#corporate ethics

[sixdegreesnews]

Chocolate Giants Rake in Profits as Promises to Improve Farmers' Incomes in Ghana Fall Short

Between 2020 and 2022, these #corporations paid out an average of more than their total net #profits (113 percent) to #shareholders

In a survey conducted by Oxfam, more than 400 cocoa farmers in Ghana revealed that their net incomes dropped by an average of 16 percent since 2020, with women experiencing a staggering income decline of nearly 22 percent. Amidst soaring profits, the world’s largest chocolate corporations are failing to provide fair prices to cocoa farmers in Ghana, undermining efforts to improve their…

[kp777]

I testified to Congress about the gun industry. It rattled me to my core

[1trainingcourses]

Corporate Ethics and Law: Certificate Program Course

The Diploma in Corporate Ethics and Law at QLS Level 3 course focuses on practical awareness of the ethical workings of organisations, its employees and customers.

Learning Outcomes:

Learn how to implement good business ethics to promote the organisation’s reputation and reliability

Understand the nature and importance of contracts in a business

Explore the terms and elements in a contract

Get into terms with the various employment laws that are established to protect workers

Discover the legal structures and legal personalities of an organisation

Identify the ethical issues in business operations and the ways to overcome it

Entry Requirement:

Learners should be age 19 or over, and must have a basic understanding of Maths, English, and ICT.

A qualification at level 2 or above in any discipline

[crosby-interesting]

Emma's comments are masterpieces 😅😅

All of these identical and corny sweet comments can also have a special meaning. No one wrote anything ambitious, bold, sexy about Kathy. Only: "fun, beautiful, friendly." And this is the perfect a hit in a general PR. Kathy should be, but not stand out too much. All these comments create a clear image about her.

[worklabournewsresearch]

Business Schools Step Up on  Sustainability

“Australia’s Griffith Business School leads this year’s Corporate Knights list of the top 40 global business schools that embrace planet-friendly values – doing so without using ‘sustainability’ or ‘responsible corporate practice’ in the name of its Master of Business Administration program. ‘We have made a conscious decision that we believe every MBA should be a sustainable MBA,’ says Stephanie Schleimer, Griffith’s MBA director...”

“Other schools that did well in the ranking also enriched their course content, research and hiring practices consistent with the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Research... explains a rise in the ranking for two Canadian schools: the University of Guelph’s Lang School of Business and Economics and Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management placed sixth and eight respectively, up from 18 and 37 respectively in 2019. Over the past year, Lang added research chairs in the business of food, entrepreneurship and sports management, with others pending in leadership, finance and marketing. Sustainability is not in the chair titles, but sustainable food systems, social enterprise and gender equity are themes of the research agendas, says MBA graduate coordinator Rumina Dhalla.”

“Despite school efforts, student advocates demand deeper commitments. Business schools ‘need to talk about things like the triple bottom line, stakeholder capitalism, impact investing and sustainability reporting,’ says Gareth Gransaull, past president of Ivey Business School’s student-run Social Impact Club at Western University. ‘We also need to introduce and have honest conversations about issues that are more controversial,’ he adds, citing tax reform, corporate ethics, anti-racism initiatives and ‘greenwashing.’”

See the full list of Corporate Knight’s 2020 Better World MBA Top 40 and how they were ranked.

Corporate Knights, November 10, 2020: “More business schools step up on sustainability,” by Jennifer Lewington

Corporate Knights, November 10, 2020: “2020 Better World MBA ranking results”

Corporate Knights, November 9, 2020: “2020′s class of Top 30 under 30 sustainability leaders shape #nextnormal,” by Adria Vasil and Erin Gardhouse

And how do Bachelors of Commerce rank in Canada?

“As in the MBA scorecard, the top performers in a Corporate Knights ranking of 10 undergraduate programs in Canada make express commitments to sustainability. Ryerson’s Ted Rogers School of Management, which placed first, names sustainability as one of nine learning outcomes reported to the Ontario government.”

See the full list of Corporate Knight’s 2020 Better World Top 10 BComs and how they were ranked.

