MAN202 Business Ethics: Reflection on Corporate Social Responsibility

This report is a structured reflection on business ethics, covering ethical decision-making, corporate social responsibility, and various ethical reasoning approaches. It addresses three main questions, exploring consequentialism, deontological reasoning (particularly Kant's theory), and moral sentimentalism. The author reflects on personal experiences, such as weighing exam preparation against a family event using consequentialism and acknowledges initial difficulties with deontological reasoning. The report also discusses the importance of incorporating emotions and sentiments in ethical decisions, contrasting it with a purely rational approach previously adopted. The reflection emphasizes the need for integrity, transparency, and a good will in professional environments, supported by academic sources and practical examples. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments for students.

Student’s Last Name 1
Business Ethics: Assessment 3
By (Name)
Course
Professor
University
Date

Student’s Last Name 2
Question 1
In any business setting, managers are faced with dilemmas and quandaries regarding
to how they will employ resources, carry out a certain tasks and how to establish certain
policies. Observance of corporate social responsibility and business ethics is vital to any firm.
This is due to the fact that business facilities do not exist in vacuum but in societies that
dictate their actions. In their practices, the managers have to consider the ethical or moral
standpoint of their decision in question. A company’s operations impact the local
communities nearby (Parsons, et al., 2014, p. 84). Corporate social responsibility demands
that businesses must earn trust, approval and acceptance from their societies. Pride, et al.,
(2019), assert that the relevant stakeholders in businesses should be customers, employees,
suppliers and the general public. In their managerial decisions, many managers consider
analysing the consequences of a certain decision. Managers subtly conduct cost-benefit
analyses to determine whether to take particular actions. This kind of reasoning is referred to
as consequentialism. As the name suggests, the ethical reasoning is based on the idea that
which is good or right is that which results into good consequences. The rightfulness or
wrongfulness of a decision is based on its outcome. According to Shaw et al., (2013), the
right act is that whose effect causes more good than harm. Among the historical advocates of
this kind of reasoning were economists John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham; and authors
Ayn Rand, Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville.
In the business field, consequentialist reasoning is evident when managers measure
the impact of their decisions according to the effects and outcomes. Businesses ought to
adopt moral perspectives in decision making processes at their workplaces (Boatright, 2012,
p. 38). For instance, before firing an employee, a manager may analyse the impact of the
firing. The manager may consider questions such as: How will the other employees react over

Student’s Last Name 3
the firing? Is the employee’s value to the firm absolute? Who are the immediate beneficiaries
to the employee? What could the manager have felt if he was in the same situation as the
employee? Here the general principle of ‘treat others as you would like to be treated’ may
make the manager overturn his/her decision and decide to keep the employee, or, he or she
may confirm the firing. Business managers are caught in the horns of ethical dilemmas as
they weigh whether a particular action is right or wrong and whether the managers are the
right people to execute such decisions (Beauchamp and Childless, 1994, p. 12). Ethical
reasoning demands that a manager must make a decision which conforms to corporate social
responsibility and business ethics.
Evidently, consequentialism reasoning has helped me conquer many dilemmas. For
instance, when I was partaking my end of semester exams, my cousin had invited me to her
wedding. Despite being wedded, to my friend, I turned down the invitation after weighing the
cost I was to pay if I would not pass my exams.
Question 2
Throughout the tri-semester, I have had difficulty in understanding the lecture in week
three. In the lecture, the lecturer was talking about another type of ethical reasoning initiated
by German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. The lecture touched on Deontological reasoning
and to me, it was almost opposite to Consequentialism. According to my interpretation, while
consequentialism mainly focused on the outcome, Kant’s theory mainly focused on the
actions. While consequentialism suggested that the ends justify the means, deontology
claimed that the means justify the ends. The fact that the lecture happened in week three, only
a week after being introduced to consequentialism and utilitarianism may be among the
primary reasons why I had difficulties in understanding Kant’s Deontological reasoning.
Throughout the lecture, I failed to understand how Deontological thinking was a science of

