Digital Map. Business Ethics Professionalism 20220.2

Protocol & Soft Diplomacy

The Netherlands

DIGITAL MAP

Masterclass Business Ethics & Professionalism (GMS-1)

Executive Program

Global Mindset Skills(EP-21)

Become a mindful executive with the skills to navigate & operate smoothly around the globe

“We are a capacity development company connecting values, cultures, organisations, individuals and societies around the world.”

ProtocolToday has gathered the information compiled in this document from different sources. The Intellectual Property Rights of the knowledge and described materials are with the original authors.

What’s the Matter with Business Ethics?

by Andrew Stark

From

the Magazine

(May–June 1993)

With the recent boom in business, ethics comes a curious irony: the more entrenched the discipline becomes in business schools, the more bewildering and even off-putting it appears to actual managers.

The more entrenched the discipline becomes in business schools, the more bewildering it appears to managers.

What is the matter with business ethics? And more important, what can be done to make it right? The texts reviewed here shed light on both questions. They point to the gulf between academic business ethics and professional mana suggest that business ethicists may be primarily responsible for this gap.

Far too many business ethicists have occupied a rarefied moral high ground, removed from the real concerns and real-world problems of the vast majority of managers. They have been too preoccupied with absolutist notions of what it means for managers to be ethical, with overly general criticisms of capitalism as an economicsystem, with denseand abstract theorising,andwith prescriptions that apply only remotely to managerial practice. Such trends are all the more disappointing in contrast to the success that ethicists in other professions medicine, law, and government have had in providing real and welcome assistance to their practitioners.

Does this mean that managers can safely dismiss the enterprise of business ethics? No. Several prominent business ethicists have been taking stock of their field from within in the past year or two. Much like managers trying to reengineer their companies’ business processes, they have called for fundamental changes in the way the enterprise of business ethics is conducted. And they are offering some promising new value approaches to academic business ethicists and professional managers.

What follows, then, is a guide to business ethics for perplexed managers: why it seems so irrelevant to their problems and how it can be made more useful in the future.

Why Should Managers Be Ethical?

To understand the gap between business ethics and the concerns of most managers, it pays to recall how managers and management academics thought about business ethics before it became a formal discipline.Indeed,much oftheresearchandwriting in contemporarybusiness ethics canbeunderstood as adisgruntled reaction to howethical issues were usuallyaddressedat business schools particularly to the traditional answers to the fundamental question: Why should managers be ethical?

Starting well before World War II and culminating in the 1960s and 1970s, the dominant approach to the moral dimension of business was a perspective that came to be known as corporate social responsibility. Largely reacting to neoclassical economics, which holds that the sole responsibility of a company is to maximise its immediate bottom line subject to only the most minimal constraints of the law, advocates of corporate social responsibility argued that ethical management requires more than merely following the dictates of the law or signals of the market. These two institutions otherwise guide business behaviour. Rather, ethical management is a process of anticipating both the law and the market and for sound business reasons.

For example, managers tend to forestall punitive social regulation when they voluntarily undertake socially responsible actions beyond the bare legal mini anti-discriminationnvironmental protection, say, or anti-discrimination policy). As corporate scholar E. Merrick Dodd, Jr. stated in a 1932 Harvard Law Review article, the purpose of ethical management is “to catch any new spirit” and embody it in voluntary standards “without waiting for legal compulsion.” Or, as Berkeley professor Edwin Epstein more recently and succinctly put it, “being ethical heads off the law.”

The social responsibility approach took an expansive view of the law and urged managers to take a comprehensive view of the market. In the short term, ethical behaviour may prove costly to a company’s bottom line. But according to the advocates of corporate social responsibility, ultimately, the market will reward such behaviour. “In general, socially responsible deliberation will not lead management to decisions different from those indicated by long-range profit considerations,” the

management scholar Wilbur Katz wrote in 1950. Or in the by-now famous words of former SEC Chairman John Shad: “Ethics pays.”

Most managers could assimilate this response to the question “Why to be ethical?” reasonably easily under enlightened self-interest. Indeed, by now, the tenets of corporate social responsibility have become conventional wisdom in managerial circles. Organisations like the Business Roundtable publish studies with titles like “Corporate Ethics: A Prime Business Asset.” And top corporate executives regularlyusethelogicofenlightenedself-interest, reflectedin the statementbyformerDow Chairman Robert W. Lundeen: “We found that if we were not running our business in the public interest, the public [would] get back at us with restrictive regulations and laws.”

However, it was one thing for social responsibility advocates to provide a broad and appealing answer to the question: Why should managers be ethical? It was quite another to answer the obvious followup: How can managers determine the ethical course in any particular situation and stick to it in the face of competing pressures?

To address this question, social responsibility advocates set out in the 1970s to create a brand-new managerial discipline: business ethics. One idea was to bring experts in moral philosophy into the business schools. Training in moral philosophy would give business ethicists the analytical frameworks and conceptual tools necessary to make fine-grained ethical distinctions and discern the appropriate course in difficult ethical situations. Once “retooled” in management, the moral philosophers could apply their sophisticated frameworks to managers’ day-to-day moral problems

However, things have not worked out quite the way traditional advocates of corporate social responsibility had hoped. Mainly because of their background in moral philosophy, a discipline that tends to place a high value on precisely those kinds of experiences and activities where self-interest does not rule, many business ethicists found the precepts of corporate social responsibility profoundly dissatisfying. As a result, they have spent a lot of scholarly time and energy tearing down the social responsibility position to erect their own. Indeed, far from taking a step closer to the real-world moral problems of management, several prominent business ethicists have chosen to reopen the fundamental question: Why should managers be ethical?

The Myopia of Moral Philosophy

Business ethicists have two fundamental problems with the enlightened self-interest answer to why managers should be ethical. First, they disagree that ethical behaviour is always in a company’s best interest, however enlightened. “There are no vanilla solutions,” writes Bentley College ethicist W. Michael Hoffman in his article, “The Cost of a Corporate Conscience.” “To behave ethically can cost dearly.” In other words, ethics and interests can and do conflict.

Second, they object that even when “doing good” is in the company’s best interest, acts motivated by self-interest really can’tbeethical. Moralphilosophytendstovaluealtruism,theideathatanindividual should do good because it is right or benefit others, not because the individual will benefit from it. Motivation can be either altruistic or self-interested for many business ethicists, but not both. A participant in a symposium called “Do Good Ethics Ensure Good Profits?” (recently sponsored by Business and Society Review) put it as follows: “To be ethical as a business because it may increase your profits is to do so for entirely the wrong reason. The ethical business must be ethical because it wants to be ethical.” In other words, business ethics means acting within the business for non-business reasons.

Morality can often mean acting within the business for no business reasons

Each of these criticisms has its kernel of truth. Ethics and interests can conflict. Take the example of a racially segregated company in the South during the 1930s. Remaining racially segregated was ethicallywrong.Yetactivedesegregationwouldhaveflowninthefaceofthen-prevailingpublicnorms and most likely would have been penalised severely by market forces over both the short and long terms.

When ethics and interest do not conflict, business ethicists have a point too. Indeed, there is ethical value in doing the right thing because it is right, not just because it serves one’s interest. And in the real world of business, altruism is one of the many motivations that shape managers’ behaviour

However,the problem is that manybusiness ethicists havepushed theselines ofreasoningto extremes. In the case of the potential conflict between ethics and interests, the fundamental issue is not whether such conflicts sometimes (or even frequently) occur but rather how they handle them when they occur. Business ethicists have offered too little help with this problem so far. Often, they advance a kind of ethical absolutism that avoids many of the complex (and most interesting) questions.

For example, in Business Ethics: The State of the Art, a recent volume of essays by leading business ethicists, edited by R. Edward Freeman, University of Kansas ethicist Richard T. DeGeorge states, “If in some instance it turns out that what is ethical leads to a company’s demise,” then “so be it.” A participant in the Business and Society Review symposium echoes this sentiment by arguing that if ethical actions mean that a company’s profits are reduced, then “it must accept such a trade-off without regret.” Managers would be hard-pressed not to view such prescriptions as restatements rather than workable solutions.

In some cases, absolutism leads business ethicists to devalue such traditional business interests as making a profit or succeeding in the marketplace, favouring supposedly more critical ethical demands. Take the example of one of the significant works in the field, published in 1988: Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics, by R. Edward Freeman and Daniel R. Gilbert, Jr. According to the authors, no corporation is truly ethical unless it has banished all forms of external motivation for employees. What do Freeman and Gilbert mean by external reason? There is nothing less than traditional managerial tools such as authority, power, incentives, and leadership. They argue that relying on such motivational tools is just a sophisticated form of coercion and therefore “morally wrong.” To be ethical, companies must ensure that employees’ work tasks are compatible with their own personal “projects,” thus making external motivation unnecessary. While acknowledging that their view is not “practical,” Freeman and Gilbert insist it is not “optional.” If corporations “cannot be run along the lines we propose,” they argue, then “we would prefer to give up the idea of the corporation.”

Such views may resonate with some moral philosophers but are of little help to managers. Like it or not, corporations do exist, and most managers work in them. These managers still lack solute

fundamental for the fundamental problem of balancing ethical demands and economic realities when they do conflict.

Indeed, business ethicists are not pure moral theorists who needn’t worry about the practicality of their prescriptions. Any business ethics worthy of the name should be an ethics of practice. But this means that business ethicists must get their hands dirty and seriously consider the costs that sometimes attend “doing the right thing.” They must help managers do the difficult, conceptual balancing required in complex cases where every alternative has moral and financial costs.

