|
|
|
|
III. Assess the value and importance of legal and ethical implications of conducting business in a global environment.
My artifacts demonstrating mastery of this outcome:
Artifact #1: MGMT525: Business Law: Snyder v. Phelps
Artifact #2: MGMT560: Ethics in Global Marketplace: Corporate Social Responsibility
Artifact #3: MGMT560: Ethics in Global Marketplace: Cultural Impact on Ethics
Artifact #4: MGMT560: Ethics in Global Marketplace: Multinational Corporations’ Role in CSR
My Reflection on meeting this outcome:
I have to admit one class which I found the most challenging, but the most enlightening, was our class on global ethics. In today’s world of modern technology, especially the internet, available areas for business has opened to endless possibilities. No longer is potential business restricted by geographical boundaries. Rather the internet, networking availability, and improved methods of transportation have unlocked a plethora of avenues in which business can extend it offerings to a greater number of consumers. It is for this reason companies must not only act socially responsible domestically, but extend those efforts to the countries in which they intend to do business. Companies are judged by the level to which they operate within the legalities of the differing nations as well as the degree they work to the betterment of society as a whole.
As part of this journey, we were given instruction on criminal and, primarily, business law within the United States. Sometimes, there are cases with rulings that do not sit well with the ethical consciousness. However, they follow the legal foundation upon which our nation was built. Artifact #1 demonstrates this principal. This artifact is a legal brief on Snyder v. Phelps et al. The actions of Phelps and his church, Westboro Baptist Church, have been viewed by many as objectionable, if not repulsive. Most notably, the church is known for their questionable protests at funerals of military personnel. It is the church’s belief the military institution is one that is tolerant of homosexuality. This notoriety is magnified by the signs held up in protest with statements such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church and Westboro was successful in defending their position of freedom of speech. While most would not concur with this judgment based on social decency, the other side of the coin is the need to follow the fundamental basis upon which our country is founded. In other words, legal does not equate to ethical.
A very similar blur exists between the definition of legal and corporate socialresponsibilities. According to Ness (1992), corporate social responsibility (CSR) is “a strategic decision whereby an organization undertakes an obligation to society, for example in the form of sponsorship, commitment to local communities, attention to environmental issues, and responsible advertising” (Ness, 1992). It is not something required by law, but actions taken above and beyond governmental regulations. The question becomes are these actions necessary? Artifact #2 outlines a differing of opinions in regards to the existence of business for maximization of profit versus the necessity of business to conduct business in a socially responsible manner. This artifact argues the need and movement toward transparency of the social actions of business versus the idea of supercapitalism,where profit is the end-all result. This artifact gives examples corporations are taking toward corporate social responsibility.
The next artifact was chosen to reflect the effect a differing cultural upbringing can have on the view of ethical behavior. Artifact #3 describes a study conducted by Crittenden, Hanna, and Peterson (2009) to measure the degree to which cultural corruption affects the moral compass of business students. As business becomes an open geographical playing field, so too becomes the need for the players to understand the ever-changing rules by which the game is played. There is a noticeable difference between Western and Eastern cultures in regards to the necessity of unethical behaviors. This knowledge would be necessary if a company were interested in conducting business in an opposing part of the
globe.
Finally, I chose Artifact #4 to reflect the obligation of business to adopt a corporate social responsible philosophy. “One thing is clear: Social Responsibility in the corporate environment is no longer an option, and being versed in its development protocols is an essential new skill” (Merrifield, 2003, p. 2). This artifact identifies the need for multinational corporations (MNC) to go above and beyond the legalities within the countries they operate. Rather, it stresses the need for these MNCs to help to guide the governmental practices on a global plane. In other words, no longer is it acceptable for companies to follow the legal guidelines set in place by the existing governmental rules. Instead, there is an ethical and undeniable need for these companies to set the bar higher and fill the citizenship void left behind by these same governments.
My Future Learning Goals related to this outcome:
Working for a company moving quickly into the global marketplace, there is a great need for my understanding of this outcome. The global marketplace is not something new to Cessna; however, the degree to which the company is reaching out to the differing potential consumers has been magnified over the past 10 years. Recently the company has stretched it carbon footprint to many differing countries. This includes a strategic alliance with China and building service centers in Spain and Asia, to name a few examples. My continued education of cultural differences, legally and ethically, is essential if I am planning on being a positive asset for Cessna. No longer can a strategic employee accept thinking within domestic vacuum. Instead, it is necessary to educate themselves on the differing cultures – legally and, especially, ethically.
As a supply chain professional, the chance of international travel is fairly likely. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the company for me to continue to learn about the countries in which we are branching out.
References
Crittenden, V. L., Hanna, R. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2009). Business students’ attitudes toward unethical behavior: A
multi-country comparison. Marketing Letters, 20(1), 1-14.