Corporate Knights, November 10, 2020: “How do Canada’s business undergrad programs rank on sustainability?” by Jennifer Lewington

[maheshjethmalani]

Two things that can completely destroy your business.

[gravitascivics]

LEGAL OSCILLATION

Of late, this blog has been looking at the role corporations play as entities within a federal arrangement. Yes, corporations, especially those that are listed as public, do take on a federal structure.  That is, they are owned by a group of investors who buy shares in that corporation.  While not every shareholder in relation to that corporation is equal, each share is and within certain regulations,[1] each person is free to buy as many shares as he/she wants and can afford to buy; only limited by the number of shares issued by the corporation.

         But as entities, corporations, due to their ability to accumulate inordinate amounts of capital – investment dollars – and other assets, they can command relatively high levels of influence within a nation’s political landscape.  One can argue that that is what constitutes what people generally mean by the political swamp characterizing the nation’s – and the individual state’s – capital. There, the competing players go after zero-sum prizes.  That’s what happens when one lives in an environment with limited resources; i.e., this type of arena is ubiquitous.

         The last three postings look at the natural result of such a situation.  They address the question:  what, if any, are the responsibilities of corporations in a federated environment – such as that of the US?  The last posting left the reader with somewhat of a question.  In running a business, one dependent on shareholder investments, should that business be about doing – and spending to do – socially beneficial activities at the expense of shareholder dividends?  There is a debate over this question.

         The firm natural rights view is that they should not. Shareholders are well able to make up their own minds as to what socially beneficial efforts they want to support.  They do not need corporations to make such contributions in their names.  On the other hand, defending the position that corporations should make such contributions are those that argue that by doing so, they bolster the image of a corporation and, in turn, up their esteem in the eyes of their consumers – their buyers – and that translates in higher sales, higher revenues, and higher profits.

         But in a way, this question steers the debate away from what this blog is really asking.  However, regardless of how one feels about corporations making contributions for public, social efforts, the real question posed here is:  should the interests of a corporation go contrary to the interests of the general or the common good?  And that decision can affect any public spending a corporation does.

         For example, a drug company that knowingly promotes an addictive drug – say an opioid – that results in scores of people addicted and dysfunctional – no amount of charity giving – probably done to offset negative publicity their business decisions cause – will change their anti-federal standing.  In such a case, that corporation is generally placing self-interest above the common interest.

         To be a proper federated partner, in other words, an entity – be it a corporation, a person, or some other body of actors – needs to, at least, not align its interests as being contrary or antagonistic to the general welfare of the commonwealth.  And within this context, what the American Bar Association (ABA) deems is a fiduciary duty, the obligation of corporate management and board of directors have toward shareholders as being atop all others, is anti-federal.

         Take the drug companies that made billions of dollars producing, promoting, distributing, and selling opioids to pain-suffering patients. The decisions that led to such a policy and allowed such behavior was in the financial interests of their shareholders; but was it a way for a federated partner to act?  One can say, yes, it is, as long as the corporation obeys the law. Really?  If the goal is to protect the commonwealth, such an expectation falls woefully short.

         To date, there have not been any prosecutorial action against these companies.  Apparently, they did not break any laws.  But one might add, they are subject to civil or negligent tort action.  In that realm there has been highly publicized court action that is proving to be highly expensive to, at least, some of these companies.  The highly esteemed company, Johnson and Johnson, was just hit with a court directed award against it for nearly $600 million in just one state, Oklahoma.[2]

         A day or two later, after the Johnson and Johnson decision was announced, another drug company heavily involved in the opioid drug market, Purdue Pharma, offered to settle all its pending legal liabilities for $10 to $12 billion dollars.[3]  In both instances, one can say, “all well and good,” but at what cost to the federation? These parties did not come to these reckonings till untold damage had befallen whole regions of the country – particularly the Appalachian region, – the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and the ruination of millions of lives.