Any business ethics worthy of the name should be an ethics of practice. But this means that business ethicists must get their hands dirty.

Similarly, in situations where there is no conflict between ethics and interest, business ethicists must address what Robbin Derry has termed “the paradox of motivation” in her contribution to Business Ethics. The fact is, most people’s motives are a confusing mix of self-interest, altruism, and other influences. Instead of grappling with this complexity, however, many business ethicists have tied themselves in knots over the notion that a managerial act cannot be ethical unless it in no way serves the manager’s self-interest. This sterile parsing of complex human motivation leads to the untenable position that managers are genuinely ethical only when it costs them. Put, ethics has to hurt.

To grasp how strained such a position can become, consider the following argument made by Norman Bowie, an ethicist at the University ofMinnesota’s CarlsonSchool ofManagement,in his article“New Directions in Corporate Social Responsibility.” Bowie argues that a company adopting an inner-city elementary school is acting ethically only if other companies don’t do the same thing. Bowie’s curious logic: When only one company pours resources into a school, likely, the company won’t recoup its investment. Indeed, other companies will almost certainly benefit by hiring the school’s bettereducated graduates. The fact that “some firms will ride free” on the expenditures of the sponsoring company guarantees that those “firms who [do] give money to solve social problems are altruistic.”

If, of course, enough other companies were to start sponsoring schools, it would be possible for them all to recoup their investment by hiring from a much larger pool of better-educated students. But then

the spectre of self-interest would raise its head, andthe purity of the sponsoring companies’ motivation would become muddied. If there were no free riders, there would be no moral companies. An odd argument.Somebusiness ethicistsusedtocautionthatdoingwrongisprofitableonlywhenmostothers are doing right. They argue that doing right is demonstrably moral only when most others do wrong.

As some scholars, excellent a manager evil truly good only in an evil corporation?

An odd argument

A few business ethicists have used similar reasoning to criticise companies that try to create incentives to encourage ethical behaviour in their employees. If a manager works in a corporate culture that rewards her for doing good, how can her behaviour be considered ethical? In his contribution to Business Ethics: The State of the Art, Daniel Gilbert suggests that when ethical behaviour is encouragedby“external stimuli,”suchasseniorexecutiveswho“modelproperbehaviour”or“provide others with incentives designed to induce proper behaviour,” then the behaviour isn’t ethical. The strong implication is that a manager can be excellent only in an evil corporation.

If a hint of self-interest is present, in other words, then altruism and hence ethical motivation can no longer be assumed. Ironically, neoclassical economists share this view, who believbehaviourll humanbehaviouris essentiallyself-interested.Thereis, ofcourse,an essential differencethatunderlies this similarity: neoclassical economists hold that self-interested motivation is not immoral; but, for many business ethicists, mixed motives deserve and receive no moral credit.

Mistakes and Missed Opportunities

Of course, many business ethicists have tried to go beyond the question “Why be moral?” to shed light on the complex ethical questions managers face. Even when they do so, their work has tended to suffer from one or more of three typical tendencies. First, it is too general consumed with offering fundamental proposals for overhauling the capitalist system rather than ethics strategies to assist managers who must work within that system. Second, it is too theoretical preoccupied with philosophical abstractions and anything but “user-friendly.” And third, it is too impractical concerned with prescriptions that, however morally respectable, run so contrary to existing managerial

roles and responsibilities that they become untenable. As a result, such work in business ethics hasn’t “taken” in the world of practice, especially when compared with the creation of ethicists in other professions such as government, medicine, or the law. These professions are, of course, monopolies and hence can more easily impose ethical strictures on their practitioners. But that’s just part of the problem.

Too general.

Business, like government, is not just a profession. It is also a system where everyone, managers and non-managers alike, must live. As a result, the classic moral analysts of business and government have tended to be grand philosophers like Karl Marx or Friedrich von Hayek. Rather than focusing on professional norms and behavioural modes, such thinkers have advanced systemic critiques that often question the very premises of economic and political systems such as capitalism or socialism.

Why do scholars tend toward abstract moral theory? Because business is not just a profession. It is also a system in which everyone must live.

Medicineandlawprovideaninstructivecontrast. Becausethesefieldsaremoretraditionalprofessions, their most excellent moral analysts have tended to be practitioners like Hippocrates or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Such thinkers accepted and worked within their professions' basic premises and norms. And that context has allowed them and others to develop ethical precepts of practical value to actual doctors and lawyers.

Although management increasingly has come to be viewed as a profession in this century, a heritage of systemic moral criticism tempts business ethicists to be grand philosophers. For example, in his contribution to Business Ethics, Richard DeGeorge calls for the field to address questions such as “Is capitalism ethically justifiable? If so, how? If not, why not? Is socialism ethically…preferable?”

Theseareessential questions. But to theconsiderableextentthat business ethicists dwell onthem, what they generate is more often high-flown social philosophy than ethics valuable advice to professionals.

To cite one example, in a recent Business Horizons piece entitled “Corporate Social Responsibility: A

Critical Approach,” R. Edward Freeman and Jeanne Liedtka urge managers to “see corporations…as places in which we can be fully unrestrained human beings, places of ‘nuisance’ rather than grey flannel, places of liberation and achievement rather than oppression and denial.”

Too

theoretical

Both medicine and management are referred to as “sciences.” Business ethicists share with medical ethicists the challenge of having to bridge a gulf between their preoccupations with morals and the more complex, more “scientific” nature of the professions they study. In contrast, because government and law address the normative values of a particular political community, they are more receptive to the language of values found in moral philosophy. Medical ethicists have gained credibility in their more scientific field by understanding the challenging medical-science issues. Business ethicists, by contrast, have attempted to gain credibility within their professional area primarily by girding their work with abstract moral theory.

Norman Bowie’s contribution to Business Ethics addresses this “crisis of legitimacy” that business ethicists face in the “scientific” world of the business school. Many mainstream management scholars, he writes, see ethics as “subjective,” “soft,” and “normative,” while regarding their fields finance, say, or marketing or accounting as “objective,” “hard,” and “scientific.” Bowie defends his field in part by pointing out that business ethics possesses the “complex body of knowledge” that defines a “true discipline.” And by way of offering evidence, he notes that business ethics has “at least two major theories, utilitarianism and deontology” as well as several “peer-refereed journals.”

To peruse recent issues of the Journal of Business Ethics is to get a strong sense of the kind of research that has resulted from this need to establish theoretical or scholarly bona fides. The point of one recent article, for example, is to argue that “utilitarian and situation ethics, not deontological or Kantian ethics…should be used in a regional code of conduct for multinational companies operating” in subSaharan Africa. The point of another is to “defend the view that from a purely rule-utilitarian perspective there is no sound argument favouring the immorality of hostile liquidating takeovers.”

Ethical theory can help illuminatethemoral problems managersface.But nootherfield ofprofessional ethics has felt the need to couch its analyses so in the language of pure moral philosophy. In his new book Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business, University of Texas philosopher Robert C. Solomon writes that “such theorising is…utterly inaccessible to the people for whom business ethics is not merely a subject of study but is (or will be) a way of life students, executives, and corporations.” Unfortunately, academic insecurity is causing business ethicists to direct their work away from addressing the real needs of managers and toward satisfying the perceived rigours of theoretical science in their field.

Too impractical

Even when business ethicists try to be practical, much of what they recommend is not particularly useful to managers. To understand why a comparison with the law is helpful. In business, as in the direction, ethicists are increasingly asking individual practitioners to modify their commitments to their traditional principles to satisfy the competing interests of non-principals. Managers, for example, are urged to weigh the consumer’s interest in healthier products against their obligation to provide shareholders with the most beneficial possible dividend. And lawyers are now being encouraged to consider an opposing party’s right not to be viciously cross-examined against their own client’s right to the most vigorous possible defence.

Such questions are less characteristic of either government or clinical medicine. Rarely do we ask our government officials to put the claims of foreign citizens on a par with our own when they come into fundamental conflict. Nor have we felt comfortable asking a doctor to weigh the claims of another doctor’s patient against their own; if helping one patient comes at the cost of helping another, we expect policymakers, not individual doctors, to make the necessary tradeoffs. At present, the most central ethical issues in clinical medicine and government arise when the diverse interests of the same principals come into conflict for example when a patient’s interest in being told the truth conflicts with her interest in having peace of mind or when the interest some citizens have in liberty competes with the interest others have inequality.

Icrucialortant respect, business ethicists and legal ethicists have a tough row to hoe. Many of their current recommendations go against the grain of the traditional professional-principal relationship. This added difficulty doesn’t necessarily mean that business ethicists should abandon their views of right and wrong. However, if they seek to influence management practice, they must advance their proposals with a heightened sensitivity to practitioners’ understanding of their professional-principal responsibilities. As Kenneth Goodpaster argues in his thoughtful contribution to the premiere issue of Business Ethics Quarterly, “the challenge…is to develop an account of the moral responsibilities of management” that posits a “moral relationship between management and stakeholders” even as it protects “the uniqueness of the principal-agent relationship between management and stockholder.”

Few business ethicists have risen to this challenge. For example, in the same issue of Business Ethics Quarterly, Norman Bowie uses the uncontroversial proposition that the manager “has obligations to all corporate stakeholders” as a starting point for a radical redefinition of the managerial mission. His conclusion: the “primary obligation” of the manager is “to provide meaningful work for…employees.” Even if one believes this assertion to be accurate, such a claim is so alien to the institutional world inhabited by most managers that it becomes impossible for them to act on it.

Towards a New Business Ethics?

