Importance of Business Ethics for the Organisation Free Sample

Question: Dicuss about the Ethical Theories. Answer: Many companies make use of various ways to promote the products and stay ahead of the competitors (Crane and Matten 2016). They make use of various tools and platforms that will promote the products. In addition to this, they might have use of various ways to attract the customers (Weiss 2014). At times, they might indulge in activities that might be entirely different from the sectors where the company is working (Hoffman, Frederick and Schwartz 2014). Indulging in various events will give the company proper recognition as more number of people will come to know about it (Chell et al. 2016). While carrying out the business the companies should not forget the business ethics that they should follow (Hartman et al. 2014). A business can be said to be successful only when they are in the business activities by keeping in mind the business ethics and then carrying out the business (DesJardins and McCall 2014). Not following the ethics will not only tarnish the image of the company but t he company might land up in legal issues (Doh, Husted and Yang 2016). The write-up will look into the ethical issues of Nike. Nike has arranged a marathon promote a new product. The ethical theory that will help in assessing the issues of Nike will be taken into account. Moreover, the actions of Nike will be discussed based on the theme that will be might be affected due to the actions taken by Nike. Nike caught the attention of many critics when it arranged a marathon in December 2016 (Dickinson 2016). The marathon was named breaking 2 and was aimed at breaking the 2 hour 2 minutes 57 seconds time of Dennis Kimetto. Other than the marathons that take place in any internationally acclaimed sports meet, some of the marathons are recognized by the rest of the world are the ones that are held in Berlin or London. On the contrary, the marathon that was arranged by Nike was not acclaimed in the international level. Nike promoted the fact if the runners wear shoes that are made from Nike, it will be easier for them to break world record of Dennis Kimetto. The worst part of the marathon is that if any of the individual is successful in breaking the record, there will be no official affirmation in his or her case. In spite of making such record, the person would not be recognized as the event is not recognized. Nike came under the radar for violating of business ethics mainly because of two things. Firstly, they are testing something in human endurance and capability and asking them to do something that is at par with something the professional sportspersons can do (Swanson and Frederick 2016). It can be dangerous to the health of the individual who will try to break the record. Secondly, some critics feel that, there are some special features in the shoes that might help a person to run faster (Jennings 2014). For example, the shoes will be attached with springs that will help the runners to run faster. The human beings are considered as guinea pigs and who are being experimented to test the new types of shoes that are being launched by Nike. Marketing a new product is the right of a company but experimenting something upon the human being and that too taking risk with the their health is not a ethical choice for any organization. The runner will only get recognition for Nike and no proper recognition will be given to the person who will be able to able the record . The person will remain a faceless and nameless individual without any award or recognition and will just be a matter of experiment for Nike (May, Luth and Schwoerer 2014). Experimenting with the health of people is highly unethical for company (Crane and Matten 2016). The action taken by Nike can be termed unethical going by the theory of ethic that has been introduced by Kant 11. (O'Neill 2013). Immanuel Kant is a German philosopher and he was quite opposing to utilitarianism ethics. utilitarianism ethics believed in the fact that an action can be called ethical or unethical based on the outcome of the action. An action can be unethical in nature but the reason for the unethical action can be ethical or the result of the unethical action can be ethical. In such a situation, the actions taken by an indicidal or an organization can be called ethical. Kant believed that there are certain actions that could not be justified even if the outcome of the action is good. He gave examples that some of the action like stealing, lying or murder cannot be accepted. Kant has asked the individuals to ask the following questions to oneself before indulging in any kind of actions: Can a person rationally will that others will think and act the way the person is acting or willing? If the answer to the question is no, then the person should prevent himself or herself to act in that way. Does the action of the individual respects the goals of the human beings or the actions are solving the purpose of the individual? If the answer is again no then also the person should stop in indulging in any such action. As far as Nike is concerned, the actions taken by the company can be said to be unethical as the company is arranging