         This fiduciary view can be explained by what ABA states it is:

[T]hat as fiduciaries, corporate directors owe the corporation and its shareholders fiduciary duties of diligence and fidelity in performing their corporate duties.  These fiduciary obligations include the duty of care and the duty of loyalty … the duty of care consists of an obligation to act on an informed basis; the duty of loyalty requires the board and its directors to maintain, in good faith, the corporation’s and shareholders’ best interests over anyone else’s interests.[4]

To these untrained eyes – at least, in terms of legal language – this sounds fuzzy and subject to wide interpretations.  But this writer cannot see why the above statement could not, at least, add “within the parameters of criminal law” and “under the auspices of what reasonably can be construed to be the common good of the communities in which they operate as well as the states and nation.”

         But for the development of this main concept, some legal scholars fall back to what one sees in tort law, a concern for the “slippery slope.”  That is, according to Steven Bainbridge, for example, if corporate leadership were free to spend money on or otherwise support non-profit-maximizing activities, how does one impose any accountability in relation to those activities. Bainbridge cites eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark (2010)[5] decision to back up this concern, although this case has a mixed precedent.

         But this position is opposed by others.  One such criticism is offered by Lynn Stout. Citing the Hobby Lobby case (mentioned in a previous posting[6]), she argues that that previous case allows one to consider what generally can be described as ethical rules, policies that do not damage the environment, and that do not harm employees, etc.  And that should include not doing medical harm to patients rending them dysfunctional in meeting federalist obligations.

         There seems to be oscillating opinions from the courts. This blog chooses to describe that oscillation as between a natural rights position and a federal position. In a time when natural rights view holds the upper hand, in terms of cultural beliefs and political biases, one can expect that that bias would more often be reflected in court decisions.  

This blog hopes the oscillation shifts and remains with a federalist bias. Its whole train of argument points in that direction.  It does not see this argument as one of indoctrination to a foreign mode of thinking, but to reestablishing its original view – albeit updated – to better maintain and bolster the assumed beliefs of its founding agreement – i.e., the US Constitution.  And that, at its core, is to maintain and bolster a federated union.

[1] Generally, corporations determine the number of shares its policymakers decide to make available.

[2] Katie Thomas and Tiffany Hsu, “Johnson and Johnson’s Brand Falters over Its Role in Opioid Crisis,” The New York Times, August 7, 2019, accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/health/johnson-and-johnson-opioids-oklahoma.html .

[3] Laura Strickler, “Purdue Pharma Offers to Settle Opioid Claims for $10 to $12 Billion,” CNBC, August 12, 2019, accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/27/purdue-pharma-offers-10-12-billion-to-settle-opioid-claims.html .

[4] “Business Ethics: Corporate Law and Corporate Responsibility,” BC Campus, n. d., accessed August 19, 2019, https://opentextbc.ca/businessethicsopenstax/chapter/corporate-law-and-corporate-responsibility/ .  Most of the information of this posting is derived from this source.

[5] This convoluted and complex case does demonstrate how difficult corporate life can get when mixing profit motives with cultural ambitions.  eBay filed suit against craigslist for eBay’s attempt to steer that corporation away from its pro-social culture the founders of craigslist initiated.  Through various structural maneuvers, craigslist attempted to maintain its original corporate culture, but at the expense of its shareholder’s, eBay, financial returns.  Therefore, eBay sued based on the fiduciary duty craigslist had in relation to eBay. eBay won on two of its claims and lost on another (the one relating to its legal fees).  This case, in sum, was decided to bolster the pro-fiduciary duty role directors and board members are expected to maintain.

[6] Robert Gutierrez, “Corporations As Good Citizens,” August 20, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/08/corporations-as-good-citizens.html AND “Business Ethics:  Corporate Law and Corporate Responsibility,” BC Campus.

[sun-cheyne]

But at least, until recently, you could live without fear that some multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley giant would buy up your banking data in order to serve you more effective ads. Based on new details about an apparent arrangement between Google and Mastercard, those days are over.

Bloomberg reports that, after four years of negotiations, Google purchases a trove of credit card transaction data from Mastercard, allegedly for “millions of dollars.” Google then reportedly used that data to provide select advertisers with a tool called “store sales measurement” that the company quietly announced in a blog post last year, though it failed to mention the inclusion of Mastercard data in the workflow. The tool can track how online ads lead to real-world purchases, and that extra data is designed to make Google’s ad products more appealing to advertisers. (Read: everybody makes more money this way.) The public was not informed of the reported Mastercard deal, though advertisers have had access to the transaction data for at least a year, according to Bloomberg.

