oikonomikos or household trading - e.g. where a farmer, who has crops, trades some of these for, say, clothes. Aristotle thought this sort of trading was an essential part of a eudaimon society. Clearly an individual cannot be an expert in all areas of life, and it would be inefficient to try to make everything one needs. So, you specialise, and then exchange what you produce for other goods or services. As some goods are seasonal, you need a system of money so that you can save up when it is your season (say after a harvest) and trade coins for services
- Chrematisike or trade for profit - Aristotle saw this as 'wholly devoid of virtue'. For Aristotle, true wealth is 'the stock of things that are useful in the community'. Trade, if done purely for profit, does not involve acquiring any true wealth. Put another way, money only has value if you exchange it for something useful. As such, if I come to a market with bread, I bring some true wealth. I exchange it for money, which I then exchange for fruit - I leave with true wealth. If I come to the market with only money, I bring nothing of true value. I may exchange several times and leave with more money, but I have produced nothing of true wealth at all.
Clearly Aristotle attacks the profit-driven approach to business.
Business Ethics has in many ways made a move towards an Aristotelian approach. In the past, there was a focus on rules within a business. These just didn't work, as there was no incentive to keep the rules, and lots of reasons to break them. For example, it would be against the rules to take a day off work if I wasn't ill, but what's to stop me having a duvet day? Businesses have changed completely, and see the value of a sense of community, with both workers and customers. When you ring up, a recorded voice tells you "Your call is important to us". Lists of rules have been replaced with company values. Offices have become communities, and there has been a focus on the importance of building up relationships among staff. Are you likely to take a duvet day if you know Dave will have to work much harder in your absence?
Every business seems to have a 'mission statement' - a summary of their telos or purpose. There are no companies that state their purpose purely in terms of profits.
Virtue Theory says that eudaimonia for a community is even more important than for the individual. Asda recognises the importance of community:
"Customers want low-priced, good products. Modern customers also have high expectations of organisations. They will want them to get involved in the local community. They will then want to know about them. ASDA stores and depots have community noticeboards and a monthly magazine is produced which features community events. Colleagues like to serve the community... So working with the community helps to motivate colleagues. Shareholders want a good return on their investment. They also believe in community interest, as they like to see the company they have invested in acting positively in its environment."