However, there are signs that at least some business ethicists are beginning to grapple with these shortcomings. They are questioning the direction their field has taken and urging their colleagues to move beyond their current preoccupations. Although many of their ideas have been simmering for years, the critics’ discontent signals the beginningof what might be a more productive direction. Think of it as the new business ethics.

While differing in their specific approaches, advocates of the new business ethics can be identified by accepting two fundamental principles. While they agree with their colleagues that ethics and interests can conflict, they take that observation as the starting point, not the ending point, of an ethicist’s

analytical task. In the fittingly final essay of Business Ethics, Joanne B. Ciulla provides a breath of fresh airwhen shewrites, “the creativepartofbusiness ethics is discoveringways to dowhat ismorally right and socially responsible without ruining your career and company.”

Second, the new perspective reflects awareness and acceptance of the messy world of mixed motives. Accordingly,thecritical taskforbusinessethicistsisnottomakeabstract distinctionsbetweenaltruism and self-interest but to participate with managers in designing new corporate structures, incentive systems, and decision-making processes that are more accommodating of the whole employee, recognising their altruistic and self-interested motivations. Such arrangements, procedures, and procedures should not “be construed as the personal yielding to the corporate or the corporate giving into the personal,” suggests Fairfield University business ethicist Lisa Newton in her article “Virtue and Role: Reflections on the Social Nature of Morality.” Instead, they should integrate the two roles. And the “name of that integration,” writes Newton, “is ethics.”

The new business ethics acknowledges and accepts the messy world of mixed motives and moral conflicts.

Within this broad area of agreement, practitioners of the new business ethics pursue various exciting and practical approaches. For example, in Ethics and Excellence, Robert Solomon goes back to Aristotle’s conception of “virtue” to devise ethics of practical value to managers. For Solomon, being virtuous does not “involve radical demands on our behaviour.” Indeed, such demands are “completely foreign to Aristotle’s insistence on ‘moderation.’” According to Solomon, Aristotle used the word “moral” simply to mean “practical.”

In Aristotelian fashion, Solomon proceeds to establish a set of workable virtues for managers: for instance, “toughness.” Neither callously self-interested nor purely altruistic, virtuous toughness involves both a “willingness to do what [is] necessary” and an “insistence on doing it as humanely as possible.” Throughout his book, Solomon discusses toughness (and other morally complex managerial virtues such as courage, fairness, sensitivity, persistence, honesty, and gracefulness) in the context of real-world situations such as plant closings and contract negotiations.

In an article in Business Ethics Quarterly entitled “Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a Theory of Morality in Practice,” J. Gregory Dees and Peter C. Cramton develop another functional approach around the idea of “mutual trust.” Dees and Craemphasisetly emphasise that ethical actions don’t take place in splendid isolation; in practice, ethics seems to rest on reciprocity. “It is unfair to require an individual to take a significant risk or incur a high cost out of respect for the interests or moral rights of others,” they write, “if that individual has no reasonable grounds for trusting that the relevant others will…take the same risk or make the same sacressentialhis is an important departure from the absolutist perspective of contemporary business ethics, particularly from the notion that only when others are not making comparable sacrifices can we gain moral lustre. Their “mutual trust” principle allows the authors to find a moral justification for deception in certain kinds of difficult business situations, even as they urge business ethicists to help managers “find strategies for bringing practice closer to moral ideals.” And in what could well be a manifesto for the new business ethics, Dees and Cramton argue that “the most important work in business ethics” is not “the construction of arguments to appeal to moral idealists, but the creation of actionable strategies for the pragmatists.”

Inasimilarvein, Thomas Donaldson ofGeorgetownandThomas Dunfeeof Whartonhave emphasised the central role of “social contracts” in devising what Donaldson calls a “minimalist” as opposed to the “perfectionist” view of the moral expectations that can be placed legitimately on companies. Social contracts are the implicit honest agreements that, having evolved, govern current business practice. The task of the business ethicist, Dunfee writes in Business Ethics Quarterly, is first to identify and make explicit these diverse ethical norms and then to evaluate them against specific universal, but minimalist, moral principles.

Some existing social contracts would fail such a test: racial discrimination in real-estate sales, say. But many would not. For example, insider information is considered more acceptable in real estate than in securities transactions does not necessarily mean that real estate agents somehow don’t have their moral act together. Absent a fundamental moral principle against using nonpublic information, the ethics of doing so in any given case will depend on the “goals, beliefs, and attitudes” of the relevant business community.

This emphasis on social contextfindsanintriguing echoin NormanBowie’s work. In “NewDirections in Corporate Social Responsibility,” Bowie, in effect, turns around the ethical telescope. “If managers and stockholders have aduty to customers, suppliers, employees, andthelocal community,”he argues, then it follows that these social actors also have duties to managers and stockholders. For example, environmentalists who want companies to produce more environmentally friendly products must also convince consumers to pay the added cost necessary for manufacturing such products. In other words, business ethics is not a matter of concern for managers alone. It is everyone’s responsibility.

Finally, in Good Intentions Aside: A Manager’s Guide to Resolving Ethical Problems, Boston University School of Management Professor Laura L. Nash attempts to deliver on Joanne Ciulla’s recommendation. Assuming that managers already have good intentions, the task for business ethics is to go beyond “sermonizing” in at least two ways. First, all managers face “hard issues whose solutions are not obvious,” where the “reconciliation of profit motives and ethical imperatives is an uncertain and highly tricky matter.” It is precisely the need to find those solutions and reconciliations that business ethics should address.

Second, Nash contends that business ethics should concern itself with designing and developing organisations for managers who, like all human beings, display the “normal range of ethical instincts [and] have a desire to see that these instincts are not compromised at work.” Good Intentions Aside thus zeros in on what Nash calls “the acute dilemma” “situations where you do not know what the right or wrong thing to do is” and the “acute rationalisation” “situations where you know what is right, but fail to do it” because of competitive or organisational pressures.

Nash develops a set of commonsense approaches to help managers deal with these two types of situations. She calls it the “covenantal ethic,” defined as “a manager’s primary obligation…to see that all parties in a commercial endeavour…prosper based on created value.” For example, Nash cites The Stride Rite Corporation, the $500 million manufacturer of children’s shoes. Unlike the products sold by many discount retailers, Stride Rite shoes are designed with a “longstanding, quasi-medical dedication to foot care.” The company is also a wise marketer, using appealing shoe designs and aesthetically lovely boutiques. The result: a socially responsible company that is more profitable than

traditional “bottom-line” manufacturers. Nash reports that former Stride Rite Chairman Arnold L. Hiatt “refused to be sucked into the ethics versus bottom line” problem. “‘We’re unashamedly out to make a profit,’” she quotes Hiatt, “‘and we’re very concerned about [children’s] health… We run the business on both concerns.’”

Moderation, pragmatism, minimalism: these are new words for business ethicists

Moderation, pragmatism, minimalism: these are new words for business ethicists. In each of these new approaches, what is essential is notso muchthepractical analysesoffered(as theauthorsacknowledge, much remains to be worked out) but the commitment to converse with real managers in a language relevant to the world they inhabit and the problems they face. That is an understanding of business ethics worthy of managers’ attention.

Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

Simply put, ethics involves learning what is right or wrong and then doing the right thing but "the right thing" is not nearly as straightforward as conveyed in a great deal of business ethics literature. Most ethical dilemmas in the workplace are not simply a matter of "Should Bob steal from Jack?" or "Should Jack lie to his boss?"

(Many ethicists assert there's always a right thing to do based on moral principle, and others believe the right thing to do depends on the situation – ultimately, it's up to the individual.) Many philosophers consider ethics to be the "science of conduct." Twin Cities consultants Doug Wallace and John Pekel (of the Twin Cities-based Fulcrum Group; 651-714-9033; e-mail at jonpekel@atti.com) explain that ethics includes the fundamental ground rules by which we live our lives. Philosophers have been discussing ethics for at least 2500 years, since the time of Socrates and Plato. Many ethicists consider emerging ethical beliefs to be "state of the art" legal matters, i.e., what becomes an ethical guideline today is often translated to a law, regulation or rule. Values that guide our behaviour are considered

moral values, e.g., respect, honesty, fairness, responsibility, etc. Statements around applying these values are sometimes called moral or ethical principles.

What is Business Ethics?

The concept has come to mean various things to various people. Still, generally, it's coming to know what is right or wrong in the workplace and doing what's right this is regarding the effects of products/services and relationships with stakeholders. Wallace and Pekel explain that attention to business ethics is critical during times of fundamental change times much like those faced now by businesses, both nonprofit or for-profit. In times of fundamental change, values that were previously taken for granted are now strongly questioned. Many of these values are no longer followed. Consequently, there is no clear moral compass to guide leaders through complex dilemmas about what is right or wrong. Attention to ethics in the workplace sensitises leaders and staff to act. Perhaps most importantly, attention to workplace workplaces helps ensure that leaders and managers struggle in times of crises and confusion and retain a solid moral compass. However, attention to business ethics provides numerous other benefits (these benefits are listed later in this document).

Notethatmanypeoplereactthatbusiness ethics,withitscontinuingattentionto"doingtherightthing," only asserts the obvious ("be good," "don't lie," etc.). So these people don't take business ethics seriously. For many of us, these principles of the obvious can go right out the door during times of stress. Consequently, business ethics can be strong preventative medicine. Anyway, there are many other benefits of managing ethics in the workplace.

Managing Ethics in the Workplace

Managing Ethics Programs in the Workplace

Organisations can manage ethics in their workplaces by establishing an ethics management program. Brian Schrag, Executive Secretary of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, clarifies. "Typically, ethics programs convey corporate values, often using codes and policies to guide decisions

and behaviour, and can include extensive training and evaluating, depending on the organisation. They guide ethical dilemmas." Rarely are two programs alike.