Student’s Last Name 4
duty as defined by (Alexander and Moore, 2016, n.d.) Kant’s three categorical imperatives
were also very difficult not only in comprehension but also in practice. The idea that an
action should be praised or blamed based on its motive and not its consequence is
objectionable.
However, I could gather some of the key principles in Immanuel Kant’s deontological
theory. In Kant’s theory, an action’s moral standard should be weighed from the sentiment or
the reason behind the action by the doer. Kant further suggested that we can all be moral so
long us we have a good sentiment or good will in our actions. Kant’s deontological reasoning
suggests that our actions should be guided by good motives. Moreover, I understood that the
three categorical imperatives were set as rules or guidelines which would enable us perform
our duties for duties’ sakes. Kant’s theory suggests that the categorical imperatives are the
guidelines to facilitate the conformity between actions and duty. Moreover, I understood the
first categorical imperative as a rule that demanded that our actions should be done in such a
way that they can become the universal law (Bowie, 1999, p. 4). For instance, if we can
suggest the act helping the needy as a universal law, then we should help the poor. If we think
killing our neighbours should become the universal law, then we should kill!
Question 3
A third class of moral advocates referred to as Moral Sentimentalists implied that
ethical decisions should be based on emotions rather than ration. Renowned philosopher,
David Hume suggested that morality is much felt rather than judged (Hume, 1739, p. 470).
This class of moralists and philosophers believed that sentiments, emotions and empathy
should be highly considered when determining our moral standpoints. Moral Sentimentalism
suggests that our actions and virtues primarily felt rather than being known (Mathias, 2008, p.
n.b). Savur, Provis and Harris, 2018 affirm James Rest’s moral decision model which

Student’s Last Name 5
suggests four components which include: recognising a moral issue, making a moral
judgement, establishing a moral intent and engaging in moral behaviour. The scholars
emphasize that the first step- recognising the moral issue- is vital to any individual willing to
make an ethical decision.
Emotions and sentiments play a large part in determining a person’s integrity and
character. In my work place, I intend to develop an emotional touch in my decisions.
Previously, I have been employing a ‘rational’ type of reasoning in my decisions. I have been
applying rules as per the logical sense of it, ignoring emotions. For instance, I could punish a
junior employee for failing to attend his duties in time, regardless of the cause why he or she
was late. In a case an employee was absent without prior notifying the management, I confess
that despite having any logical reason, he/she would face the ‘appropriate’ sanctions. My
colleagues therefore see me as a callous individual who cannot bend to any circumstance.
However, after acquaintance with the lectures, I now acknowledge the need to consider
emotions and sentiments in ethical decision making. The value of employing emotional
moral standards and integrity in businesses is normally under looked. Regardless of our
cultures, we should employ adjustable sets of ethical standpoints in our workplaces. A
difference in culture or society does not necessarily translate to a difference in ethics (Grace
and Cohen, 2010, p. 267). For any professionals aiming to conserve their previous success in
their work places, employment of ethical reasoning in their decision making is fundamental
(Caligiuri and Tarique, p. 281). Our sentiments in our day-to-day activities foster integrity
and transparency. Having a good will in our decisions ensures that ethical standards are met.

Student’s Last Name 6
Bibliography
Alexander, L. and Moore, M., 2016. Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F., 1994 Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed., Oxford
University Press, New York, Oxford.
Boatright, J.R., 2012. Ethics and the conduct of business, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Inc.,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. See chapter 2 ‘Ethical Decision Making’, pp. 22-49.
Bowie, N.E., 1999. A Kantian approach to business ethics. A companion to business ethics,
pp.3-16.
Caligiuri, P. and Tarique, I., 2016. Cultural agility and international assignees’ effectiveness
in cross‐cultural interactions. International Journal of Training and Development, 20(4),
pp.280-289.
Caligiuri, P., 2012. Cultural agility: Building a pipeline of successful global professionals.
John Wiley & Sons.
Grace, D. and Cohen, S., 2010. Business Ethics, 4th ed., Oxford University Press: Australia
& New Zealand, chapter 11, pp. 265-297.
Mathias, M.B., 2008. ‘Moral Sentimentalism’, in RW Kolb (ed.), Encyclopedia of Business
Ethics and Society, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calfornia, USA, online.
Parsons, R., Lacey, J. and Moffat, K., 2014. Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice:
How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’. Resources Policy, 41,
pp.83-90.

Student’s Last Name 7
Pride, W.M., Hughes, R. and Kapoor, J., 2019. ‘Ethics and social responsibility in business’,
in Foundations of Business, 6 th ed., Cengage Learning, USA, pp. 35-65.
Savur, S., Provis, C. and Harris, H., 2018. Ethical decision-making in Australian SMEs: a
field study. Small Enterprise Research, 25(2), pp.114-136.
Shaw, WH, Barry, V., Issa, T. and Catley, B., 2013. Moral Issues in Business, 2 nd ed.,
Cengage Australia, Melbourne.