Corporate Responsibility



Corporate Responsibility

Introduction

This case is based on family business, which is related with corporate responsibility. Generally, in family business all the family members are regarded as the stakeholders of the organization. In this case, Eddie (general manager) and Greg (Service technician) are the chief stakeholders, whereas 75 employees are minor stakeholders. In my point of view, the main objective of every stakeholder is to achieve productivity at its optimal level (minimum cost & maximum profit). In this case, the stakeholders desire maximum profit for the best benefit of their family business. In simple terms, Eddie (General Manager) wants to give maximum commission to his brother Greg (Service technician).

Discussion

Legal analysis

In my opinion, employment law intervention applies in this family business case. Employment law suggests equal rights for each and every employee of the organization. This case is violating employment law, because Eddie (General Manager) is giving easy commission work his brother Greg (Service technician). This practice is regarded as highly unethical, with respect to corporate responsibility (Smith, et, al, 2012, pp 1). Chief stakeholders are eating the rights of employees, by providing easy commission job to his brother. The other issue which I have identified is the threat of Eddie (General Manager) to Jane (manager of payroll).

Jane identified the unethical behavior, when Eddie was handing over the easy stack of ticket work to Greg (his brother). Eddie gave threat to Jane, that if she discloses this truth to anyone she will be fired. This act is violating social corporate responsibility concept. American employment law states, that every individual must be provided equal opportunity in the organization. But here in this case study of family business, Eddie is exploiting is authority for the best interest of his brother.

Ethical Analysis

Kantian theory

According to Kant, certain type of actions (like lying, theft and robbery) is strictly prohibited, if there consequences bring happiness (Bailey, 1982, pp 360-364). His theory is based on moral relevancy, in his theory a person has to decide the act by keeping the situation on himself. For him an individual has to ask two questions. Does the actions of individual respects the right of human being? If the answer is no, that act should not be performed. This question is the connection point of this case.

The act of Eddie is not respecting the rights of human being, so this act should not be performed. If, this act is performed again it will lie under the head of unethical behavior. Kant has proposed moral deontological theory, according to his theory the wrongness or righteous is not identified from its consequences but it depends on whether the act is complying human right or not. In this case, the compliance of human right is missing that is why this behavior is regarded as morally unethical. The scenario in the case study is violating Kant theory.

Utilitarianism theory

The normative ethical theory of Utilitarianism is proposed by John Stuart Mill in the late 18th century. According to Mill, an action is right if it ...