"All organisations have ethics programs, but most do not know that they do," wrote business ethics professor Stephen Brenner in the Journal of Business Ethics (1992, V11, pp. 391-399). "A corporate ethics program is made up of values, policies and activities which impact the propriety of organisation behaviours."

Bob Dunn, President and CEO of San Francisco-based Business for Social Responsibility, adds:

"Balancing competing values and reconciling them is a basic purpose of an ethics management program. Business people need more practical tools and information to understand their values and how to manage them."

Developing Codes of Ethics

According to Wallace, "A philosophy generally describes the highest values to which the company aspires to operate. It contains the `thou shalt.' A code of ethics specifies the ethical rules of operation. It's the `thou shalt not." In the latter 1980s, The Conference Board, a leading business membership organisation, found that 76% of corporations surveyed had codes of ethics.

Some business ethicists disagree that codes have any value. Usually, they explain that too much focus is put on the principles themselves and that codes themselves are not influential in managing ethics in the workplace. Many ethicists note that it's the developing and continuing dialogue around the code's most important values.

Developing Codes of Conduct

If your organisation is large, e.g., it includes several large programs or departments, you may want to develop an overall corporate code of ethics and then a separate code to guide each of your programs or departments. Regulations should not be created out of the Human Resource or Legal departments

alone, too often done. Codes are insufficient if intended only to ensure that policies are legal. All staff must see the ethics program being driven by top management.

Note that codes of ethics and princ conduct may be the same in some organisations, depending on the organisation’s culture and operations and the ultimate level of specificity in the code(s).

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas and Making Ethical Decisions

Perhaps too often, business ethics is portrayed as resolving conflicts where one option appears to be a clear choice. For example, case studies are often presented in which an employee is faced with whether or not to lie, steal, cheat, abuse another, break terms of a contract, etc. However, ethical dilemmas faced by managers are often more real-to-life and highly complex with no clear guidelines, whether in law or often in religion.

As noted earlier in this document, Doug Wallace, Twin Cities-based consultant, explains that one knows when they have a significant ethical conflict when there is the presence of a) significant value conflicts among differing interests, b) natural alternatives that are equally justifiable, and c) significant consequences on "stakeholders" in the situation. An ethical dilemma exists when one is faced with choosing among these alternatives.

What Is Business Ethics?

Definition, Overview, and Example

Business ethics may seem like an abstract concept, but it considerably influences the corporate world and beyond. Find out more.

JACQUELYN WHITEJUL 24, 2019 9:32 AM EDT

Business ethics carries a significant influence in the corporate world. Not only does it change how businessesoperateon aday-to-day-basis,butitalsoinfluences legislationaroundcorporateregulation.

Find out what business ethics is, why it is essential, and spot ethical and unethical behaviours in the workplace.

What Is Business Ethics?

Business ethics is the study of how a business should act in the face of ethical dilemmas and controversial situations. This can include several different conditions, including how a company is governed, how stocks are traded, a business' role in social issues, and more.

Business ethics is a broad field because so many different topics fall under its umbrella. It can be studiedfromvarious angles,philosophically,scientifically,orlegally.However,thelawplaysthe most significant role in influencing business ethics.

Many businesses leverage business ethics to remain clean from a legal perspective and boost their public image. It instils and ensures trust between consumers and the companies that serve them.

The modern idea of business ethics as a field is relatively new, but ethical conduct has been widely debated since bartering and trading first arose. Aristotle even proposed a few of his ideas about business ethics.

Why Is Business Ethics Important?

Business ethics are essential for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it keeps the business working within the boundaries of the law, ensuring that they aren't committing crimes against their employees, customers, consumers at large, or other parties. However, the business also has several other advantages to help them succeed if they know business ethics.

Businesses can also build trust between the company and consumers. If consumers feel that a company can be trusted, they will be more likely to choose it over its competitors. Some companies use certain

aspects of business ethics as a marketing tool, mainly highlighting a prevalent social issue. Leveraging business ethics wisely can result in increased brand equity overall.

Being an ethical business is also highly appealing to investors and shareholders. They will be more likely to sink money into the company, as following standard ethical business practices and leveraging them properly can be a path to success for many businesses.

Following business ethics can also benefit the business’s employees and operations. Attracting top talent is significantly easier for ethical companies. Employees appreciate a socially aware employer and perceive them as the kind of business that will act in the best interest of their employees. This produces more dedicated employees and can also reduce recruitment costs.

What Are the Types of Business Ethics?

Business ethics as a field of study is incredibly diverse, but many concepts can be divided into a few basic principles. Every business should strive to follow these guidelines in the pursuit of success.

Trustworthiness

Achieving trustworthiness typically involves being transparent and honest in all actions and communications. Being trustworthy can have a positive impact both internally and externally. Consumers appreciate openness, as it provides them with insight into how a business opconceptualisesceptualizes their work. Employees also appreciate this quality in a company that they work for.

Respect

Showing respect for employees and customers involves following through on all promises and providing sincere apologies and appropriate compensation if anything falls through. Showing a lack of respect will deter customers from engaging with a business and lower a business' reputation. It will also do significant damage to employee morale and increase turnover.

Fairness

Treating customers and employees with fairness and justice is a crucial type of ethics. Manipulative behaviours aren't just unethical, but they are also unhelpful and the top priority of any business should be to be helpful to its customers and employees. It is also essential to treat all people equally.

Caring

Businesses are composed of human beings. There are human beings that consume goods or services from the company, and then there are human beings that work to produce those goods or services. Being open to their struggles and coming to the table with solutions will show empathy a valuable tool for any business to utilise. Showing a sense of caring and keeping the lines of communication is not just the ethical thing to do but can also boost internal and external perceptions of the business.

Examples of Ethical Behavior in the Workplace

While understanding the basic principles of business ethics is essential, it is arguably more important to know how these ideas apply to day-to-day business operations. Here are some examples of how ethical behaviours can be practically used.

Putting Customer Needs First

Companies that build their workplace culture around putting customer needs first and hiring people who engage in this behaviour participate in ethical behaviours. For example, suppose a customer comes into a store looking for a product that meets a particular case, it's essential to provide them with the best product for the situation described instead of upselling them or encouraging them to buy a product that won't meet their needs. However, it is essential to ensure that the "customer first" attitude does not unintentionally result in the unethical treatment of employees such as encouraging them to work more overtime than allowed, forcing them to endure abuse from customers with no safe way to escape the situation and more.

Being Transparent

Transparency and clear communication are paramount when it comes to ethical workplace behaviours. Employees and consumers alike should never be lied to or told untruths, breaking trust within the business. For example, when faced with a public relations crisis, companies should call a meeting and address the problem directly with their employees. It's essential to truthfully describe the situation as it unfolded, present solutions, and accept criticism humbly.

Prioritising Workplace Diversity

Part of being fair is providing everyone with an equal opportunity to be employed. While there is much political debate around creating workplace fairness, it is undeniable that providing equal opportunity for employment to every applicant is an ethical standard. For example, if someone notices that management tends to hire the same type, they may suggest getting more involved in the hiring process. This will introduce different perspectives to the hiring process and increase the possibility that other applicants will be selected for a position.

Respecting Customer Information

Many businesses collect their customers’ personal information, whether payment information, health information, or similar. One of the priorities for any business should be securing and protecting this information. For example, a hospital may create and enforce aggressive policies around staff sharing patient information on social media. Having an employee share this kind of information on their accounts is not only disrespectful of the patient's privacy Still, it could also put the hospital at risk of violating HIPAA regulations.

Providing Resources for Reporting Unethical Behavior

If an employee notices unethical behaviour in the workplace, they should have an outlet to report these behaviours. The business is responsible for putting this infrastructure in place and designing it to insulate the employee from harm. For example, a research university should have a neutral office of compliance that is organizationally detached from the research arm of the institution. This provides a

neutral space where academics can report unethical studies or harmful practices without fear of workplace repercussions.

Examples of Unethical Behavior in the Workplace

It is essential to understand how to apply ethical behaviour prabehaviour; it is equally important to understand what qualifies as unethical behaviour. Here are some examples of what unethical situations can look like in the workplace.

Taking Sides in an Employee Argument

It is not uncommon for conflicts to arise between employees in the workplace. Ethically, it is the job of company leadership and management to remain impartial during these conflicts. For example, if two of a manager's employees are coessential manager needs to stay neutral. When a manager prefers a favourite or senior employee or provides a solution that only works favouring one party, they participate in unethical behaviour. They must allow both employees to speaktheir piece and then come to a solution that works best for both parties, as well as the business itself.

Lying

Lying to your employees or customers is the most significant way to break trust. Trust is the best source of dedication and loyalty that any business has. Once that trust is broken, it is tough to get it back. For example, if a company has a high-performing employee asking for a promotion, they may say that there is no room in the budget for an upgrade this year. A few months later, another employee may receive an advertisement. Telling apparent lies isn't just unethical it will drive people away from your business.

Misusing Company Time

This is a common ethical dilemma that many businesses face. Many employees misuse company time in various ways, whether surfing the internet during business hours, taking extended breaks, altering

timesheets, orsimilar.Misusingcompanytimeis unethical because the employeeis being paid asalary for work they did not complete or time they did not dedicate to their job.

