Corporate Responsibility and Society

This article discusses the ethical and corporate responsibility issues in various scenarios. It covers topics such as the Difference principle, Virtues test, and spying for national security. Desklib provides study material with solved assignments, essays, and dissertations.

Running head: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
Student’s Name
University Name
Author’s Name

2CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
Table of Contents
Chapter 2 (Week 2) & (Week 3)................................................................................................3
Chapter 3 (Week 4)....................................................................................................................7
Chapter 4 (Week 5)....................................................................................................................8
Week 5.....................................................................................................................................10
Reference list............................................................................................................................11

3CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
Chapter 2 (Week 2) & (Week 3)
3.
Gaining from the Generalisation test, it might be concluded that reasons, in order to
justify the undertaking of any action, must show rationality towards the conception that the
same reason is applicable to any case that involves the same circumstances. In this particular
case, the driver is tarrying to bridge the time that he has lost due to dragging his lunch time.
Hence, he travels with the sirens on. He supposes that it is justifiable to do as this might
affect his job. However, it does not necessarily imply, according to the Generalisation test
that other drivers in similar circumstances would suppose that it is right to undertake the
same decision also. Hence, the decision of the driver cannot be accepted as a general practice.
7.
The needs of the two entities are different on these cases. The boarder is not
associated with the risk of flying the plane. His perspective is bounded by the thought of
occupying space for his carry along. However, the driver is concerned about flying in a
responsible manner. He therefore demands that the plane be boarded in an organised and
calm way. The man who is in a haste is not considering the interests of the others who he
wants to involve to get his wish fulfilled. According to the ideas of Wang, Wang and Xu
(2018), this is certainly not a generalizable action. All the people in the same situation might
not want the same to happen as this person had wanted.
8.
The act of taking a detour is a special case. The person had wished to take the detour
on a special requirement. It was the question of urgency. Although there is no hard and fast
ethical outlook of the matter, this is not generalizable also. Generalizable is what people
generally does. Most of the drivers take the main artery to travel. However, it is arguable that

4CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
some of them are unaware of the detour also. Again, another argument is that although some
others are aware of the detour, they do not avail it. Hence, it is not right to generalise this
particular action. This is just an abstract practice.
11.
Stealing is absolutely abominable. It is absolutely illogical to substantiate the cause of
stealing since unlawful occupancy is not acceptable in any society or community. Besides, it
is the mutual trust of man that makes the world going. The product stolen by the person might
be despicable. However, it has considerable sales value, otherwise it would not have been put
up for sale. Hence, this theft would result in the economic loss of a person that is morally and
socially unacceptable. Besides, the stealer verified that the chance of being caught are
negligible. Gil et al. (2017), also opines that this is the on looking attitude of a criminal, since
people with correct mentality would never think of stealing under lean security at all.
Definitely, this is nota generalizable action.
12.
First of all, this is strictly non-generalizable because if such a thing occurs the
cohesion and chaos in the front would increase and this would elongate the queue and
increase the period of delay. Besides, it is evident that in spite of having to wait for long,
most of the vehicles were picking up the tail end of the queue. Hence, it is not the mentality
of all the drivers to merge up at the front. Using the second lane is a rare practice that is
chosen by some drivers. This can be justified inky on one condition. In case if the drivers are
having some urgency or there is an ambulance stuck, it might resort to the said practice.
Otherwise, it is not generalizable.
21.

5CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
It is impossible that stealing product (even of nominal price) is justifiable and rational.
The principles of the Utilitarian and the Generalization test might be applied here. The
possible reasons for giving consent to stealing might be the following. It might be so that the
person needed the money more than the shopkeeper. Else, the singer was his favourite.
Hence, the craze for the CD and the lack of money could have had a combined effect on the
person and prompted him to steal. Lastly, the lean security could have been a prompting
factor.
However, according to Rota et al. (2016), none of the above stated factors are
contributing to the general interest. All of them are centrifugal to the fulfilment of the wishes
of the person in particular. Nevertheless, the act of stealing cannot be generalised. This is
directly linked to moral degeneration. Many people might have passion for music as he does.
If this is generalised then that means that all the people who are passionate over the songs of
any particular singer would steal CDs whenever they get a chance.
23.
The Concept of Utilitarian holds that in order to reason out any action there should be
a good cause. The driving factor behind the action decides that the action is instrumentally
good or inherently good. In the light of these three causes, none of the three factors passes the
Utilitarian test. There is no sort of goodness in emitting the polluting smokestack at night, in
order to avoid the EPA. The second option is not good also. The action is only inherently
good for the people of a certain geographic area. However relocation means that the life and
safety of the people of o6ther places would be at stake owing to relocation. Pollution would
spread at Mexico then. Even the third choice that is resignation, is not also a suitable option.
This would only shift powers to new hands not necessarily implying that the organisation

6CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
would take up the correct measures after the resignation also. Hence none of the actions are
generalizable.
27.
Virtue ethics demand that individuals or entities should pertain to some of ethical
standard like traditional culture or religious culture. Secondly analysing the requirements of
the Virtues test it can be commented that human beings are supposed to inherently exhibit
some general trends like trust, friendship, and honour and fore mostly loyalty (Han, 2016). In
the light of these factors the business relationship between Scott and Kathy should be
analysed. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that relying on mutual trust and
understanding Scott had presumed that otherwise also Kathy is going to have a conversation
with the regulatory authorities. Kathy had however replied with truth that Scott’s company
had made the payment on time.
Kathy had previously heard rumours regarding bankruptcy. It was not Kathy’s
voluntary obligation to look into the matter and discuss about it. Regarding trust and loyalty
Kathy is eligible to get full score. However, withholding key information Kathy did
something that was not virtuous or ethical and under the considerations of the Utilitarian Test
she did not act well since she was not able to satisfy the criteria of utility maximisation.
Hence, based on the findings of Kivetz and Zheng (2017), it can be opined that she failed
that Generalisation test but somehow cleared the Utilitarian test. The person fails in the
Virtues test also. Therefore under broad consideration it can be laid down that since the entity
did not clear all the three tests, the actions cannot be termed ethical.
Extra Question
Jennifer’s initial action is to accept the offer of Midwest Consultancy. However, her
intension of joining a second firm after being with Midwest is unethical. She should not

7CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
consider her personal interest only. In case if this is generalized, then the value of contracts
would reduce, which is unlikely. Hence her intension to join the company of her liking again
after joining Midwest do not pass the generalization test. This situation can be evaluated from
Jennifer’s end also. At the time when she was in a crisis, hanging in the turbulence of
uncertainty between the contract and appointment, Midwest Consultancy gave her the chance
for a future. Hence better part of her loyalty should be bestowed upon this company. In spite
of considering facts like she thought of Glamour Finance to be her ideal workplace which
would reflect her experience and skills in the best fashion, the company had not cared for her
emotions. Heather’s argument is also not acceptable. Stalking of the employment drive by
any company is not generalizable. Hence any opinion should not be stemmed from such an
abstract step taken by any company. Jennifer’s decision to take up the job at Midwest
Consulting is acceptable as her future would have been at stake of she did not join another
firm. Nevertheless, if she had taken a step to leave Midwest and re-join Glamour Finance, her
action would not have passed the generalisation test as well as the Virtue ethics test.
Chapter 3 (Week 4)
5.
This action does not satisfy the Difference principle. This principle patronises the
allocation of something that generates value in the form of primary benefits or allowances
towards the whole society. After granting the benefits, the Difference principle holds that the
beneficiaries should aim at spreading the benefits towards the Worst off group. The worst off
group is characterised by the section that enjoys minimum benefits of the grant. In this case,
the worst off group is characterised by people with severe cases of diabetes. The medication
suffices the need of the people with mild level of diabetes. It is of no effect for the people

8CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
affected with severe diabetes. Hence this medication, strictly, does not apply to the
Difference Principle.
6.
This is presentation of the pervious case, in a different form only. In case if the supply
of the medicine is short it is of less impact. This is because, due to less availability of the
product black marketing and artificial crisis followed by illegal price hiking wo0uld taker
place. Hence the needy ones would not be able to get the medicine, irrespective of their
diabetes level. Again, from the perspective of the maximisation of the benefits of the worst
off group, it is effect-less. The worst off group in this case that is the people with severe
diabetes are able to get the medicine, although the medicine has some curing capacity. This is
because of the short availability of the product, it is prescribed mostly to the people with mild
diabetes level. Hence, from no end it complies with the Difference principle.
7.
The daily basis lotteries are not meet the criteria of the Difference principle. In a game
of lottery everyone makes the investment of equal resources. However in the end only one
emerges as the winner. It is impossible to do something beneficial for the losers in the scope
of the game. In case if its happens that the lottery tickets are mostly bought by the richer
people and it so happens that circumstantially prizes are mostly won, then that would have
satisfied the Difference principle.
Chapter 4 (Week 5)
1.
This finding is not supposed to deviate the outlook. However, since the discoveries
had revealed important information that came in public, then the act of discovery cannot be

9CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
termed as espionage. Whatever, the consequences might be, the intention behind the action is
of utmost importance, form this perspective the action cannot be generalized. The Right to
Privacy and personal property have been violet as an effect of this act. Hence in no way this
act would pass the generalisation test.
2.
The discovery in this case is least significant because the same information is a piece
of public information. On the other hand, the contractors of P&G is associated with an act of
crime without any hesitation. They tried to breach in private property without the consent of
the owner. Other than that one other valid information is that some insider of the Unilever
Company is involved in the crime. Hence, the liability of the crime does not fall on the
shoulders of the P&G Company. The employees of the company are to be blamed. However,
greater interest of the company has not driven the act of crime. In this situation, the company
should impose stringent security on the actions of the employees and the culprits should be
fired with immediate effect. I suppose that taking exemplary action against the culprits is
enough in this case.
3.
Based on the views of Fernando and Moore (2015), it can be opined that this is a case
of evaluation under the Virtues test. At a first sight, Mr Pepper should declare in public that
the marketing plan of the company have reached them. Fore mostly, he is supposed to be
ethical and keep himself from consulting the plan. In case if he takes, such an approach, then
he would pass all the three tests.
4.
In this case, the proposed action for the P&G Company should remain same. This is
an internal issue of the Unilever Company. The team of P&G should make a thorough report

10CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
on how the file reached them. The rest is to be left upon the consideration of the Unilever
Company.
5.
This is a critical question. In case if spying is done in order to be sure that the other
nation is planning a secret invasion or something alike or not, then it is justifiable. However,
the country conducting the spying program, should have a substantial reason. Again, the UN
should have rules for penalising a nation state if it is discovered that the spying was done for
some cause than national security.
Week 5
I slightly disagree with Hooker’s opinion. Sometimes, the situations are unavoidable.
At such points of time, the actions, although not generalizable, seems to be ethical. However,
in most of the cases, Hooker’s viewpoint follows. However, before committing any action in
the spirit of the moment, men must consider the impact that their immediate steps might
create. It might happen, that the crisis situation would have evaded if the doer could have
waited for some time. Otherwise, a deeper thought would have helps the doer to find alternate
avenues of addressing the need of the moment. Fore mostly, when the discussion
circumnavigates something that is abstract, it should be remembered that there is some acute
reason why the same approach is undertaken by others who have been into that situation.
However, it is not necessary that any different and abstract approach should be a negative
approach. Hence, we must consider that actions undertaken by the doer in any circumstance
passes the virtue ethics test or not. The doer must consider the call of his or her conscience, is
he or she happy to do that task, or will he or she gain acclaim and favour from all or
damnation would usher upon him or her. Hence, in my opinion, actions that can be best be
avoided, better be avoided. However, in the end, it is the real demand of the situation, if dong

11CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
something is associated with some moral good and not driven by the inherent interests of the
doer, it might pass the generalisation test, although in general I would prefer to say that any
action that does not pass the generalisation test, should be avoided at best.

12CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SOCIETY
Reference list
Fernando, M., & Moore, G. (2015). MacIntyrean virtue ethics in business: A cross-cultural
comparison. Journal of business ethics, 132(1), 185-202.
Gil, M., Symonds, M., Hall, G., & de Brugada, I. (2017). Flattening of a generalization
gradient following a retention interval: Evidence for differential forgetting of stimulus
features. Behavioural processes, 145, 10-14.
Han, H. (2016). Attainable and relevant moral exemplars as powerful sources for moral
education: From vantage points of virtue ethics and social psychology. In Invited
Oral Presentation at the 4th Annual Conference of the Jubilee Centre for Character
and Virtues (Oxford).
Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2017). The effects of promotions on hedonic versus utilitarian
purchases. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 59-68.
Rota, G., Palumbo, S., Lattanzi, N., Manfrinati, A., Sarlo, M., Lotto, L., ... & Pellegrini, S.
(2016). Harm aversion explains utilitarian choices in moral decision-making in males
but not in females. Arch. Ital. Biol, 154, 50-58.
Wang, X. Z., Wang, R., & Xu, C. (2018). Discovering the relationship between
generalization and uncertainty by incorporating complexity of classification. IEEE
transactions on cybernetics, 48(2), 703-715.