Merrifield, M. (2003). Corporate America’s latest act: Juggling corporate social responsibility. Baylor Business
Review, 21(1), 2-5+. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.sckans.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/201178785?accountid=13979
Ness, M. R. (1992). Corporate social responsibility. British Food Journal, 94(7), 38-38. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.sckans.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/225147392?accountid=13979
My artifacts demonstrating mastery of this outcome:
Artifact #1: MGMT525: Business Law: Snyder v. Phelps
Artifact #2: MGMT560: Ethics in Global Marketplace: Corporate Social Responsibility
Artifact #3: MGMT560: Ethics in Global Marketplace: Cultural Impact on Ethics
Artifact #4: MGMT560: Ethics in Global Marketplace: Multinational Corporations’ Role in CSR
My Reflection on meeting this outcome:
I have to admit one class which I found the most challenging, but the most enlightening, was our class on global ethics. In today’s world of modern technology, especially the internet, available areas for business has opened to endless possibilities. No longer is potential business restricted by geographical boundaries. Rather the internet, networking availability, and improved methods of transportation have unlocked a plethora of avenues in which business can extend it offerings to a greater number of consumers. It is for this reason companies must not only act socially responsible domestically, but extend those efforts to the countries in which they intend to do business. Companies are judged by the level to which they operate within the legalities of the differing nations as well as the degree they work to the betterment of society as a whole.
As part of this journey, we were given instruction on criminal and, primarily, business law within the United States. Sometimes, there are cases with rulings that do not sit well with the ethical consciousness. However, they follow the legal foundation upon which our nation was built. Artifact #1 demonstrates this principal. This artifact is a legal brief on Snyder v. Phelps et al. The actions of Phelps and his church, Westboro Baptist Church, have been viewed by many as objectionable, if not repulsive. Most notably, the church is known for their questionable protests at funerals of military personnel. It is the church’s belief the military institution is one that is tolerant of homosexuality. This notoriety is magnified by the signs held up in protest with statements such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church and Westboro was successful in defending their position of freedom of speech. While most would not concur with this judgment based on social decency, the other side of the coin is the need to follow the fundamental basis upon which our country is founded. In other words, legal does not equate to ethical.
A very similar blur exists between the definition of legal and corporate socialresponsibilities. According to Ness (1992), corporate social responsibility (CSR) is “a strategic decision whereby an organization undertakes an obligation to society, for example in the form of sponsorship, commitment to local communities, attention to environmental issues, and responsible advertising” (Ness, 1992). It is not something required by law, but actions taken above and beyond governmental regulations. The question becomes are these actions necessary? Artifact #2 outlines a differing of opinions in regards to the existence of business for maximization of profit versus the necessity of business to conduct business in a socially responsible manner. This artifact argues the need and movement toward transparency of the social actions of business versus the idea of supercapitalism,where profit is the end-all result. This artifact gives examples corporations are taking toward corporate social responsibility.
The next artifact was chosen to reflect the effect a differing cultural upbringing can have on the view of ethical behavior. Artifact #3 describes a study conducted by Crittenden, Hanna, and Peterson (2009) to measure the degree to which cultural corruption affects the moral compass of business students. As business becomes an open geographical playing field, so too becomes the need for the players to understand the ever-changing rules by which the game is played. There is a noticeable difference between Western and Eastern cultures in regards to the necessity of unethical behaviors. This knowledge would be necessary if a company were interested in conducting business in an opposing part of the
globe.
Finally, I chose Artifact #4 to reflect the obligation of business to adopt a corporate social responsible philosophy. “One thing is clear: Social Responsibility in the corporate environment is no longer an option, and being versed in its development protocols is an essential new skill” (Merrifield, 2003, p. 2). This artifact identifies the need for multinational corporations (MNC) to go above and beyond the legalities within the countries they operate. Rather, it stresses the need for these MNCs to help to guide the governmental practices on a global plane. In other words, no longer is it acceptable for companies to follow the legal guidelines set in place by the existing governmental rules. Instead, there is an ethical and undeniable need for these companies to set the bar higher and fill the citizenship void left behind by these same governments.
My Future Learning Goals related to this outcome:
Working for a company moving quickly into the global marketplace, there is a great need for my understanding of this outcome. The global marketplace is not something new to Cessna; however, the degree to which the company is reaching out to the differing potential consumers has been magnified over the past 10 years. Recently the company has stretched it carbon footprint to many differing countries. This includes a strategic alliance with China and building service centers in Spain and Asia, to name a few examples. My continued education of cultural differences, legally and ethically, is essential if I am planning on being a positive asset for Cessna. No longer can a strategic employee accept thinking within domestic vacuum. Instead, it is necessary to educate themselves on the differing cultures – legally and, especially, ethically.
As a supply chain professional, the chance of international travel is fairly likely. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the company for me to continue to learn about the countries in which we are branching out.
References
Crittenden, V. L., Hanna, R. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2009). Business students’ attitudes toward unethical behavior: A
multi-country comparison. Marketing Letters, 20(1), 1-14.
Merrifield, M. (2003). Corporate America’s latest act: Juggling corporate social responsibility. Baylor Business
Review, 21(1), 2-5+. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.sckans.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/201178785?accountid=13979
Ness, M. R. (1992). Corporate social responsibility. British Food Journal, 94(7), 38-38. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.sckans.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/225147392?accountid=13979