Cultivating a Hostile Workplace

While there is bound to be some conflict in the workplace, making a safe environment for everyone is essential. Some companies unintentionally cultivate hostile or overly competitive company culture. For example, employers may encourage an unhealthily competitive environment among employees to drive productivity and innovation. However, developing this environment can tax employee mental health and even encourage unethical, sabotaging behaviour among employees who want to get ahead at work.

Ignoring Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest encourage businesses to act in ways that do not benefit their customers or employees. For example, if a manager has a relative as their direct report, that manager may treat that employee differently than their other reports. The business must address this situation. Removing conflicts of interest can become more complex when a company is publicly traded, non-profit, or receives funds from a government entity.

12 Examples of Business Ethics and Why They're Important

November 25, 2020

Businesses must conduct themselves professionally to serve their customers and employees best. Operating by a list of ethical standards helps companies to navigate challenges, provide exceptional service and retain quality employees. In this article, we explain what business ethics is with examples of standard business ethics codes of conduct:

What are business ethics?

Business ethics are moral guidelines that influence how a company serves its customers and treats its employees. Everyindustry andindividualbusiness has its ethical conduct that affects its organisational procedures and systems.

Why is ethics in business important?

Ethical conduct in business provides benefits for both business owners and consumers, including:

Ensuring legal operations

A code of ethics enforces a set of regulations and rules to keep the company operating within the parameters of the law, which protects company leaders, employees and customers. Some legal areas include environmental statutes, financial regulations and employment equity.

Building trust between companies and consumers

Ethics in business help build positive and trusting relationships between companies and consumers. When companies consistently demonstrate ethical behaviour, consumers feel more comfortable choosing that company over others.

Appealing to shareholders

Ethical businesses may also receive more financial support from shareholders because investors likely want to work with morally sound and legally abiding companies.

Attracting high-performing talent

Businesses that show compassion can attract top talent because candidates look for companies they feel will appreciate and value their contributions and act in their employees' best interests. This can improve the work produced by bringing in more committed candidates and reducing employee turnaround.

Difference between professional and personal codes of ethics

Here are the differences between these two types of codes of ethics:

Professional code of ethics: This is a company's or employee's workplace and business operations values

Personal code of ethics: This is an individual's values related to daily life and relationships.

12 examples of general business ethics

Here are the most common business codes of conduct:

Transparency

Integrity

Trustworthiness

Loyalty

Equality

Compassion

Respect

Lawfulness

Providing excellence

Responsibility

Upholding reputation

Accountability

Transparency

Transparency involves accurately representing facts, telling the truth in its entirety and communicating clearly and openly about everything a company does and says. It is the foundation of a strong relationship with customers, which directly impacts the success and stability of a company. The more candidness a company shows, the more likely the public trusts its service, product, or mission. This is especially true during public relations crises when full disclosure is imperative to overcoming business issues.

ACADEMY

Integrity

Sticking with adecision,especially whenpressuredto dootherwise,showshonourandcourage. Companies that do what they believe is morally right based on equality and fairness can demonstrate strength and commendable character.

Trustworthiness

Companies that keep promises and fulfil commitments to their employees, business partners and customers display their dedication to business ethics. Trustworthiness is a huge component of success in business because people typically like to work with and buy from those they believe are dependable and conscientious

Loyalty

Loyalty encompasses all relationships a business has, including staff, partners, investors, and consumers. Dedication allows a business to benefit from these relationships and overcome influences from outside conflicting interests. This shows the business values the advancement of the company and employees over an owner's gain.

Fairness

Companies should strive to act pretty and commit to exercising their power justly. Leaders should only use honourable methods to gain an advantage over the competition. Also, fairness relates to equality, which means having an open mind and treating everyone fairly. Justice and equality can be involved in hiring practices, marketing initiatives, business partnerships and competing within the market for new consumers or clients.

Compassion

ACADEMY

Ethical companies demonstrate genuine kindness, understanding and care for the livelihood of others. This means accomplishingbusiness goalsto producethemost good whilecausing minor damage. When a business decision needs to be made, careful consideration of the options and how each one may affect a person or community helps reduce the potential negative impacts, depending on the industry.

Respect

Having basic respect for people’s rights, privacy, and dignity including individuals within and outside the company is a crucial business ethical standard. Companies that treat all humans with respect regardless of religion, sex, race, nationality or other signifier are often reviewed positively in the public eye.

Respect also relates to client or customer privacy since companies are held to the ethical standard of keeping bank account details, health background or social security numbers private. Maintainingthislevelofconfidentialityshowsrespectand ensures thecompanyoperateswithin various industry-specific laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Lawfulness

Business ethics also abides by legal regulations and obligations regarding their business activities like taxes, worker safety and employment and labour laws. Companies that work within theboundaries ofthelegal system are more credible and honourable, which can establish a strong positive reputation as an employer that encourages high-quality candidates to apply for roles.

Providing excellence

ACADEMY

Ethical organisations strive to provide excellence by consistently delivering excellent service or products to their clients and customers. They pursue creativity and innovation, looking for the best ways to deliver their goods and constantly improve their performance, customer satisfaction and employee morale.

Responsibility

Companies with high ethical standards recognise their responsibilities to their employees and customers and understand how the conduct of their leadership affects the business. Companies have a responsibility to lead with the values and mission of the organisation to make logical decisions that benefit everyone. Company leaders should implement ethical standards and model them to others by displaying the standards themselves.

Reputation upholding

An ethical company seeks to maintainandprotect apositivereputation bybuilding amotivating work culture, keeping investors engaged, and providing exceptional customer service Upholding a good reputation means engaging in conduct that uplifts the company. If any action istakentoundermineacompany'sreputation,leadersneedtohandlethesituationappropriately, utilising other ethical standards such as transparency, accountability and responsibility.

Accountability

Ethical businesses accept responsibility for all decisions made as a company and admit their mistakes to all of those who may be affected by a misstep, including shareholders, employees and the public. In addition to taking accountability, they also accept any consequences and do so transparently.

12 Ethical Principles for Business Executives

Ethical values, translated into active language establishing standards or rules describing the kind of behaviour an honest person should and should not engage in, are ethical principles. The following codes incorporate the characteristics and values that most people associate with ethical behaviour

HONESTY. Ethical executives are honest and truthful in all their dealings, and they do not deliberately mislead or deceive others by misrepresentations, overstatements, partial truths, selective omissions, or any other means.

INTEGRITY. Ethical executives demonstrate personal integrity and the courage of their convictions by doing what they think is right even when there is tremendous pressure to do otherwise; they are moral, honourable and upright; they will fight for their beliefs. They will not sacrifice principle for expediency, be hypocritical, or be evil.

PROMISE-KEEPING & TRUSTWORTHINESS. Ethical executives are worthy of trust. They are candid and forthcoming in supplying relevant information and correcting misapprehensions of fact. They make every reasonable effort to fulfil the letter and spirit of their promises and commitments. They do not interpret agreements unreasonably technical or leto to rationalise non-compliance or create justifications for escaping their responsibilities

LOYALTY. Ethical executives are worthy of trust, demonstrate fidelity and commitment to persons and institutions by friendship in adversity, support and devotion to duty; they do not use or disclose information learned in confidence for personal advantage. They safeguard the ability to make independent professional judgments by scrupulously avoiding undue influences and conflicts of interest. They are loyal to their companies and colleagues. If they decide to accept other employment, they provide reasonable notice, respect the proprietary information of their former employer, and refuse to engage in any activities that take undue advantage of their previous positions.

ACADEMY

FAIRNESS. Ethical executives are fair and just in all dealings; they do not exercise power arbitrarily. They do not use overreaching nor indecent means to gain or maintain any advantage nor take undue advantage of another’s mistakes or difficulties. Fair persons manifest a commitment to justice, the equal treatment of individuals, tolerance for and acceptance of diverse and open-minded; they are willing to admit they are wrong and, where appropriate, change their positions and beliefs.

CONCERNFOROTHERS.Ethicalexecutivesarecaring,compassionate,benevolentandkind; they like the Golden Rule, help those in need, and seek to accomplish their business objectives in a manner that causes the least harm and the most significant positive good.

RESPECT FOR OTHERS. Ethical executives demonstrate respect for the human dignity, autonomy, privacy, rights, and interests of all those who have a stake in their decisions; they are courteous and treat all people with equal respect and dignity regardless of sex, race or national origin.

LAW-ABIDING. Ethical executives abide by-laws, rules and regulations relating to their business activities.

COMMITMENTTOEXCELLENCE.Ethical executives pursueexcellence in performing their duties, are well informed and prepared, and constantly endeavour to increase their proficiency in all areas of responsibility.

LEADERSHIP. Ethical executives are conscious of the responsibilities and opportunities of their leadership position and seek to be positive ethical role models by their conduct and by helping to create an environment in which moral reasoning and ethical decision making are highly prized.

REPUTATION AND MORALE. Ethical executives seek to protect and build the company’s good reputation and the morale of its employees by engaging in no conduct that might

ACADEMY

undermine respect and by taking whatever actions are necessary to correct or prevent inappropriate behaviour of others.

ACCOUNTABILITY. Ethical executives acknowledge and accept personal responsibility for the moral quality of their decisions and omissions to themselves, colleagues, companies, and communities.

Recognising Unethical Business Activities

Researchers from Brigham Young University tell us that all unethical business activities will fall into one of the following categories:

Youaretakingthings thatdon’tbelong to you.Theunauthoriseduseofsomeoneelse’s property or taking property under pretences is taking something that does not belong to you. Even the most minor offence, such as using the postage meter at your office for personal mailing letters or exaggerating your travel expenses, belongs in this category of ethical violations.