This is a hell of a bombshell, when you think about it. Thanks in part to heavy government regulation, your credit card and banking data has long been private. If you wanted to spend $98 at Sephora on a Tuesday afternoon, that transaction was between you, your bank, and Sephora. It now appears that Google has found a way to weasel its way into the data pipeline that connects consumers and their purchases. If you clicked on a Sephora ad while logged in to Google in the past year and then bought stuff at Sephora with a Mastercard in the past year, there’s a chance Google knows about that, at least on some level, and has been serving special ads as a result. (Full Story)

[hypnictwitch]

Car company: How do we prove we're not evil?

Car company: Gas. Monkeys.

[rimaregas]

The NYT’s Curious Praise of CEOs As Moral Leaders | #SocialEthics on Blog#42

I happened upon the strangely titled article, The Moral Voice of Corporate America, in the New York Times’ business section. Intrigued, I clicked the author’s bio before beginning to read.

The piece is written no differently than an opinion piece. While it includes many quotes from CEOs, it is almost completely devoid of any nuanced analysis to go with the contrasting facts chosen for the piece, links to assertions made, data, or examples that buttress the arguments made. In short, the piece is nothing more than a glorified ode to CEOS without so much as a thin veil of journalistic ethics, at the very least, presenting the reader with a requisite minimum of background in a larger context, nuance, counter-argumentation, and some analysis. Nothing.

There isn’t even any background reporting on why some of those CEOs might have chosen to throw their lots behind issues having nothing to do with Charlottesville. For example, while Gelles tells readers that Apple’s Tim Cook came out as gay, he could also have informed them that he’s a Southerner. Surely, his distaste for the Trump administration’s bent stems from strong personal views that were informed by a lifetime of exposure to bias of all kinds? Cook has given interviews to the media in the past and spoken out about social issues that he cares deeply about. Why not include some of that, aside from the fact that he’s gay and proud?  I am sure that the decision by Cook (not mentioned in the article) to award $1 million each to the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, with a promise to match 2:1 every dollar Apple employees donate to those two organizations. This was Cook’s response to Trump’s Charlottesville comments. It has nothing to do with his sexual orientation, and everything to do with the sour look on Cook’s face whenever he’s been in the presence of Trump.

You don’t change things by just yelling,’ Apple CEO Tim Cook. ‘

The same goes for Gelles’ approach to his coverage of Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation’s mission is social justice. A reminder of that to Times readers would have contextually placed Walker’s statements. Of course Walker would make such comments! That is what he does on a regular basis, among many other things.

Gelles quotes Marc Benioff, founder of Salesforce:

“’When I went to business school, you didn’t see anything like this,” said Marc Benioff, the founder and chief executive of Salesforce. “Nobody talked about taking a stand or adopting a cause.’

Now, Mr. Benioff is at the vanguard of a group of executives who are more connected — to customers, employees, investors and other business leaders — than ever before, and who are unafraid to use their influence.”

Marc Benioff is two years younger than I am. By the time he went to college, business ethics had long come under the influence of Milton Friedman’s 1962 tome, Capitalism and Freedom. Social activism most definitely would not have been a covered topic at USC’s school of business administration by the mid-1980’s, anymore than it would have been at Wharton at any point in time. Such teachings would have been considered heresy.

https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/25/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-economics-for-hedgehogs-socialethics-on-blog42/

Politics, particularly in the last nine years, have increasingly clashed with the common-sense business practice of not offending one’s customers. Does that mean that Benioff’s activism was purely motivated by his bottom line? No! But one cannot discount how much of his bottom line would have been affected had he remained silent.