the event of the marketing and promotions of their products and they have not thought about the consequences of the actions (Weiss 2014). The actions are been taken into consideration to promote the product, which can be helpful for the company, but might can cause serious damage to the health of the individual (Hoffman, Frederick and Schwartz 2014). In addition to this, it has been predicted that shoes are being attached with springs that will help the person to run fast. Thus, it cannot be said to the contribution of the person who will be participating in the marathon will be false. It will be the features of the shoes that have helped the person to win the marathon. The action by Nike can be said to be unethical as the people will be under the delusion that they have won the title because of their ability (Chell et al. 2016). Corporate social responsibility is one of the biggest concerns for many organizations (Hartman et al. 2014). It should be the duty of every organization to think about the development of the society along with carrying out the business (DesJardins and McCall 2014). At times, the company might not indulge in any kind of action to fulfill their corporate social responsibility (Doh, Husted and Yang 2016). The actions that they will take while carrying out the business will show the corporate social responsibility (Swanson and Frederick 2016). The actions taken by Nike to promote the products were huge but the actions were a huge blow to the corporate social responsibility of the company. If they are carrying out an event and thinking of breaking a record, then they should have taken proper measures and would have taken the initiative to give recognition to the employees (Jennings 2014). They are promoting the products but they have not thought about the issues for the people who are taking part in the marathon (May, Luth and Schwoerer 2014). Some of the people might think that will be able to win the marathon as they trust the products of the company blindly. They might have not thought of the consequences. Nike might not take the responsibility of those people who might fall ill after running the distance of marathon (Crane and Matten 2016). After going through the actions of Nike and the theory of ethics as proposed by Kant, it can be concluded that the actions taken by Nike could be called unethical. The intentions of promotion of Nike can be justified. They were promoting their new products with the help of events and they had full right to ask the people participate in the event. However, the way they promoted the event was not ethical. They had set a target that is internationally acclaimed. They have not thought of the health of the individuals who would have trusted the shoes that have been newly launched by the company. The participants might think that the shoes will help them to achieve the goal. In addition to this, there was not international recognition for the marathon that was arranged by Nike. As per Kants theory, a person should not indulge in an action is just for the interest of one and not of interest for all. The actions of Nike could be justified from the perspective of the company and not from the perspective of every individual. In addition to this, Nike has also violated the corporate social responsibility of the company that an organization should have for the society. They have not thought of the people but only thought about the business. References Chell, E., Spence, L.J., Perrini, F. and Harris, J.D., 2016. Social entrepreneurship and business ethics: does social equal ethical?.Journal of Business Ethics,133(4), pp.619-625. Crane, A. and Matten, D., 2016.Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press. DesJardins, J.R. and McCall, J.J., 2014.Contemporary issues in business ethics. Cengage Learning. Dickinson, M. 2016. Count swooshes and take a guess. [online] Theaustralian.com.au. Available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/the-times-sport/the-sub-twohour-marathon-a-nike-gimmick-or-sport-evolution/news-story/a4af7a84f239fe84d2c5b30ed52e8c55 [Accessed 5 Apr. 2017]. Doh, J., Husted, B.W. and Yang, X., 2016. Guest Editors Introduction: Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Developing Country Multinationals.Business Ethics Quarterly,26(03), pp.301-315. Hartman, L.P., DesJardins, J.R., MacDonald, C. and Hartman, L.P., 2014.Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hoffman, W.M., Frederick, R.E. and Schwartz, M.S. eds., 2014.Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality. John Wiley Sons. Jennings, M.M., 2014.Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. Cengage Learning. May, D.R., Luth, M.T. and Schwoerer, C.E., 2014. The influence of business ethics education on moral efficacy, moral meaningfulness, and moral courage: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of Business Ethics,124(1), pp.67-80. O'Neill, O., 2013.Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press. Swanson, D.L. and Frederick, W.C., 2016. Denial and leadership in business ethics education.Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and corporate leaders, pp.222-240. Weiss, J.W., 2014.Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.