Saying things you know are not valid. When trying for promotion and advancement, fellow employees often discredit their coworkers. Falsely assigning blame or inaccurately reporting conversations is lying. Although “This is the way the game is played around here” is a common justification, saying untrue things is an ethical violation.

They are giving or allowing false impressions. The salesperson who permits a potential customer to believe that cardboard boxes will hold the customer’s tomatoes for long-distance shipping when the salesperson knows the boxes are not strong enough has given a false impression. A car dealer who fails to disclose that a car has been in an accident misleads potential customers.

They are buying influence or engaging in a conflict of interrowonflict of interest occurs when the potential for personal gain influences an employee's or government official's official

ACADEMY

responsibilities. Suppose a company awards a construction contract to a firm owned by the father of the state attorney general while the state attorney general’s office is investigating that company. If this construction award has the potential to shape the outcome of the investigation, a conflict of interest has occurred.

Hiding or divulging information. Failing to disclose the results of medical studies that indicate your firm’s new drug has significant side effects is the ethical violation of hiding information that the product could be harmful to purchasers. Taking your firm’s product development or trade secrets to a new place of employment constitutes the ethical violation of divulging proprietary information.

They were taking unfair advantage. Many current consumer protection laws were passed because so many businesses took unfair advantage of people who were not educated or unable to discern complex contracts' nuances. Credit disclosure requirements, truth-in-lending provisions, and new regulations on auto leasing all resulted because businesses misled consumers who could not easily follow the jargon of extended, complex agreements.

They are committing improper personal behaviour. Although the ethical aspects of an employee’s right to privacy are still debated, it has become increasingly clear that personal conduct outside the job can influence performance and company reputation. Thus, a company drivermustabstainfromsubstanceabusebecauseofsafetyissues.Eventhetraditionalcompany holiday party and summer picnic has come under scrutiny due to the possibility that employees at and following these events might harm others through alcohol-related accidents.

They are abusing power and mistreating individuals. Suppose a manager sexually harasses an employee or subjects employees to humiliating corrections or reprimands in the presence of customers. In some cases, laws protect employees. Many situations, however, are interpersonal abuse that constitutes an ethical violation.

ACADEMY

They are permitting organisational abuse. Many U.S. firms with operations overseas, such as Apple, Nike, and Levi Strauss, have faced issues of corporate abuse. The unfair treatment of workers in international operations appears in child labour, demeaning wages, and excessive work hours. Although a business cannot change the culture of another country, it can perpetuate or stop abuse through its operations there.

They are violating rules. Many organisations use regulations and processes to maintain internal controls or respect the authority of managers. Although these rules may seem burdensome to employees trying to serve customers, a violation may be considered an unethical act.

You are condoning unethical actions.

What if you witnessed a fellow employee embezzling company funds by forging her signature on acheck? Would you reporttheviolation?Awinking toleranceofothers’ unethical behaviour is itself unethical.

Arthur Schwartz, “The 5 Most Common Unethical Behaviors in the Workplace,” Philadelphia Business Journal, http://www.bizjournals.com, January 26, 2015; Marianne Moody Jennings, Case Studies in Business Ethics, 2nd edition (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1996), pp. xx–xxii.

After recognising that a situation is unethical, the next question is, what do you do? A person’s action is partially based upon their ethical philosophy. The environment in which we live and work also plays a role in our behaviour. This section describes personal philosophies and legal factors that influence our choices when confronting an ethical dilemma.

Justice The Question of Fairness

Another factor influencing individual business ethics is justice, or what is fair according to prevailing standardsof society.Weall expect lifetobe reasonably fair.You expect your exams, to be honest, the grading, and your wages to be fair, based on the type of work being done.

Today we take justice to mean an equitable distribution of the burdens and rewards that society has to offer. The distributive process varies from society to society. Those in a democratic society believe in the “equal pay for equal work” doctrine, in which individuals are rewarded based on the value the free market places on their services. Because the market places different values on different occupations, the rewards, such as wages, are not necessarily equal. Nevertheless, many regard the tips as just. A politician who argued that a supermarket clerk should receive the same pay as a physician, for example, would not receive many votes from the American people. At the other extreme, communist theorists have argued that society would serve justice in which individuals' burdens and rewards were distributed according to their abilities and needs, respectively.

Utilitarianism Seeking the Best for the Majority

One of the philosophies that may influence choices between right and wrong is utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of an action taken by a person or organisation. The notion that people should act to generate the greatest good for the most significant number is derived from utilitarianism. When an action affects the majority adversely, it is morally wrong. One problem with this philosophy is that it is nearly impossible to accurately determine how it involves many people.

Another problem is that utilitarianism always involves both winners and losers. If sales are slowing and a manager decides to fire five people rather than putting everyone on a 30-hour workweek, the 20 people who keep their full-time jobs are winners, but the other five are losers.

A final criticism of utilitarianism is that some “costs,” although small relative to the potential good, are so harmful that some segments of society find them unacceptable. Reportedly, the backs of animals a year are deliberately broken so that scientists can conduct spinal cord research that could someday lead to a cure for spinal cord injuries. Howseveralnumber of people, the “costs” are too horrible for this type of research to continue.

Following Our Obligations and Duties

The philosophy that says people should meet their obligations and duties when analysing an ethical dilemma is deontology. This means that a person will follow their responsibilities to another individual or society because upholding one’s commitment is considered ethically correct. For instance, people who follow this philosophy will always keep their promises to a friend and follow the law. They will produce very consistent decisions because they will be based on the individual’s set duties. Note that this theory is not necessarily concerned with the welfare of others. Say, for example, a technician for Orkin Pest Control has decided that it’s his ethical duty (and is very practical) to always be on time to meetings with homeowners. Today he is running late. How is he supposed to drive? Is the technician supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to uphold the law, or is he supposed to arrive at the client’s home late, breaking his commitment to be on time? This scenario of conflicting obligations does not lead us to a clear, ethically correct resolution, nor does it protect the welfare of others from the technician’s decision.

Individual Rights

In our society, individuals and groups have certain rights under certain conditions regardless of external circumstances. These rights serve as guides when making individual ethical decisions. Human rights imply that certain rights to life, to freedom, to the pursuit of happiness are bestowed at birth and cannot be arbitrarily taken away. Denying an individual or group's rights is considered unethical and illegal in most, though not all, parts of the world. The government

ACADEMY

Digital Map Business Ethics & Professionalism

and its laws guarantee certain rights, considered legal rights. The U.S. Constitution and its amendments and state and federal statutes define the rights of American citizens. Those rights can be disregarded only in extreme circumstances, such as wartime. Legal rights include the freedom of religion, speech, and assembly; protection from improper arrest and searches and seizures; and proper access to counsel, confrontation of witnesses, and cross-examination in criminal prosecutions. Also held to be fundamental is the right to privacy in many matters. Legal rights are to be applied without regard to race, colour, creed, gender, or ability.

How are individual business ethics formed?

What is utilitarianism?

How can you recognise unethical activities?

What philosophies and concepts shape personal ethical standards?

Ethics is a set of moral standards for judging whether something is right or wrong. A practical approach to setting personal ethical standards focuses on the consequences of an action taken by a person or organisation. According to this approach, people should generate the greatest good for the most significant number. Every human is entitled to certain rights, such as freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Another approach to ethical decision-making is justice, or what is fair according to accepted standards.

Global businesses divided on implications of COVID-19 crisis for company ethics

Press release, 26 Jun 2020 London, GB

90% of respondents believe that disruption, as a result of COVID-19, poses a risk to ethical business conduct

ACADEMY

43% of board members think the pandemic could lead to better business ethics; only 21% of junior employees agree

55% of board members have confidence in management teams to demonstrate professional integrity; only 37% of junior employees share the same sentiment

As businesses start to look beyond the COVID-19 crisis, the EY Global Integrity Report 2020 reveals divisions on the repercussions for company ethics due to the pandemic.

The findings are part of a survey of almost 3,000 respondents from 33 countries up to February 2020, analysing the ethical challenges companies face in turbulent times. An additional 600 employees across all levels of seniority were surveyed at the height of the COVID-19 crisis in April in companies across six countries - China, Germany, Italy, the UK, India and the US.

The majority (90%) of respondents surveyed during the crisis believe that disruption, as a result of COVID-19, poses a risk to ethical business conduct. Still, there is a concerning disparity between boards, senior management and employees on the implications for compliance. While 43% of board members and 37% of senior managers surveyed believe the pandemic could lead to change and better business ethics, only 21% of junior employees appear to agree.

The survey highlights that signs of an integrity disconnect at different levels of wiorganisationstions were evident even before the pandemic. More than half of board members (55%) believed management demonstrate professional integrity, but only 37% of junior employees shared the same sentiment. In addition, over half of the board members (55%) believe managers in their organisation would sacrifice integrity for short-term gain.

Andrew Gordon, EY Global Forensic & Integrity Services Leader, says:

“We are in the middle of the fastest transformation the global economy has ever experienced.

ACADEMY

Extreme pressures can lead to moral and ethical decisions that organisations must respond to quickly and under increased scrutiny. Leaders must have confidence that their employees will act with integrity at all levels. Yet, the tone from the top is essential, and we can see that some employees do not have faith that their boards and senior leaders will be making the right choices. Now is the time to ensure that leaders act in a way that demonstrates to all their stakeholders a commitment to doing the right thing now, next and beyond.”

Lack of trust and data integrity continue to hinder business efforts.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, most junior employees (53%) were not very confident that their management abided by relevant laws, codes of conduct, and industry regulations. In addition, 13%ofall respondents appearedprepared to ignoreethical misconduct bythirdparties to boost their career or pay, with the figure rising to 20% among board members.