The same holds for many CEOs who have come out of the woodwork both in favor or against a particular social issue that they are both passionate about and affects their particular business’ bottom line. Perfect cases in point are the owners of Chick-A-Fil and Hobby Lobby. Chick-A-Fil distinguished itself a few years back for its openly hostile policy against the LGBTQ community. Hobby Lobby’s owners sued the Obama administration, along with others, not to cover contraceptives as a part of employer-provided health insurance benefits. While one can try and call these behaviors social justice for the extreme right, they are decidedly anti-social when one takes society as a whole, not to mention the fact that both of these businesses cater to conservative customers first and foremost. Once in the fray, they made the conscious choice to forge ahead. Theirs were calculated decisions, both business and moral, to act as they did. Neither corporation has suffered as a result of their calculated risk, whereas Google or Apple, given the same set of choices, would most definitely have suffered serious blows.

One of the relative few counterpoints used in the piece come by way of Travis Kalanick, former Uber CEO. Kalanick is an outlier, as much as recently convicted Pharma Bro, Martin Shkreli. They are not representative of the “dark side” of business.

Proof Tim Cook smiles… Happier times for Travis Kalanick and Tim Cook.

The son of Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, gets a mention for his now publicized email urging his friends to make donations to organizations that are fighting for social justice, in addition to the revelation that Murdoch made a $1 million contribution to the Anti-Defamation League. While it is entirely possible that young Mr. Murdoch is a social justice-minded sort, Fox News is a family-owned business that, at the moment, is saddled with having to contend with a long-running reputation for racism and, more recently, sexism and sexual harassment by their top talent, costing them tens of millions of dollars in settlement fees. All of these things must be weighed, in addition to the fact that James Murdoch was taken aback by Trump’s racist commentary. Murdoch’s shock and resulting benevolence don’t make him, or any one of the other CEOs who have spoken up, moral leaders.

Tech companies get praise for stepping up and obliterating the presence of neo-Nazi website The Stormer, deleting white supremacist content, and the financial accounts of known supremacists. There is no mention of the fact, especially in the case of The Stormer, that these tech companies’ lax policies with fringe elements have long been a bone of contention, particularly with African Americans involved in movements for social justice. For example, it is well-known that Facebook has been suspending the accounts of prominent Black activists as it had been allowing white supremacists to exercise their free speech. Facebook, in particular, has been the subject of much criticism in that regard. It behooved these tech companies to step up and speak out for those reasons, first and foremost.

To his credit, Gelles does include a reminder of some of the more spectacular faux-pas we saw recently:

“When Pepsi this year released an ad featuring Kendall Jenner offering a police officer a soda in the midst of an apparent Black Lives Matter protest, the condemnation was swift. Two years earlier, Starbucks drew wide ridicule when, as part of an effort by Mr. Schultz to start a national conversation on race relations, baristas were encouraged to write “race together” on coffee cups.”

But what’s missing is the obvious mix of ham-fistedness, mixed with a bit of social consciousness, mixed with a whole lot of obvious naked commercialism at a time of deep social anxiety. Starbuck’s attempt came at the height of police brutality cases and while it may have been well-intentioned, the initiative was most definitely ill-planned. The image Starbucks has always fashioned for itself is one of a socially-conscious enterprise, particularly in its partnerships for the overseas procurement of the main ingredient for its business. The leap from that to the national conversation on race was a huge leap.

Egregiously missing from the conversation in the Times piece is any mention of the fact that so many corporations are represented in the highest levels of the Trump administration and dictating the rollback of a dizzying number of regulations, to the point where corporations and the U.S. government are virtually indistinguishable. Add to deep corporate influence in the deregulation of everything to the real problem of American jobs not returning to the U.S., and the perception problem becomes far more acute than ever. For Apple, who used to manufacture everything in a Mac right here at home, the lingering specter of Cook’s unfulfilled promise to bring back at least some manufacturing to the U.S., against the backdrop of the deal Foxconn, Apple’s Chinese manufacturer, just signed in Wisconsin. These are the kinds of problems that underlie the reasons why so many CEOS now feel real pressure to completely disassociate themselves from a government with which they eagerly allied themselves and now cannot afford to be tied to in any way.