In addition, four times more board members and senior management (12%) said they would be willing to accept a bribe, compared to junior employees (3%). Furthermore,14% of board directors and 15% of senior managers would be willing to mislead external parties such as regulators.

The survey found that companies were overconfident about their data protection policies, with 86% of those surveyed stating that their organisation is doing everything needed to protect customer data privacy. Despite this, 59% of respondents admitted not training employees on applicable data privacy regulations, such as the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).

Some of these challenges have been magnified as a direct result of the pandemic. Aside from worsening market conditions, 33% of respondents surveyed at the height of the COVID-19 crisis in April said that disruption to traditional working patterns and an increase in remote working is the top risk to the ethical conduct of their organisation. In addition, 28% of respondents thought disruption to supply chains and reductions in employee benefits and compensation (24%) posed heightened risks to their company’s ethics.

ACADEMY

Gordon says: “Lack of trust and integrity was already a challenge before COVID-19, but the pandemic has heightened some of these risks. What is important now is how organisations deal with this risk, what action they take, and what frameworks they put in place.”

Demonstrating integrity pays off

Despite these turbulent times, respondents to the primary survey believe that operating with corporate integrity can create significant benefits for organisations, including strengthening reputation (50%), attracting new customers (41%) and retaining talent (40%).

Gordon says: “As businesses begin to reframe their future, the pandemic must be a catalyst for change. Senior management must take the lead and ensure the right approach against unethical conduct by putting integrity at the centre of operations and assessing their corporate culture and strengthofcomplianceprograms.Organisationsthatcommittodoingtherightthing,evenwhen nobody is watching, will emerge from this pandemic stronger and more united.”

5 Ethical Challenges During COVID-19 That Businesses Need to Meet

The pandemic has spotlighted the inequalities already present in our society. At this time, the ethical challenges to businesses may be familiar, but they take on new meaning and priority now. Trauma heightens people’s sensitivity to actions. What happens particularly between workers and management during this crisis will shape their relationship for decades to come.

Businesses that consider these five ethical challenges can particularly shine now:

Recognising Individual Circumstances

Reacting with Empathy When Feeling Out of Control

Maintaining Transparency When Feeling Out of Control

ACADEMY

Not Taking Advantage of the Situation to Push Other Agendas

Remembering the Power of Healthcare and Benefit Coverage While Not Abusing Them

But first, before delving into the details of these challenges, let’s take a brief look at how the working landscape has changed. This helps highlight some priorities.

Front-line “Essential” Workers in the Supply Chain and Service Industries

Employees who have become the new essential workers keeping supply chains and services open during the pandemic have had their jobs, and the expectations from those jobs change suddenly. They may have often felt under-appreciated by their employers, and now they may at times feel that their employers are not providing enough personal protective equipment, social distancing, and other measures to protect workers’ health. Many of these workers also never signed up to work jobs that might involve putting their own lives and the lives of their loved ones at serious risk. If a person thought that she was putting herself through school, for example, by ringing people up at a cash register, it might no longer be worth it, in her view, to come to work if she risks infecting the grandmother with whom she lives.

Resentment toward these jobs may also underlie many of these concerns as they are, even in good economic times, underpaid, insecure, overly subject to employers’ changing demands, and under-appreciated. This population is economically vulnerable to a great extent, as supplychain and service-industry pay have not risen with the economy in real terms for decades. Moreover, much of this population is working harder than ever for take-home pay that may not be as much as what unemployment offers.

Privileged White-Collar Workers Who Can More Easily Work from Home

Meanwhile, for white-collar workers who find it easier to continue their jobs from home, the issues around COVID-19 manifest slightly differently. Fewer of these workers are likely to lose

ACADEMY

theirjobs,buttheyarealsonervousaboutworseningeconomicconditionsandknock-oneffects. They know that their jobs could be next.

For them, the average workday even while taking care of children unexpectedly at home has extended considerably. Studies of recent Internet traffic and work-activity patterns reveal that such white-collar workers work an additional three hours per day more than if they were coming intotheoffice.Yes, theremaybeslacking among young,less-senior remoteemployees Still, seasoned employees and middle-aged employees are working harder than ever while feeling their worlds are coming apart. Unsurprisingly, these rising expectations also often take a more significant toll on women. Working mothers are shouldering an average additional 65hours-a-week of unpaid care and other duties while also putting in longer a business day.

The ethical risks to businesses in thinking about these different types of workers arise from a series of challenges:

Honourable Challenge #1: Recognizing Individual Circumstances

Businesses may not understand the differences among their workers. Each person’s situation may be very different, and a one-size-fits-all approach to oversight may be deeply counterproductive. Research shows that employers who overreact in clamping down on diligent, hardworking employees lose them when the economy improves because of the resentment they feel toward the company for its overreaction.

Ethical Challenge #2: Reacting with Empathy When Feeling Out of Control

Employers may feel particularly out of control of their employees when they start working remotely. Worker surveillance software is flying off the virtual shelves. By March 2020, requests for worker surveillance systems had tripled within weeks, and phones had been “ringing off the hook” for orders. Big financial enterprises have already told their employees that they are being actively monitored at home, that their keystrokes are being recorded, and

ACADEMY

that they are being photographed every 5-10 minutes. Especially when cameras look into workers’ bedrooms, kitchens, and living rooms, workers may feel no break from the workplace, leading to burnout, anger, rage, and even sabotaging behaviours.

Ethical Challenge #3: Maintaining Transparency When Feeling Out of Control

When times are uncertain for both employers and employees, being honest about the situation is most appreciated and perhaps most challenging. Employers may want to hide their financial conditions because they are worried about employees jumping ship. But employers who are transparent with employees build a sense of togetherness. Research shows that such employers inspire employees’ creativity, a sense of psychological safety in such honesty, and teamwork. How employers react toward their employees in a crisis is remembered and becomes a test of the relationship.

Ethical Challenge #4: Not Taking Advantage of the Situation to Push Other Agendas

Part of the resentment that many supply-chain and service-industry workers feel toward their employers during the pandemic is layered on top of a deep distrust of management’s motives, even in good times.

With the pandemic, the expansion of powers and control that have come and will continue to make many people both workers and ethical managers uneasy. New tools being introduced for public-health rationales, or at least initially sold as such, may continue to stay with us, as the new normal, long past the time of emergency for which they were introduced. Consider, for example, the new location-tracking app PwC, which employers will be able to install on employees’ often-personal cell phones. Already, some three out of five Americans say that they would not, or could not, voluntarily install a similar app on their phones were Apple or Google to offer it to the public. Now employers may require the use of such an app in the workplace, which stays on employees’ phones, tracing exactly who they talk to, where, and when.

ACADEMY

Even more blatantly, Amazon has been making heat maps of its Whole Foods stores. Not, as one might think, to help if employees or customers might have fevers from the coronavirus, but explicitly to track and prevent employee union organising. Amazon’s firing of workers for COVID-19 safety violations and image control infractions has allegedly been a cover to get rid of some of its most vocal critics among warehouse and white-collar staff. In April 2020, notes released from an Amazon executives’ meeting revealed the company’s PR campaign to smear at least one worker personally instead of dealing with employee safety or working condition concerns. Such practices and other ways of intimidating workers have been disturbingly widespread among companies during the pandemic.

Just as we would want our public officials to leave their political differences aside in the fight against COVID-19, workers are asking for more far-sighted leadership from their employers as well.

Ethical Challenge #5: Remembering the Power of Healthcare and Benefit Coverage While Not Abusing Them

It is not an accident that most frontline, essential workers during the pandemic are women (75 per cent of most cities’ healthcare workers) and minorities (60 per cent of the nation’s warehouse and delivery workers). These groups are contracting the virus in higher numbers because of their exposure and dying at higher rates in the case of minorities. It is particularly harmful under these conditions that such workers may feel that they lack substantive moral support from their employers, leading to higher compliance with health safety orders.

In this crisis, healthcare coverage and similar benefits tied to employment become even more critical. Employers should not arbitrarily threaten the end of healthcare of coverage and other benefits. With employers’ elevated powers comes elevated responsibilities not to harm or manipulate workers and their terrified families by taking more significant decisions that may affect workers’ healthcare coverage too casually.

ACADEMY

As is true with any approach to an ethical challenge, it is essential that employers slow down, think through the entire human ramifications of their actions, and remember empathy as much as they can. When the stakes are most elevated, businesses can come through the pandemic with stronger relationships with workers by demonstrating thoughtful, ethical actions.

J.S. Nelson is a law professor at Villanova Law School, a professor (by courtesy) in the Management & Operations Department of Villanova Business School, a senior fellow at Wharton’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research Ethical Systems Collaborator.

This article originally appeared on June 3, 2020, on thicalsystems.org. They were used with the kind permission of ethicalsystems.org.

The Importance of Communication in Business

Last Updated: Oct 19, 2020, | Office Communication

One of the primary responsibilities of executives is motivating their employees. The only way to do so is effectively communicating with your company. Good communication skills allow you to be a successful leader and encourage your employees to complete the common goals at hand.

When an employee is promoted to a leadership position, chances are they aren’t equipped with the skills they’ll need in their new role. However, it’s crucial to the ssssssssssssssssss that professionals on communication adequately train them.

Goodcommunicationmeansyouraudience,withcompleteunderstanding, receivesthemessage you are incomplete to send. The following tips will help executives understand the importance of communication in business.

Communicating Objectives

ACADEMY

One reason communication is so important is that it can make or break how something gets done within the company. When an executive communicates an assignment or a task to an employee, it’s imperative to share the study effectively. If the executive’s communication skills are poor, the employee may not fully understand the job, resulting in suffering

Speak Their Language

It’s lllllllll to understand how another person thinks to “speak their language” or get your point acrossin themost effectiveway.This critical way ofcommunicationrequires youto understand the person you’re speaking to and their perspective. This will allow the executive to alter their message to fit the executive.

Be Reliable

Executives need to gain the trust of their employees, so they’ll need to communicate the truth at all times. Sharing the truth may be difficult, but it’s the right thing to do in certain situations, and employees will respect it. Whether this means being bold and taking risks, giving honest feedback and asking for feedback, or disagreeing, it’s the most effective way to get results.

Good Communication Equals Better Business

When someone in a leadership role demonstrates good communication skills, this reflects the entire company. Relationships flourish, tasks are correctly completed, and every employee works together effectively to achieve the common goal.

The first place to start in business is understanding how important communication is within your company. Once you realise how communication skills can positively impact your company, you can begin working to improve these skills within your business.

ACADEMY

Digital Map Business Ethics & Professionalism

If you believe that the executives within your company could benefit from leadership training involving communication and interpersonal skills training, click here to set up a consultation with Arden Coaching.

Communicating effectively for business

Effective communication is a vital tool for any business owner. Your success at getting your point across can be the difference between sealing a deal and missing out on a potential opportunity.

You should clearly explain company policies to customers and clients and answer their questions about your products or services. It is crucial to communicate effectively in negotiations to ensure you achieve your goals.

Communication is also essential within the business. Effective communication can help foster a good working relationship between you and your staff, which can improve morale and efficiency.

This guide will explain the critical aspects of verbal and non-verbal communication, listening to and understanding others, and making the best possible first impression on the people you encounter in and around your business.

Understanding communication

Success in any conversation is likely to be achieved through both parties listening to and understanding each other. Practice the following skills in any business situation where you communicate with others.

Practical communication skills for building positive interpersonal relationships include: ➢ active listening;

ACADEMY

Digital Map

Business Ethics & Professionalism

➢ understanding non-verbal signals;

➢ maintaining eye contact;

➢ assertiveness;

➢ being mindful of people's individual space;

➢ using positive body language;

➢ dealing with different points of view.

➢ Personal awareness skills that help with communication include:

➢ understanding the benefits of a positive attitude;

➢ awareness of how others perceive you;

➢ self-confidence;

➢ presentation dressing appropriately for different occasions.

It also helps to consider your communications circumstances, such as the situational and cultural context.

Verbal communication

Verbal communication can bring great rewards to your organisation when carried out successfully, but it can also be hazardous to your business when approached the wrong way. The words you use are essential, but equally important is how you express them.

Using positive language

You are more likely to achieve positive outcomes when you use positive rather than negative language.

Positive language is helpful and encouraging; it suggests alternatives and offers solutions to problems. It is a language that stresses positive actions and consequences.

ACADEMY

For example, suppose you are negotiating with a supplier who is not willing tounwillingrice. In that case, your language should convey the desire for a 'win-win' scenario (i.e. a situation that both parties can be happy with). This is likely to make your supplier more willing to negotiate (perhaps on issues other than prpricessuch as delivery costs or payment terms) than if you also refuse to budge and accuse them of being inflexible.

Using 'I' statements

'I' statements, rather than 'you' statements, often yield better results in verbal exchanges.

For example, 'I need more information to make a decision' sounds much better than 'You need to give me more information before making a decision The 'I' statement sounds better because you are saying what you need rather than telling someone what they should do.

Assertiveness versus aggression

Assertiveness (often through 'I' statements) is stating what you plan to do. Instead of coming across as hostile, you make a statement about something you feel or perceive.

Aggression is entirely different and is usually perceived as hostile or unfriendly behaviour. It often uses the word 'you'. People can become unhappy when you tell them what to do. It is wise to soften language when asking employees to perform tasks, as they are likely to respond better to requests than orders.

Consistent assertiveness shows others that you're confident and open to suggestions but won't be taken advantage of, leading to a mutually acceptable outcome.

Speaking style

ACADEMY

Digital Map

Business Ethics & Professionalism

Speaking style means the tone, pitch, accent, volume and pace of your voice.

The same sentence can be conveyed and understood entirely differently based on how it is said. People you speak to can be motivated by an upbeat speaking style, just as a negative manner can put them off You should always try to talk with a cheerful voice avoid monotone responses or speaking too quickly or slowly. Be as possible, and try to engage the listener, as this is far more likely to promote the response you are after than if they leave the conversation deflated.

Asking questions

The more you can find out about a person's needs, wants, interests and situation, the easier it is to reach win-win outcomes. You learn more about people by asking them the right questions and by taking the time to listen to their answers.

People also tend to respond well when they feel their opinion is being sought genuinely by another person, particularly in a business where conversations can have significant consequences for both parties.

Types of questions

You can use the following types of questions in any business situation: open questions questions that require a person to elaborate or explain, helping to build rapportandencouragingthemtoopenup.Well-chosenavailablequestionsencourageresponses to questions you might not have thought to ask; for example, 'How has your business changed in the last few years?'

closed questions questions that require only a short, specific answer, such as 'yes' or 'no', such as 'Are you happy with the proposal?' These are good for finding out facts, limiting or

ACADEMY

guiding a discussion in a particular way and gathering specific information to generate an open question.

Probing questions more targeted questions designed to develop a more specific understanding of the other party's view on a matter. For example: 'How could Ichange my offer so that this proposal will be a win-win for both of us?'

confirmation questions are used when you need to ensure the other party understands your message. 'What benefits do you think this proposal will bring to your organisation in the next year?'

Summary confirmation questions used to clarify your understanding of the other party's needs. For example: 'Could Isummarise what you've just toldme so Ican check I've understood you? You said that you want a computer system that will allow you and your staff to complete their tasks in half the time and train all your staff on using this new system?'

Using questions in a conversation

Generally, you will succeed when using a range of question types in a conversation. Using open and closed questions together can help you guide a conversation and encourage the other party to contribute.

Using only open questions can result in digression a conversation straying off course. Using only closedquestions can makeit too easy for the answeringpartyto say just yes or no.Because they only encourage a primary response, closed questions are not good rapport builders or conversation starters. Therefore, it is essential to use both questions for maximum success and engagement.

Question styles to avoid

Some types of questions do not lend themselves well to business situations. These include:

ACADEMY

Digital Map

Business Ethics & Professionalism

destructive questions 'So you're saying it's my fault?'

leading or manipulative questions 'You'll have that done by tomorrow, right?'

multiple questions at once 'When will you want it? Or don't you want it? You can't get it anywhere else, can you?'

Asking these questions does nothing for your credibility or your ability to negotiate efficiently and effectively.

Listening effectively

It's one thing to ask good questions it's another to take on board the answers. You can often be distracted by your thoughts, feelings and opinions and tend to hear what you want or, more usually, what you expect to hear.

You're often thinking about your next move or what you should say next, or you're trying to second guess where the other party might be leading you. To listen effectively, you need to suspend these internal thoughts and give your full attention to the speaker. Only then can you hear what they're saying?

Active listening

Active listening means paying attention to the speaker verbal and non-verbal cues. For example, if you see them look down or appear uncomfortable in some way while saying, 'That's all I can tell you at the moment,' you might deduce that they are withholding information.

This type of active listening alerts you to the opportunity for a well constructed open or probing question to gather the missing information. If you're not listening actively, it can be easy to miss signs like these.

ACADEMY

Paying attention

It is vital to make sure you don't let your attention wander. Essential information can be missed if you are not alert and engaged. This can lead to misunderstandings later on or possibly embarrassing situations where you appear to have forgotten something you have been told.

One way to help you concentrate during a business conversation is to ask the speaker questions. This will help you guide the conversation where you want it to go and at the pace you want, but it can also ensure your mind is focused on the subject at hand.

Confirm your understanding

Active listening should ultimately lead to a complete understanding of what another person has said. You can do this by feeding back to them, in your own words, your knowledge of what they've said.

An easy way to do this is to clarify, paraphrase or summarise. Examples of summary questions in these cases include:

'So what you're saying is...?'

'So what you need from me is...?'

'So in summary, what we've agreed is...?'

It's usually a good idea to check your understanding regularly during a conversation. You can paraphrase or summarise:

➢ when the other party has provided a large chunk of information

➢ whenever something is unclear to you

➢ when moving to a new topic or area for discussion

ACADEMY

Digital Map Business Ethics & Professionalism

➢ at the end of the debate.

Clarification is also a helpful tool when the other party asks for a lot of information. If their questions are poorly structured, too broad or ambiguous, you might give away too much information by answering them straight away. It's often a good idea to clarify a question before answering it.

ACADEMY

REFERENCES

https://hbr.org/1993/05/whats-the-matter-with-business-ethics

https://managementhelp.org/businessethics/index.htm

https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/what-is-business-ethics-15026364

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/example-of-ethics

https://josephsononbusinessethics.com/2010/12/12-ethical-principles-for-business-executives/

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-nl/services/255c9f79/business-ethics-and-anticorruption

https://opentextbc.ca/businessopenstax/chapter/understanding-business-ethics/

https://www.ey.com/en_gl/news/2020/06/global-businesses-divided-on-implications-ofcovid-19-crisis-for-company-ethics

https://www.businessethicsresourcecenter.org/5-ethical-challenges-during-covid-19-thatbusinesses-need-to-meet/

https://ardencoaching.com/business-communication-importance/

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/marketing-sales/managingrelationships/communicating-effectively/non-verbal