Curiously, a related article appeared in Business Day three days earlier, presenting the views, pro and con, of Walmart customers following that company’s CEO’s statement in opposition to President Trump. The piece, with a byline of “New York Times” oddly mirrors the corporate ethics piece both in the things it highlights and the things it fails to analyze.

Walmart’s C.E.O. Had Plenty to Say About Trump. So Did His Customers

“Peter Caprio, 64, had just started pulling out of his parking spot when he realized the cooler he had put in his trunk was holding the rear gate of his BMW sport utility vehicle open.

Mr. Caprio, a school business administrator, said Mr. Trump had made fair points in his news conference on Tuesday, when he said the violence was not just the fault of the white supremacists. “He was right; it’s on both sides,” he said.

But even if he might have agreed with Mr. McMillon’s position, he suggested it was not appropriate for the chief executive of a big company like Walmart to comment on politics.

“The C.E.O. has to worry about stockholders, nobody else,” Mr. Caprio said. “If it doesn’t affect stockholders, best to let it go.””

The comment is both a rather odd and typical one. Our culture has been inculcated in Milton Friedman’s “CEO responsibility to shareholders” mantra. The odd part is hearing it in a Walmart parking lot… One can easily observe the divisions of views that belie our nation’s polarization. The older respondents tended to give conservative responses. The younger respondents gave opposing views. Again, no mention is made of the inextricable association of corporate and government in the Trump administration.

Had this piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal, I would hardly have batted an eyelash. But this piece appeared in the New York Times, a publication that is supposed to be the flagship of liberal media and, as such, one we can count on for a more balanced view. This sort of journalism isn’t honest reporting. It is nothing more than pandering to a skittish corporatocracy that is caught between the hyper-capitalism of our new oligarchy and the simmering ire of an electorate that was already angry with the neoliberal establishment.

Subscribers of any newspaper ought to be able to count on reporting that is neutral, thorough and conveys a modicum of depth. This wasn’t it. Corporate self-interest is morphing with our politics. This isn’t the same as suddenly getting religion and abandoning Milton Friedman’s libertarian business ethics. The addition of a white supremacist president is just the straw that breaks the camel’s back. This is a distinction that the corporate media must make in this kind of reporting. Anything less gives the appearance of shilling for the corporate world they, themselves, are a part of.

Your $1-20 contributions are what keep me and this blog going. Please use the buttons above to subscribe. Thank you!

      The NYT’s Curious Praise of CEOs As Moral Leaders | #SocialEthics on Blog#42 The NYT's Curious Praise of CEOs As Moral Leaders | #SocialEthics on Blog#42

[gravitascivics]

FROM CARS TO LIGHTS TO HOBBIES

From time to time, this blog gives its readers an assignment.  So, it did in its last posting.  That posting reviewed the facts of three court cases – each dealing with corporate ethical responsibilities.  The cases are Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919), Shlensky v. Wrigley (1968), and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014).[1]  If the reader has not read that posting, he/she is invited to do so.  The assignment in that posting is for the reader to predict what the outcomes of each case is.

         As that earlier posting states:  

[O]ne lesson one can draw just from the information already given is that not everyone defines societal welfare in the same way.  

[Henry] Ford saw it in its more commonsensical way – society seeking improvements to the secularly defined benefits of selected or identified individuals or constituents.  [Chicago Cubs owner] Wrigley defined it in terms of being a good neighbor.  And [the retail chain] Hobby Lobby used religious beliefs – and those religions’ definitions of morality and ethics.  With a little bit of imagination one can visualize other bases for defining what’s good for society.  

The point is, when one is trying to analyze how any entity attempts to be a good citizen – promoting the common good – that issue can become and is complex.

         Here are the court decisions of each case:

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company – ���the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Henry Ford must operate the Ford Motor Company primarily in the profit-maximizing interests of its shareholders rather than in the broader interests of his workers and customers.”[2]  But the court further ruled,

Ironically, in the same case, the court upheld the validity of a doctrine known as the business judgement rule, a common-law principle stating that officers, directors, and managers of a corporation are not liable for losses incurred when the evidence demonstrates that decisions were reasonable and made in good faith, which gives corporate management latitude in deciding how to run the company.[3]

This decision introduces a degree of nuance by which corporations are to run their affairs.  For example, can a corporation, in trying to strengthen its long-term standing, be justified, in relation to shareholder interests, to spend revenues on social conditions and/or employee welfare.  On the surface, therefore, this seemly pro-shareholder decision, which it was, does leave the door open for a more federalist approach to managing a corporation.

Of course, if the general sense of what is proper within the nation and the economy – especially within general corporate culture as it did in the early twentieth century – follows a natural rights bias, those decisions by management will tend to be short-sighted.  Surely, during those years, the economy was noted by the decisions of robber barons and was one of those historical developments that helped usher in natural rights dominance after World War II.[4]

Shlensky v. Wrigley – Again, this case illustrated a corporate leader deciding to further the interests of social entities over shareholders.  For those readers who are baseball savvy, they might have gotten this wrong.  They know that Wrigley Field does have lights today and that it was the last major league stadium to install them.  But, were the owners of the club mandated to install them due to this court case?

         Actually, the owners of the club were not forced to put in the lights due to a court decision.  Wrigley Field owners stated their objection to the lights were due to concerns over the interests of the stadium’s neighbors in the adjoining area. Among various worries, they saw the lights inviting increased crimes in their neighborhoods if the Cubs began hosting night games.

         The court agreed.  “The Wrigley case represented a shift from the idea that corporations should pursue only the maximization of shareholder value, as had been held in the Ford Motor Company case.”[5]  Therefore, William Wrigley Jr.’s decision to ban the lights held.  So, what happened?  Wrigley Field has lights today.  In short, Wrigley sold the club to the Tribune Company in 1981; that new ownership wanted lights; and, after a long battle with the neighbors, had the lights installed.  But all that wrangling does not diminish the effect of the court’s decision.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby – Here is a summary:

In a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, the [US] Supreme Court ruled that some corporations (those that are closely held by a few shareholders) can object on ethical, moral, or religious grounds to the Affordable Care Act’s rule that health insurance policies must cover various forms of contraception; such companies can elect not to offer such coverage.[6]

As in the Wrigley decision, Justice Alito’s opinion stated that corporate decisions in cases, where there are a few shareholders, can decide to follow corporate policy that does not maximize profits.  It should be pointed out, in this case, corporate policy was not questioned by shareholders, but by employees.  Also, the opinion was roundly criticized by advocates that usually argue for limiting profit-sharing policies that bolster social or employee goals or interests. Here, these same advocates argued for profit maximization.

In the next posting, this blog will make general comments on this issue concerning shareholder vs. social/employee interest decisions by corporations.  The above decisions indicate that corporate ethics can be a muddy area of interests that often does not elicit clear and consistent argumentation and, therefore, before ending this posting, a few contextual points are made.

While the Hobby Lobby decision deals with particular corporate arrangements, that of a corporation with few shareholders, it does bolster a legal status for corporations; that is of a virtual “person.”  When so defined, a corporation can claim rights as, it is the case, the Constitution grants rights to “persons.”  As such, this decision does not advance federalist values but natural rights values.

To quote the BC Campus article:

The Hobby Lobby case can be interpreted to mean the people who control corporations … may act on their own values in a way that might well be inconsistent with the interests of employees and other minority shareholders.  [Alito writes] “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.  When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”[7]

If read closely, while the corporation adopts a federalist structure, it ignores federalist processes. Given the above language, Alito seems to be stating, this self-interested arrangement – of the controlling shareholders – can act as selfishly as it wishes.  Personhood doctrine, as described by this decision, bolsters a self-centered view.

         The second contextual point to make is more friendly to federalist values.  That is, if Hobby Lobby can set policy that in effect affects profits – by placing a social concern above profit considerations – does this decision not open the door for other decisions that strive to further other socially defined benefits?  One can hear some future case attorneys arguing in this vein.

         The last contextual point to be made can be too legalistic for the purposes here.  That is, corporate laws, by-and-large, are state laws.  As such, corporate laws vary greatly across the country.  Many of those laws have to do with shareholder statuses in terms of such concerns as voting rights, buyout arrangements, minority interests, etc.  This is getting into the “weeds” and can be important under the parameters of a given court case, but mere mention of these factors will do for this review.

[1] “Business Ethics: Corporate Law and Corporate Responsibility,” BC Campus, n. d., accessed August 19, 2019, https://opentextbc.ca/businessethicsopenstax/chapter/corporate-law-and-corporate-responsibility/ AND Robert Gutierrez, “Corporations As Good Citizens,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics, August 20, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019/08/corporations-as-good-citizens.html .

[2] “Business Ethics: Corporate Law and Corporate Responsibility,” BC Campus.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Before the reader jumps to the notion that such corporate behavior just demonstrated the already dominant position of natural rights, one needs to remember that such behavior led to the complicated reaction by the political culture, the progressive movement that questioned natural rights policies and rationales.

[5] “Business Ethics: Corporate Law and Corporate Responsibility,” BC Campus.

[6] Ibid. (emphasis added).

[7] Ibid.

[amymcools]

Are Human Rights Anything More than Legal Conventions? by John Tasioulas

Are Human Rights Anything More than Legal Conventions? by John Tasioulas

Eleanor Roosevelt and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

We live in an age of human rights. The language of human rights has become ubiquitous, a lingua francaused for expressing the most basic demands of justice. Some are old demands, such as the prohibition of torture and slavery. Others are newer, such as claims to internet access or same-sex marriage. But what are human rights, and…

[college-choice-yq]

Finicky the Right Corporate Gifts and Awards for Employees

A common exaggeration for businesses to recognize their employee's achievements, accomplishments and contributions in passage to the company is by issuing corporate trophies and other such awards. Awarding workers with a certificate or trophy, encourages professional figure, and boosts team morale, and also shows company appreciation so a job well done. Awards boot be issued to celebrate a successful project, or can be issued during a special ceremony quarterly or at the end as regards the year.

Companies can also breathe presented with close match accolades for successful initiatives achieved by the entire trade association or for overall overproduction. Corporate ethics is of the utmost leverage, which will ensure employees are happy and the primary purpose in re corporate award or gift is demonstrate that a cast values its employee service, fellow loyalty or conglomerate partnership or express appreciation whereas a job facilely tired.

In addition almost entirely corporate businesses reveal accolades to their employees to commemorate their length or tenure with respect to service with the company. Subliminal self is banal practice worldwide against businesses to award trophies and plaques to employees that pick up been with the company and have provided x, twenty, thirty ordinary fifty years re slider. Many companies extra hand out awards to employees that go beyond and too their job differentiation. Compact gifts and awards are usually presented at formal events or ceremonies, to outfit partners or employees, who have been granted so their outstanding achievements and contributions to the company.

In addition poles apart professional associations and info media further supply companies recognition so that certain accomplishments that include community military, business ethics, and environmental responsibility and workplace practices. Corporate awards come among a wide selection of different forms, sizes and shapes. Awards and gifts can extra come in jillion different forms such as a absonant screen TV, a give credit you note metal maybe even a car. Awards can also include plaques, recognition in the company's newsletter, company stock, cash awards or monetary bonuses or in the metaphysical idealism regarding pins.

They type of giving nose delivered inclination all depend on the recipient receiving the award. For example, companies, non profit organizations, customers, partners with partners and employees rest room all be chosen to receive a corporate award. Patron awards tushy continue specifically strategic in such wise a prize for winning a competition or in order to show evaluating in preference to their mystery.

Such awards are not only beneficial but also important, as they person a strong association plus other industry companies and with customers and also pillow productivity way the workplace. Trophy's and awards also stave off to establish organizations and executives equally leaders in their admired corporate field of business. a successful and established employer, builds trust and opens channels within the practice even so they run employee story programs.

[ethicsunwrapped]

Who said ethics training can’t be entertaining? 

A multimedia communications firm is helping companies promote their ethics, compliance and legal training with entertaining resources! The L&E Suites are a collection of commercials: songs, music videos, memes, jingles and more. All promoting good corporate culture.

Read the full news release here!